Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

How Peloton Bricked the Screens On Flywheel's Stationary Bikes (theverge.com) 111

Posted by EditorDavid from the no-signal dept.
DevNull127 writes: Let me get this straight. Peloton's main product is a stationary bicycle costing over $2,000 with a built-in touchscreen for streaming exercise classes. ("A front facing camera and microphone mean you can interact with friends and encourage one another while you ride," explained the Kickstarter campaign which helped launch the company in 2013, with 297 backers pledging $307,332.) Soon after they went public last summer, Bloomberg began calling them "the unprofitable fitness company whose stock has been skidding," adding "The company is working on a new treadmill that will cost less than the current $4,000 model, as well as a rowing machine."

Last March they were also sued for $150 million for using music in workout videos without proper licensing, according to the Verge — which notes that the company was then valued at $4 billion. And then this week Vice reported on what happened to one of their competitors.

"Flywheel offered both in-studio and in-home stationary bike classes similar to Peloton. Peloton sued Flywheel for technology theft, claiming Flywheel's in-home bikes were too similar to Peloton's. Flywheel settled out of court and, as part of that settlement, it's pointing people to Peloton who is promising to replace the $2,000 Flywheel bikes with refurbished Pelotons... When Peloton delivers these replacement bikes, it'll also haul away the old Flywheels."

The Verge reports that one Flywheel customer who'd been enjoying her bike since 2017 "received an email from Peloton, not Flywheel, informing her that her $1,999 bike would no longer function by the end of next month."

"It wasn't like Flywheel gave us any option if you decide not to take the Peloton," she says. "Basically it was like: take it or lose your money. They didn't even attempt to fix it with their loyal riders. It felt like a sting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Peloton Bricked the Screens On Flywheel's Stationary Bikes More

How Peloton Bricked the Screens On Flywheel's Stationary Bikes

Comments Filter:

  • Basically, technology patent theft creates a product that people love, but is illegal. Sirius stole XM's patents, and was forced to merge. Pronto was so similar to Zoosk, they now look identical.

    When somebody buys the bad product, they're required to take the original one and lose the patent-stealing one with no other recourse.

    So Peloton took bikes that people loved... well, they're not evil they're just enforcing their rights.

    • Re:Why is Sirius so like XM? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Sunday February 23, 2020 @11:57AM (#59756952)

      Patent disputes are between the companies involved, not their customers. If I buy a doohickey, and Doohickey Inc. gets sued for patent infringement by Widget Corp, that doesn't invovle me. Doohickey Inc. might have to pay fines and a settlement to Widget Corp.

      Peloton doesn't have the right to take Flywheel bikes from their legitimate owners. They *do* have the right to shut down ongoing infringing Flywheel services. So there's the real problem. Flywheel (and Peloton) customers got suckered into paying up front for a subscription service.

      Subscription or one time purchase. Pick one. It should be illegal to do both.

      • Peloton has the right brick the Flywheel equipment... they're being nice by paying for the cleanup and supplying a replacement.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dcw3 ( 649211 )

          Are you sure? I think Peloton only has the right to make Flywheel pay up. It has no claim against Flywheel's customers.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by larwe ( 858929 )
          They are not "paying for the cleanup". Paying for the cleanup would mean "Here is a UPS label for you to ship your useless hardware to a recycling center, no obligation on your part".

          They are not "supplying a replacement" either. They are saying "You can't use your old hardware any more, and you're released from your old subscription [probably?] because the company is out of business. So you could walk away free right now. However, because you've already proven you're a sucker for this kind of thing, how a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by piojo ( 995934 )

        Patent disputes are between the companies involved, not their customers. If I buy a doohickey, and Doohickey Inc. gets sued for patent infringement by Widget Corp, that doesn't invovle me.

        It depends on whether in using the product you also infringe the patent. Suing end users is a nasty practice, but according to the EFF it is happening:

        https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]

    • Your conflating laws wirh morals. It might be legal what they are doing, but that doesn't make it right.

