Very cool idea, but I hate that it must have data connectivity to work. Not only that, they won't actually give users the raw scan results! You have to transmit them and then get the analyzed results only.
Reality is that many such services inevitably go under, and then your device is useless. Especially when the service is as compute intensive as this one sounds.
That is indeed a very big catch. Almost backed this on impulse before reading the full description.
Looks like you have to pay separately for each individual use case as well!
Hard to see how they will compete with the inevitable clones, unless they get really lucky with patents. The nickel-and-dime scheme is not only consumer unfriendly, but probably a strategic mistake.
Unfortunately this did not happen with most fitness trackers. There's no successful reverse engineering of Fitbit's, Misfit's or Jawebone's Bluetooth protocol yet. Although the user base and interest may be much higher than that of spectrometers.
I joined the work on reverse engineering Fitbit's protocol but the encryption isn't hacked yet.
I second that! It's an unnecessary date of expiry for hardware. You see that in every fitness armband and more and more apps. In two years ahead it could end up as a useless piece of electronics.
In the past we used cloud features for offline tracking in AR applications because an iPhone 3GS wasn't capable of real time pose reconstruction. But today it seems more like a lock-in and a way to collect data. A quad-core cpu on a phone should do most tasks offline.
No, I'm not saying it does. Single fixed function devices seem to have a longer Mean Time Between Replacement.
I would argue that you're comparing apples to oranges here. Say Fitbit (of which I'm a user) came out with a new improved version that's more accurate, lasts longer between charges and tracks more aspects of my health. Would I replace it - yes.
When the device is part of a service, when you look holistically at the product as a service then I believe concepts such as 'date of expiry for hardware', 'it could end up as a useless piece of electronics.' are moot.
When you upgrade to the lasted version of an installed software application, and the previous .exe can't read the new file format is it 'a useless piece of software?'. Technically yes, so what is different here?
I assume that using the SDK they provide lets you access the raw scan results. It would severely limit the possibilities for the apps they want developers to work on on top of their device.
>Dear backers,
Some of you have asked about access to the raw spectrum and some subscription fees related questions. We take your comments very seriously and are now processing that internally. Please stay tuned for our upcoming updates.
Thank you for supporting our project!
The ConsumerPhysics Team
I take that, along with the pitch page to indicate that they weren't intending to initially, at least.
This would make sense to me (despite how distasteful it is to kickstart a closed-data project). Back in school, I remember what what essentially an encyclopedia set that was just X-Ray diffraction peaks for various (all?!) materials and substances. There was also peak detection software, but the libraries were not as easy to trace and look up, so we resorted to the books often (at least for a second opinion).
That they may treat the sensor fingerprints as a Trade Secret of some sort makes sense, considering the current cost and value of such data.
Reality is that many such services inevitably go under, and then your device is useless. Especially when the service is as compute intensive as this one sounds.