I think this is more gimmick than anything else, like most of the services personal genomics companies provide.
SNPs don't tell you much about a person's perceived "beauty" and probably tell you only little about disease risks, and there are myriads of problems in the current literature of SNP-associations. Many associations (which go into this baby predictor thing) turn out to be unreproducible once you check a more diverse, or a bigger set of humans for associations. If you search Google Scholar for "failure to replicate GWAS" you'll get 1940 results for 2013 alone.
The only predictions that work are the phenotypes you get from your population history: eye color, hair color, skin color etc. But to predict that you don't need SNPs, you only need eyes. That's also cheaper.
Edit: I'm not saying that GWAS are crap all in all - they're useful in science in identifying candidate regions which may harbor genes related to favorable traits like resistance to a certain disease etc. They're just not very useful overall for private customers.
SNPs don't tell you much about a person's perceived "beauty" and probably tell you only little about disease risks, and there are myriads of problems in the current literature of SNP-associations. Many associations (which go into this baby predictor thing) turn out to be unreproducible once you check a more diverse, or a bigger set of humans for associations. If you search Google Scholar for "failure to replicate GWAS" you'll get 1940 results for 2013 alone.
The only predictions that work are the phenotypes you get from your population history: eye color, hair color, skin color etc. But to predict that you don't need SNPs, you only need eyes. That's also cheaper.
Edit: I'm not saying that GWAS are crap all in all - they're useful in science in identifying candidate regions which may harbor genes related to favorable traits like resistance to a certain disease etc. They're just not very useful overall for private customers.