      As the (dramatic) analogy goes, most nazis where just following the laws of their reich. Didn't make what they where doing anything other than ruthlessly evil however.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Guspaz ( 556486 )

        They are within their legal rights to just brick all the Flywheel bikes with no replacement or recourse, leaving everybody who bought a Flywheel with a useless product. Instead, they are offering everybody a free equivalent replacement. Sounds like they're doing the right thing to me.

    • You are making the assumption that all patents are good patents, reflecting genuine innovation which required an investment in research to advance technology and contribute to the collective good.

      I can't find the exact patent Peloton claims to be infringed, but the vague reporting suggests it is for attaching a tablet to an exercise bicycle. Hardly a breakthrough in technology - and something I am sure a few individuals already 'invented' with a spool of duct tape to watch movies as they exercise.

      Obvious an

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      If Sirius stole XM patents then why did Sirius buy XM and not the other way around? I can't find anything about Sirus and XM having a patent dispute but there is a patent dispute between SirusXM and a European-based applied research organization. The reason the two providers merged is that there wasn't/isn't enough of a market for two companies providing this type of service. This is especially true now with streaming audio available via cell networks.

  • What exactly got bricked? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by larwe ( 858929 ) on Sunday February 23, 2020 @09:56AM (#59756650)
    I've read this report in a few different forums (and TBH the same thing is going to happen to Peloton's customers when the company folds - $300 for a stationary bike and $150 for a TV with Youtube app in it and you do NOT need to pay these ridiculous subscription fees. Peloton is the Juicero of fitness - you don't need its bike to use its content, and you don't need its content to use a bike). But anyway - What exactly got bricked? Are the bikes now unusable as exercise machines, or is the content delivery to the screen the only thing that's bricked? If the latter, Peloton should provide the affected customers with a $50 Fire tablet and a couple squares of VHB adhesive to stick it over the old screen, and the problem is solved.

    • Begging for an open source design, yes it trivially easy to do what you suggest, but some people need that cool label. (or 'sick' for the millennials)

    • I don't understand why this is modded flamebait as it seems to be right on target. A pissed off Peloton company man is lurking on Slashdot? O_o

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by larwe ( 858929 )
        I wondered why the score went down, too - an astroturfer from Peloton didn't occur to me.

    • Similarly, you could buy a Toyota instead of a bmw, or a netbook instead of a $1500 gaming PC....maybe the extra price of the Peloton isnâ(TM)t worth it for you, and definitely thereâ(TM)s diminishing returns as the price gets to that level, but a peloton is a better bike than a Walmart special with a tv strapped on.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by larwe ( 858929 )
        So, what is the definition, in this thread, of "better"? The BMW vs Toyota question - assuming the same class of vehicle - is a question of prestige as much as anything else.

        • In terms of bike...quieter, heavier frame, more adjustable, smoother mechanics, less maintenance . TV is in better position than duct taping a cheap TV lol. Peloton screen shows your stats and Peloton classes are better and easier than YouTube LOL.

          LOL do I really need to explain why a BMW is a better car than a Toyota? The fact that you say itâ(TM)s just a prestige thing suggests you are poor and a curmudgeon.

          • I enjoy the hell out of riding my BMW hard, but less maintenance? Hahahah. Riiiight.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by larwe ( 858929 )
            There are Toyota vehicles that are more expensive than BMW vehicles. I reiterate my point that a definition of "better" is necessary. Exercise equipment is like toothbrushes; a piece of moderately priced exercise equipment that works well enough, and that you actually use, is infinitely better than a piece of very expensive equipment that you never use, or use incorrectly. And similarly to the car analogy, a feature that you never use is a complete waste of money. (Actually it's worse than just being a wast

      • Marginally, but from what I've read, it's got no where near the features one might expect of a standard exercise bike of the same price.

