Build or Buy Wearable Integrations for Your App?

Building wearable integrations in-house gives an app full control and customization, but it costs time, requires 2–3 backend developers and at least one data scientist, and means maintaining a separate connection per brand. Using a service like ROOK trades some customization for one integration, one stakeholder for support, and processed data. The right choice depends on customization needs, time to market, team resources, and how many brands the app must support.

Wearable integrations let an app access and use data collected by wearable devices regardless of brand, from health and fitness metrics to sleep patterns and location tracking. The goal is a consistent experience for users who own different wearables, such as Apple Watch, Garmin devices, Oura rings, or WHOOP bands.

Developing wearable integrations is complex because the team has to deal with several brands, work through each brand's APIs and SDKs, and make sense of data that every provider structures and labels differently, with no single format for data communication between brands.

Pros of building in-house:

1. Customization: Building integrations in-house allows you to tailor the integration to your app’s specific needs and user base. You have full control over the features and functionalities you want to offer.

2. Cost Control: While initial development costs may be higher, long-term expenses can be more predictable and potentially lower, as you won’t rely on third-party services. Whether costs are lower or not is most of the time related to the amount of brands/devices you are trying to integrate.

Cons of building in-house:

1. Time: Developing wearable integrations from scratch can be time-consuming, delaying your app’s time-to-market.

2. Expertise Required: You’ll need a team with expertise in wearable technologies, API development, and data privacy to create and maintain these integrations. Building in-house will require you to have at least 2-3 backend developers and at least 1 data scientist to leverage the data effectively.

3. Compatibility Challenges: Ensuring compatibility with a wide range of wearables can be challenging and may require ongoing updates and maintenance.

4. Distraction from Core Offering: Having to spend a lot of your valuable dev time on integrating and maintaining integrations might not be the best use of your time, as this is distracting you from innovating around your core services.

1. Efficiency: ROOK offers a ready-made solution, reducing development time and speeding up integration implementation.

2. Device support: ROOK supports 72 data sources and more than 500 devices, making an app compatible with a broader user base through one integration.

3. Cost savings: Initial costs are lower than in-house development, because the app team does not build and maintain the integration infrastructure. The difference depends on the number of brands and devices the app plans to integrate.

4. One single stakeholder: Working with ROOK means one stakeholder for all integrations, which is more efficient for support and maintenance.

5. Processed data and scores: ROOK delivers normalized data and health scores that apps can use to build their own insights and recommendations. ROOK moves and standardizes the data; it does not diagnose or replace clinical judgment.

6. Less customization: The app team may have limited control over the features and functionalities the service offers, so there may be small trade-offs compared with building in-house.

7. Dependency: Relying on a third-party service means the app's functionality could be affected if the service experiences downtime or changes in pricing. ROOK runs its architecture on Amazon Web Services.

8. Data privacy: The app team must trust the service provider with user data, so choosing a secure provider matters. ROOK operates under a HIPAA-aligned security program, signs BAAs with covered entities, and processes EU personal data under GDPR as a data processor.

The choice between building wearable integrations in-house and using a service like ROOK depends on the app's requirements, resources, and timeline. Consider these factors:

• Customization needs: if the app requires highly tailored wearable integrations, in-house development may fit better.
• Time sensitivity: if speed to market is critical, a service like ROOK can shorten the process.
• Resource availability: assess whether the team has the expertise and bandwidth for in-house development.
• Data security: evaluate the team's ability to implement data security measures.
• Cost: weigh initial and long-term costs, which mainly depend on the number of brands and devices to integrate.
• Use of data: decide whether the app needs only aggregated data or also scores, and how much of that intelligence the team can build in-house.

Whether an app builds or buys wearable integrations, the goal is the same: a data-rich experience that keeps users engaged. For a more recent look at the same decision, see buy or build wearable integrations at scale, and for maintenance cost, the problem with direct wearable integrations.

To talk through a project, contact the ROOK team, or try the integration yourself in the ROOK sandbox portal.