Title of the article doesn't find the article itself answering or lending itself in any way toward answering the question. Clearly, "online" is not the only problem, but thanks for spending 2 sentences on it sir.

There has not been a time over the last 4 years that Park has not been working on health care deals, yet no more than 1% of total annual revenues have been captured in the healthcare applications sector. You might do yourself a favor and read my works an all things related to Fitbit's initiatives in digital health over the last 3-4 years. None of which have amounted to material revenues as the total addressable market simply isn't what the average person thinks it to be.

Sales for Fitbit are only likely to continue to falter long-term as is the case historically for all one-trick hardware centric entities. They have deals and partnerships every year, none of which lend themselves to any meaningful increase in demand, ever.

Fitbit has the technology for battery life that is desired most by google, they made this acquisition about 18 months ago and it is why the Ionic and Versa can last 5 days without charging. Google understands without this added feature most critical to the ecosystem it has no potential to grow its smartwatch category sales. The technology also has clinical applications that stretch beyond Philips, Johnson Mead etc. Homework, homework.

Welcome to review my works and such. Written extensively on the top of the VIX and market volatility complex as an asset class for several years. I'm not attempting to detract from the articles content and general purpose, but encouraging folks to better align content with the greater trading and investing disciplines that are repeatable within the volatility complex.

Thanks for the response, but the definitions aren't aligned with actual market participation. I understand the nomenclature and colloquialisms assigned by the market over time, but the reality is far different. Speculating on VOL Futures moving lower over the course of a typical 30 day cycle is far from speculative, given term structure's history of existing in contango over 85% of the time. In other words, is the greatest probability. Anyway, always interested in how folks view black and white stats. Thanks again.

How do you figure they are "speculators"?

In terms of everything shy of demographics, I can align with the premise for market direction. But demographics? One literally has blind themselves from the terminal birth rate, aging population and affects of the millenial trends in family formation as well as technology which serves as a tremendous headwind for general consumption trends when compared to the period just prior to the turn of the Century. Having said all that, how is we defend the outlook based on demographics, as when we compare these issues with that of the baby BOOM generation, they have almost no representable alignment of favor?

You really need to understand what you're blogging about better. Repo rate matters.

ex autos, but no commentary on the gas price fluctuation impact. Always puts and takes, always.