    • You can't have an abandoned smart screen system. There's too much risk somebody on the admin side could turn it into a Internet hacker's botnet. It was internet connected, and with Flywhell falling out of business, Peloton felt obligated to clean it up.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by larwe ( 858929 )
        Security, eh? Pausing only to note that nobody except Flywheel has any sort of causal responsibility to fix malware issues with Flywheel products unless Peloton acquired Flywheel and assumed all its responsibilities, and that Peloton is not "obligated" to do anything and is simply using this as a cheap way to acquire more RMR subscribers using old returned hardware that they would otherwise have to pay to recycle, let's talk about "security" and walk through the possible scenarios:

        1. The Flywheel software

  • Nice repost from yesterday, Slashdot.

  • While I'm no fan of patent trolls... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rednip ( 186217 ) on Sunday February 23, 2020 @10:04AM (#59756676) Journal
    I don't really see this as patent trolling. While it's easy to argue that they out price their market, peloton actually makes and sells their system, they are also offering to 'bring in' flywheel's customers with 'free' bikes. Of course those bikes are surely from a vast inventory of returned systems which they otherwise wouldn't want on the market generally and clearly they are hoping that they pay the ( I think astounding) price of $39/month for content (which is the same price flywheel charged; I checked).

    • Re:While I'm no fan of patent trolls... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday February 23, 2020 @11:08AM (#59756820) Homepage Journal

      Moral of the story is don't buy products that rely on a subscription to keep working. These people are actually very lucky, in most cases you end up with a brick and no refund when the manufacturer goes bust or loses interest.

      • I doubt the mechanicals lock up when the subscription lapses. Maybe there needs an aftermarket kit to replace the non-functional computer. Should be easy to install, assuming standard interconnects between bike and computer.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by kenh ( 9056 )

        These people are actually very lucky, in most cases you end up with a brick and no refund when the manufacturer goes bust or loses interest.

        This^^^^

        Peloton won the court case, proved infringement. Rather than have the infringer shut down and the bikes become mere exercise machines (rather than subscription-based lifestyle accessories), Peloton is offering their customers replacement bikes *at no cost* in order to retain their subscription service *at the same cost*. Sure, it helps Peloton shed a pile of refurbished machines, and it increases their subscription numbers, but look at it from the Flywheels owner's perspective. They can stop their s

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Gimric ( 110667 )

        At least don't pay upfront for hardware that requires a locked-in subscription service.

    • Especially with modern technology. Back in the 1990s I worked on a project to replace the computers driving the Air Force's $4 million training simulator [l3t.com] with a PC and a few graphics cards costing about $8000 [airrecognition.com]. The key was generic interfaces for the hardware. You could literally unplug the monitor and cables for the pilot controls from the huge rackmount Silicon Graphics server running the real simulator, and plug them into our PC instead.

      Same thing needs to happen here. Since it's a stationary bike, t

      • I don't think the Peloton interface controls the resistance on the wheels. There a knob/lever that adjusts the resistance. On instructions, crank it up or down.

        I do believe that rotational speed of wheel is measured. But that's just a hall effect sensor (or something similar). It doesn't measure actual power output. Some training cycles do this by having the wheel run generator and controlling the electrical resistance on the generator to calculate power (and integrate over time for energy).

        • You're correct, which is part of why I looked at the price of a Pelaton and went: "The fuck?"

          (It's not a lever, it's a knob that you have to reach down between your legs and turn to change the resistance.)

          At that price I'd expect something automated.

  • Side effects of not owning anything (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Sunday February 23, 2020 @10:07AM (#59756690)

    I'm not an MBA, but my only assumption is that MBA schools have been exclusively teaching in their classes that products need to be structured so that (a) the customer owns nothing, (b) the customer has to pay you every month for life, and (c) when they stop paying or the company folds, any hardware the customer possesses is rendered unusable.

    Almost all of the Second Dotcom Bubble companies are like this, including the cloud services that power them. Netflix and friends are 100% this way...stop paying and you lose access to content. And, I don't think people are realizing yet that they need to subscribe to many of these services to have ongoing access to content since they play the licensing shell game.

    The Peloton example is just a highly visible version of this. I think Sonos did this also...intentionally destroying speakers when a customer traded up to a new one and creating a useless lump of e-waste. Flywheel owners now have an even bigger lump of reduced-functionality waste if they choose to keep it, or Peloton has to dump them.

