I’m loosely familiar with Revolution Health. To be quite honest, I haven’t really been all that interested in online health content plays since Web 1.0.

Frankly, I think it’s often less-than-productive (and sometimes outright stupid) to rely on health information from the Internet. If I have a problem, I call my doctor. Working fine so far!

By the way, you might be interested in the post I wrote about Google Health.

Diwaker: if I do that, everytime you read one of my posts you won’t be reminded of my washboard abs (as seen in my logo photo).

Have you followed Steve Case and his troubles with Revolution Health? This is perhaps the biggest case study in Web 2.0 dreams gone haywire. Would love to see your take on this:
http://news.google.com/news?q=“Revolution+Health”

As for your comment that “distribution channel owners are not stupid, they focus on pushing products that could get them highest volumes and margins” and that “gadgets like FitBit are novelties,” I’d point out that “novelty gadgets” sell all the time.

The true utility of something is not necessarily correlated to volume and margins. In fact, less useful products often sell more than their more useful competitors.

I look at it this way: Fitbit is a souped up pedometer with a web interface. Do you know how many stores and businesses sell pedometers? Obviously, that’s both a blessing and a curse but I’ll put it this way: with the right strategy and a competent management team, there’s no reason a product like this can’t get some third-party distribution.

Will Fitbit become a massive business? I’m don’t know enough about the market or their economics to say that but given that this is a business that actually makes a product that is sold to someone puts it way ahead of most of the other TechCrunch50 startups.

And finally, while I think your skepticism over Fitbit is deserved, I have to say that I think your personal business interests are influencing your perspective here.

However you make the 3rd party distribution sound way too easy. Distribution channel owners are not stupid, they focus on pushing products that could get them highest volumes and margins. I will go out on a limb and say that gadgets like FitBit are novelties that do not fit this profile.

Being poorly differentiated low-demand niche commodity hardware vendor who does not own the channel is tough. Just ask PC peripheral makers.

2. Or subsidize the device in return for a year-long paid subscription to the site; make money on recurrent subs.

A great product with a poor sales and distribution strategy usually goes nowhere – a mediocre product with an excellent sales and distribution strategy often goes everywhere.

While Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers are the ideal targets for Fitbit, you’re correct in noting that Fitbit may not be an ideal vendor for Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers. Frankly, I don’t know what their strategic plans are, what they’re already doing and who they’re already talking to.

That notwithstanding, I could probably come up with a dozen other types of businesses in the weight-loss space that could provide sales and distribution for Fitbit and regardless of whether or not Fitbit is crappy, I think they’d have a decent shot of getting something done in one of those business categories with the right pitch and package because the technology itself looks saleable even if it’s not particularly defensible or differentiated.

The bottom line is that Fitbit is almost certainly going to fail as a consumer play; its only hope is as as technology play.

For what it’s worth, I think Fitbit is most likely launching at TechCrunch50 because the people behind the company have tech consumer internet pedigrees (CNET/Webshots). This explains why they have chosen the wrong sales and distribution model and, of course, leaves considerable doubt as to their ability to execute on the one I suggested.

I’ll stick to my guns on this: if you have a team capable of executing and dealmaking, something like this could become a very viable business with the right sales and distribution model.