Open Wearables - Open infrastructure for wearable-powered health products.

@agata_wieczorek Thanks Agata! OW is a developer infrastructure, not a consumer product. There's a developer portal for managing the deployment (users, OAuth credentials, debugging), but end users see whatever dashboard you build on top. Some teams ship their own UI, others embed widgets we provide.

@agata_wieczorek As Piotr said, there is only a dashboard for administrators. So company using Open Wearables as a platforms has to create it's own UI for regular users.

@agata_wieczorek it is mostly b2b / devs but you can also run your own instance with one click deployment on Railway and play around with your data through MCP server we provide 🙂

@agata_wieczorek thank you!

there is a dashboard - you can connect your devices, see your data and scores. but the main value right now is for developers building health apps on top of it

if you're not a developer the most interesting part is probably the AI layer - asking questions about your own health data in plain language. that's where it gets useful for everyone

@hex_miller_bakewell Thanks Hex - exactly the right question. Schema drift here is unavoidable, but we're trying to make it bounded. Our approach: stable versioned core for the common path treated as a contract; provider-specific quirks accessible but separate; additive changes by default; explicit deprecation windows for actual breaking changes. WorkoutDetails specifically is one of the messier surfaces - we know, we're treating it as evolving. Schema is in the repo - happy to go deeper via DM or GitHub issues, can loop in our engineering lead for a proper versioning rabbit-hole. Thanks for the kind words on the launch 🙏

@hex_miller_bakewell I don't think it's possible to avoid that issue anyway.

@worklab It's self-hosted, so you pay for infrastructure usage. As Momentum we also support custom deployment and build services around Open Wearables whenever you need building your product with our tool.

@worklab You don't pay, thats the trick ;) Its license is MIT.

@worklab it is completely free under MIT license. But if you ever build something with Open Wearables we'd love to hear about it - come share it on our Discord!

@sebastian_krol Thanks Sebastian, that's a good signal. The durability point is exactly why we went MIT. Even if Momentum disappeared tomorrow, the code keeps working: you fork it, maintain it, extend it. Different risk profile than betting your product on a Series A startup's runway and pricing strategy. Plenty of healthtech teams have been burned by aggregators getting acquired, pivoting, or hiking prices once dependency lock-in kicks in. Open source isn't a magic shield, but it removes that specific failure mode.

@sebastian_krol Three people? Those are still rookie numbers ;)

@sebastian_krol That kind of organic Slack/word-of-mouth signal is usually more telling than any launch post.

@sebastian_krol three tags is a good sign

open source compounds - community keeps it alive, extends it, catches breaks. that's the whole advantage

@raihanshezanPlugs directly. Our MCP server gives any LLM (Claude, GPT, local via Ollama) structured access to user health data with context, scores, trends, anomalies, so you're not dumping raw numbers into a prompt. If you'd rather wire it into your own pipeline, the REST API works the same way.

For production-grade use cases (coaching, clinical reasoning, longitudinal context), an agentic layer on top earns its keep fast. We build that at Momentum for clients and might share some templates soon, stay tuned.

@renata_hara1 Health data is probably the worst category for closed platforms: it's sensitive, personal, and the people building on top of it often need to explain exactly how scores are computed to users or regulators. The pressure from open source was going to come eventually.

@renata_hara1 Yeah, there’s definitely a broader shift happening — less tolerance for “walled garden” health data, especially as people start accumulating years of wearable history across multiple devices.

@renata_hara1 It has, indeed.

@renata_hara1 yeah the tide is turning

closed platforms made sense when the tooling didn't exist. now it's just a choice - and developers and builders are starting to notice there's a better one

good time to be building in this space

@hamza_afzal_butt thank you!

fully customizable - that's kind of the whole point. the base algorithms are open so you can read exactly how a score is calculated, then tweak weights, swap inputs, or build your own on top

fixed black-box scores are what everyone else ships. we wanted the opposite

@anton_zaporozhets1 Fair question. Both have official OAuth-based developer programs, and we've been shipping against them long enough to know the quirks (Garmin especially took real engineering time). If a provider changes something breaking: we patch, you pull the update. That's the OSS advantage. With a SaaS aggregator you wait for the vendor's roadmap and keep paying while you wait. No third-party integration is fully immune. The difference is how fast the fix lands and whether you can read the diff yourself.

@anton_zaporozhets1 Of course Open Wearables will propagate error (I suggest to use something like sentry to catch such exceptions), but you will still be able to connect with other providers, even if you will have broken connection with Garmin.

And I understand your concenr. In 2024 (or event 2025, don't remember) Garmin switched from OAuth v1 to Oauth v2 for example. It's a big change, but they didn't remove old endpoints which based on old OAuth standsrd. Of course it wasn't documented after the update to not tempt new users to use this.

@kate_ramakaieva Hey, we currently support Apple Health, Samsung Health, Google Connect, Polar, Suunto, Ultrahuman, Oura, Whoop, Strava, Fitbit.

@konrad_talaga1 You're right that most platforms guard scoring as the crown jewel. We went the opposite way on purpose: black-box scores are fine until a clinician or regulator asks why the number says what it says.

Who decides: our own R&D, led by Anna Zych (Health Science Lead), grounded in published research where it exists (sleep stages, HRV, training load all have public literature) and open discussion in PRs and GitHub issues where it doesn't. Momentum's engineering team owns direction, contributors shape it. Thresholds are tunable, so if you disagree with our defaults you fork and calibrate for your population.

@konrad_talaga1 As a Piotr said. If you want to ask questions about scoring models, you can find Anna on Linkedin or our Discord :)

@konrad_talaga1 that's the best part - you can use OW scores as a base because everything is open (including reasoning why these score are built this way) so you can use them as a starting point and tweak from there