    There's tons of other examples...ink cartridges, Juicero, Keurig cups...it's like the MBAx got into a huddle room and said, "OK, how do we design this so we extract maximum revenue from the customer? Never mind what they say, customers are stupid and they'll buy whatever we offer them!"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by larwe ( 858929 )
      Everything is being structured to be an RMR model. Even life itself - the goal of every pharmaceutical vendor (inter alia) is to create medicines for "chronic" conditions that people will need to take for life.

      • Everything is being structured to be an RMR model. Even life itself - the goal of every pharmaceutical vendor (inter alia) is to create medicines for "chronic" conditions that people will need to take for life.

        Just to put a pin in this thread - Pharmas would turn a much, much higher profit from curing a serious chronic condition than they do from treating it. A cure could easily be priced at the total cost (not just the cost of drugs: all of the costs) of treating a condition for 5 10 years, would sell great, and would still save money for patients/insurance companies. Treatments always have competitors, sooner or later. A cure really doesn't have that problem - you cure several generations of people with the con

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by larwe ( 858929 )
          Mmm, there's no "putting a pin in that". Some healthcare systems have historically been regarded as over-servicing with paid surgeries and lifetime drug regimens offered where lifestyle changes would be an arguably more appropriate approach. For example, it is now considered "normal" to suggest that all US adults should be taking blood pressure and cholesterol medications, for life. This matter is, however, too nuanced and emotionally loaded to be argued meaningfully on /.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tacokill ( 531275 )
      I have an idea: Maybe you should create a new company that has a better product and service to address the issues you brought up? Then you could compete with Peloton and take all of their customers as they come to realize your far better product and terms.

      If you don't like a product or it's terms then don't use it and go someplace else for your needs. This isn't rocket science. Companies don't exist to "owe" you things or do things as you think they should be done. Of course they seek to maximize r

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Sorry, you can't compete. Peloton has successfully convinced a judge that their patent for watching YouTube while riding a stationary bike is valid.

        Maybe in 25 years?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kenh ( 9056 )

          Peloton has successfully convinced a judge that their patent for watching YouTube while riding a stationary bike is valid.

          So when will gyms across the country start taking down the TVs in their exercise rooms with stationary bikes?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            As soon as Peloton sues them.

            Although, I can see a defence where the TV is not "interactive." The gyms will have to make sure clients don't have remote controls though.

      • The problem is human nature, and it is not in the humans best interest. The majority when offered identical products A & B, where A is 3 grand with 50/mo and B is 5 grand will choose A. Even though in a little over 3 years B is the better buy. I can't tell you how many people I know buy strictly on "Can I afford the payment", never thinking circumstances may change where the payment they can afford today becomes the albatross tomorrow. Job loss, medical emergencies, heck a failed HVAC system or roof lea

        • The problem is human nature, and it is not in the humans best interest. The majority when offered identical products A & B, where A is 3 grand with 50/mo and B is 5 grand will choose A. Even though in a little over 3 years B is the better buy. I can't tell you how many people I know buy strictly on "Can I afford the payment", never thinking circumstances may change where the payment they can afford today becomes the albatross tomorrow. Job loss, medical emergencies, heck a failed HVAC system or roof leak. And they have payments for every penny they make already. Companies prey on this human nature. And AI is just working to sucker in every last one of us by modeling your exact behavior.

          While what you are saying is correct, you are overlooking a second-order effct. If just about everyone buys based on "can I afford the payment", that expansion of credit pushes up prices. The few who insist on only buying what they can afford thus lose buying power and thus have a decreased standard of living.

          If the decreased buying power applies only to luxuries like an exercise bicycle, the frugal can live without. That doesn't work for necessities like shelter: when rental prices go up so do purchase

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      it's like the MBAx got into a huddle room and said, "OK, how do we design this so we extract maximum revenue from the customer? Never mind what they say, customers are stupid and they'll buy whatever we offer them!"

