State of the Gadget: Kitchen

This probably won’t come as much of a surprise, but I’m a fan of gadgets. Whether it’s a consumer gadget you can buy from Best Buy, or some new piece of technology installed in a business, I’m always drawn to new toys to play with.

Over the last year, there have been several gadgets that have caught my eye, either because I’ve read about them or because I’ve used them personally. I wanted to take some time to write about my impressions, mostly because there are several themes that seem consistent across consumer electronics recently — themes that, unfortunately, don’t always help the consumer or improve the product.

In this post, I wanted to take a look at the latest kitchen gadgets from CES. One gadget in particular caught my eye, but unfortunately, not in a good way.


When thinking about successful food technology, two things come to mind: meal box delivery and restaurant delivery. Attempts to put technology directly in the kitchen have mostly failed, but it’s not for a lack of trying. Every year, companies show off their latest innovations at CES, hoping to reverse the trend. I’d like to think that will happen at some point — but it won’t be this year since, once again, there were no standout products. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the people who are designing these devices have either never used their kitchen, or were forced into creating them despite their better judgement.

For example, GE unveiled their latest innovation: the Kitchen Hub. It’s essentially a vent hood that also has a large touch screen mounted to the front of it. My first concern with such a device is what you do about a microwave. Many kitchen layouts these days will put the microwave in a similar location — built into a vent hood over the oven — as a way to open up counter space. But if you use the Kitchen Hub, you’d have to forgo that option (and of course none of the PR photos on the website show an alternate spot for a microwave).

Expecting a cook to give up counter space is a big ask — but it isn’t out of the question as long as the device improves life in the kitchen. Trouble is, the Kitchen Hub appears to focus more on the technology inside it rather than streamlining everyday tasks. For example, in addition to the large display, there are several cameras — one front facing, and at least one mounted below so that you can show off what you’re cooking. The selling point here is that you can make video calls, presumably with family and friends who could provide cooking advice or join in on the experience. Alternatively, if you’re part of the streaming video craze, you could use this setup to improve your streams.

It sounds fancy, but I remain unconvinced that video calling while cooking justifies such a large, invasive setup in the kitchen. Even if you do make a lot of video calls, though, it doesn’t seem ideal. A lot of the cooking process doesn’t happen in front of the stove, so most of the time the person you’re chatting with either wouldn’t see you, or would only see part of you. These same concerns would also apply to streaming — which I imagine would be even more undesirable.

As if trying to justify such a large display, there is Netflix integration so that you can watch movies while cooking. Personally I watch movies when I’m sitting down and relaxing, not when I’m trying to prepare ingredients and follow a recipe — but maybe that’s just me.

Speaking of following a recipe, the Kitchen Hub has a recipe app with “over 5000 recipes”. You can even take a picture of all those hand-written recipes from grandma and add them to its database — but if you were hoping that it would transcribe the recipe to text automatically, you’re out of luck. All you can do is view the photo, so you might as well just keep using the paper copy.

The recipe app seems like it would work in a pinch, but the whole process is designed around a workflow that doesn’t make sense for the typical cook. For example, I typically don’t plan meals while I’m standing in the kitchen. But even if I did, and found a recipe to make, I’d likely need to see what ingredients I have and whether I need to do shopping. Based on the promotional video, Kitchen Hub’s solution to this is an “email ingredients” button — a surprisingly low-tech solution for such a high-end device. Once you finally start cooking, it lets you remotely set the oven temperature from the recipe (as long as you have a compatible GE oven), which I suppose is nice. But it’s not clear if it also has the ability to set or keep track of timers directly from the recipe.

When I saw a device called “Kitchen Hub,” I assumed it would excel at kitchen-related tasks. In some ways, for certain segments of the market, that is perhaps true. But for the majority of cooks, the Kitchen Hub works against the user instead of with them.

It’s hard to know what decisions were made to create the final device, but one aspect is consistent with something I see all the time: the problems being solved don’t get as much attention as the underlying technology and trends used to build the product. Admittedly, it’s an easy trap to fall in to. Software and hardware is constantly evolving, and there is an urge to keep up with all the shiny new features that come along — after all, you don’t want your expertise to grow stale or obsolete. Similarly, you want your product to look modern and innovative, so it’s tempting to use all the latest features available. In the end, these two desires collide and you end up with something like the Kitchen Hub.

