Although Pogue lets the Fitbit win on features (cool oled display, wireless charging, tracks your sleep time), he concludes that in the end the DirectLife is the smarter choice, mainly based on its superior user experience and pervasive qualities.

Yet despite all that, if your goal is to lose weight or get in shape, the DirectLife is far more likely to help you succeed. First, it’s waterproof, so you can wear it swimming (or in the shower). Second, it’s crushproof. (My first Fitbit, on the other hand, fell apart when I accidentally dropped it once.) Third, the Web site and setup instructions are far more professional, complete, well-designed and classy. (The Fitbit’s entire user manual is a terse Web page.)

FastCompany's Kate Rockwood comes to a similar conclusion when comparing the two devices:

The biggest difference between fitbit and DirectLife is what's offered beyond the device. The DirectLife Web site shows your 12-week customized program with daily, weekly, and monthly targets. A (human) personal coach e-mails you initially to learn your goals, is available for questions, and sends follow-up emails if you don't sync your device or miss your goals for a few days in a row. <...> The fitbit's Web site is far more ambitious, if still a bit clunky. <...> But you're left to interpret that huge sea of data yourself and to set goals and create a program solo.

I wonder whether the difference in approach between the Fitbit and DirectLife might be due to the background of the teams who developed them. The Fitbit was developed by two former CNET employees, one of whom bills himself as 'an experienced technologist', while the other one is a 'serial entrepreneur'. Philips, on the other hand, has been steadily turning itself around from a technology-oriented to a consumer/user-oriented company. Maybe it's starting to pay off.