      I don't recall that there was a meeting, but yes in general you want the entry/base price to be as low as possible. Cheap printers, expensive ink? Sure. Cheap razors, expensive blades? Yep. Also phone accessories, popcorn for movies and all other sorts of add-ons. Buy now, pay in 3-4 months what does that cost a business? Less than 1% of the sticker price, if they can close the deal now it's totally worth it. Any form of "microcredit" like a phone plan is super profitable. These were all things I learned be

    • I don't think Netflix belongs into your list. It is an old fashioned subscription, like a newspaper. Cancel your newspaper subscription and of course you can't read the daily paper anymore at breakfast. So that's neither new or unexpected.

      It's different if you have to buy hardware to use the subscription. But then again, that's how phone contracts often work. It's slightly bad if that hardware is subsidized, so you get ot of the contract with no major loss, but it's really bad if we're talking about overpri

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      it's like the MBAx got into a huddle room and said, "OK, how do we design this so we extract maximum revenue from the customer?

      What the hell do you imagine MBAs discussed previously when huddled ina room? How can we ease the burdens suffered by the sick or the poor? Do they discuss option to lower the cost of providing health care to every one?

      No, they are focused on the question: "How do we design this so we extract maximum revenue from the customer?" - that is literally what their purpose is.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      I think Sonos did this also...intentionally destroying speakers when a customer traded up to a new one and creating a useless lump of e-waste.

      No. What Sonos did was offer steep discounts on upgrades, if the owner agreed to brick their current speakers.

      The upgrade was optional, if decline, the speakers continued to function as they always did.

      The discount was optional, if declined the current speakers continued to work as they always did, and you paid full price for the new speakers.

      The decision to destroy the old speakers was entirely up to the consumer - when it was complained about here, it was an e-recycler that complained they couldn't resell

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        It's that kind of behavior from a company that will keep me from ever buying their product. There are plenty of suitable subs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      I'm not an MBA, but .....it's like the MBAx got into a huddle room and said, "OK, how do we design this so we extract maximum revenue from the customer?

      Three MBAs in our home... Profit maximization was one of the things they taught us in undergrad management. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • I'm not an MBA, but my only assumption is that MBA schools have been exclusively teaching in their classes that products need to be structured so that (a) the customer owns nothing, (b) the customer has to pay you every month for life, and ©Y when they stop paying or the company folds, any hardware the customer possesses is rendered unusable.

      Almost all of the Second Dotcom Bubble companies are like this, including the cloud services that power them. Netflix and friends are 100% this way...stop paying and you lose access to content. And, I don't think people are realizing yet that they need to subscribe to many of these services to have ongoing access to content since they play the licensing shell game.

      The Peloton example is just a highly visible version of this. I think Sonos did this also...intentionally destroying speakers when a customer traded up to a new one and creating a useless lump of e-waste. Flywheel owners now have an even bigger lump of reduced-functionality waste if they choose to keep it, or Peloton has to dump them.

      There's tons of other examples...ink cartridges, Juicero, Keurig cups...it's like the MBAx got into a huddle room and said, "OK, how do we design this so we extract maximum revenue from the customer? Never mind what they say, customers are stupid and they'll buy whatever we offer them!"

      You don't need to invoke MBAs to predict this model, and, wait for it, this model makes sense depending on content. I used to have a large collection of DVDs and CDs... until streaming came. It makes no sense for me to buy DVDs, or even buy a movie on Amazon or iTunes. There are caveats with this model as you said (it is possible until some remote conditions to lose access to a movie you bought.)