The needs of users should always come first. Even if you claim to be an expert, research has to be done in order to verify assumptions and determine priorities. Only then can technology come into the picture. This process takes time, and isn’t always easy — users can be fickle and contradictory — but it’s noticeable if an attempt isn’t made at all.

State of the Gadget: Health

This probably won’t come as much of a surprise, but I’m a fan of gadgets. Whether it’s a consumer gadget you can buy from Best Buy, or some new piece of technology installed in a business, I’m always drawn to new toys to play with.

Over the last year, there have been several gadgets that have caught my eye, either because I’ve read about them or because I’ve used them personally. I wanted to take some time to write about my impressions, mostly because there are several themes that seem consistent across consumer electronics recently — themes that, unfortunately, don’t always help the consumer or improve the product.

For this first post, I want to look at health gadgets — FitBit, Apple Watch and the like. While their core idea is great (and has certainly caught on with consumers), their foundation isn’t keeping up with the latest medical research.


The transition from college to day job was tough on me for many reasons, but perhaps the biggest hurdle to get over was sitting in the same place for eight hours a day. I’m not a particularly active or sporty individual, but at college I would still walk back and forth between classes several times a day — which was at least 10-15 minutes per trip. Once I left college, I no longer had a schedule that promoted exercise. My office was too far away to walk to, and programming isn’t exactly a physical activity — and so, as a result, I gained weight.

At the time, the idea of a fitness device didn’t really exist. The closest analogue was a pedometer, which allowed you to count how many steps you had taken in a particular day. It’s not a bad metric, but it doesn’t take into account the kind of steps you’re making — is it a leisurely stroll through the park, or an intense 100 meter sprint? They encouraged fitness, but they didn’t help much with weight loss.

The companies building these devices realized this too, and before long, they introduced more sophisticated technology. Heart rate monitoring and GPS features are now common, and help answer the questions of how far and how intense.

While these improvements help, they don’t immediately translate into losing weight or becoming more fit. For example, speaking personally, the devices were happy to tell me how many calories I had burned based on the activity it measured, but that didn’t seem to translate to the scale when I weighed myself.

As research on the human body continues, it’s becoming increasingly clear that fitness is complex and multi-faceted. Weight loss isn’t a simple calories-in/calories-out equation, and, even if it was, today’s devices don’t do a good job of counting them. In fact, they’re really only good at tracking one thing: cardio fitness. Due to steadily advancing heart rate monitoring technology, they can not only tell you your heart rate, but also provide an estimate of VO2 Max and sinus rhythm.

But when it comes to weight and nutrition, these same devices fail miserably. There are several reasons for this; but, at a high level, it all circles back to the concept of calories. Determining the calorie content of food is challenging at best — even if you get a reasonable estimate, the amount of calories your body actually uses is different from person to person and not easily calculated. This then leads to the amount of calories you burn overall — which also differs from person to person, and is impossible to calculate based on steps and heart rate alone (not that this stops most fitness devices from attempting to do so). Finally, there is the spot where these two metrics collide: how much of the calories you consume are burned by the body to keep you alive and sustain you through exercise? It probably wouldn’t surprise you at this point to learn that there is no easy way to calculate this either. It all depends on a person’s individual metabolism and efficiency at processing food, something that can’t be determined by a device strapped to your wrist.

While I’m sure there are technology companies attempting to solve this fitness black hole, there have been no viable innovations yet. But more importantly — and more damning — is that today’s fitness devices continue the illusion that they can accurately count the number of calories you burn and, if you log the food you eat, accurately count the number of calories you consume. This results in misleading data and frustrated users who appear to be consuming less calories than they burn, but still gain weight.

There is considerable inertia when a company dominates a segment of the industry and everyone else tries to catch up. FitBit is the unquestioned leader in the space, and so they have the luxury of shaping what a fitness device should be. People also gravitate toward the simple numbers presented by their devices: step count, calories burned, etc. As a result, competitors are hesitant to stray from what is familiar — they either add questionable novelties that only compound the problem of using steps and calories, or they innovate on the external look of the device.

None of this is good enough. It all amounts to excuses — reasons to not stray from the status quo because it could fail. To be sure, these aren’t trivial issues to overcome; but misleading users and the status of their health is not something to be taken lightly. Technology is a large part of our lives. Now more than ever, we need to question the information we receive from them to ensure it makes our lives better instead of reinforcing a false sense of security.