      But as far as renting goes (be it a movie or a subscription), a Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime subscription is n

  • Flywheel's customers are just getting out ahead of the curve and going through what all the Peloton customers will experience when Peloton fails. It's a great fad but it's not a sustainable business and there's no future there. Anyone serious enough about cycling to value the service that Peloton is offering isn't interested in an overpriced exercise bike. If Peloton actually knew the market, they'd have gone the route of Zwift and TrainerRoad and the other services that interface with smart trainers and pr

    • Re:Just ahead of the curve... (Score:5, Funny)

      by larwe ( 858929 ) on Sunday February 23, 2020 @10:14AM (#59756706)
      To be fair, even once the IoT nonsense part of the product poofs into the ether, the bike itself will still be just as good for the primary use case of home exercise equipment: Acting as a clothes horse :D

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by bblb ( 5508872 )

        I wish I could mod that comment up without it deleting my comment and the sub thread, that was gold my man... gold. :D

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by larwe ( 858929 )
          :) I know whereof I speak. I work with a lot of people who WFH and I see their treadmills, weight sets, stationary bikes, Bowflex machines etc in the background of video conference calls, festooned with various articles of clothing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      First you buy the $2000 bike, then you pay a subscription fee to use it. If you can get people to do this, I don't see what wouldn't be "sustainable" about this approach. You'd just have to adjust your pricing after you'd used the early adopters to recoup some of your costs.

      As for how *ridiculous* the whole thing is, I agree with you. But being sensible is really optional when you're selling "sexy". Look at smart speakers. My physician sister recently told me how she and her university president husban

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by bblb ( 5508872 )

        That's the thing you're missing... this is a fad that will fade away. Exercise bikes don't sell because the reality is that a challenging indoor cycling workout is a miserable experience even for avid cyclists. Treadmills and elliptical machines are a more efficient exercise platform for indoor work; the only thing Peloton has going for it is the virtual ride experience and community aspect. Much like gym memberships, the majority of these subscriptions aren't going to be renewed after the requisite first y

    • Anyone serious enough about cycling to value the service that Peloton is offering isn't interested in an overpriced exercise bike.

      And this product isn't for serious cycling people anyway. It's precisely for everyone else, which is a much larger market.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by bblb ( 5508872 )

        But therein lies the problem and their big mistake... regular people aren't going to consistently renew this service. Regular people aren't going to commit to riding indoors with regularity and the majority of their subscriptions aren't going to get renewed after the first year, just like gym memberships. So, once the fad dies out Peloton is sunk.

        Unless they shift gears and appeal to cyclists, who aren't going to buy their ridiculously overpriced bike, they aren't going to find a steady customer base.

  • This is a fundamental flaw in design IMHO. From the outset these bikes should be designed to at least operate without Internet. Competitive training via Internet--yah I get get it....... I'm still using my old Computrainer trainer setup which NEVER required an internet connection....am glad I watched this play out without my money in it.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by larwe ( 858929 )
      This is why I asked the question I asked above. Is the actual exercise part of the bike now useless? Was it under computer control? Or is it just the "paid content" video stuff that has stopped working? Nobody seems to have published that information.

      • AFAIK no. It's just an exercise bike. Even the resistance control is manual. So all you lose is the screen and any information-gathering the thing does.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      Other than the fact that the bike is presumably gathering some fitness metrics, you *could* deliver this entire solution just as effectively with an app for their customer's tablet/OS platform of choice and then let them use that with their training bike of choice - including a real bike that has been suitably affixed to one of the various frames that already exist for this purpose. A little bit of trivial electronics connected to the bike and linked with the app and you could get the metrics as well, assu

    • This is a fundamental flaw in design IMHO. From the outset these bikes should be designed to at least operate without Internet.

      The entire business model is to get people paying for a subscription. What you're asking for goes against everything this product was designed to accomplish.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shubus ( 1382007 )
        What I'm asking for is what I've already got in the Computrainer and also why they are out of business. Is it all about what PEOPLE want or what BUSINESSES need to stay in business?

  • A $4000 treadmill? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Sunday February 23, 2020 @10:28AM (#59756732) Journal

    A $4000 treadmill? Wow. Who buys a $4000 treadmill? Who does that? Give me their number so I can sell them a $500 coffee cup.

    And while we're on the subject of spending crazy money on shit, buying a $2000 stationary bike seems only a little less silly to me. Yes, yes, I know they're internet-connected and group-centric and blah blah blah blah, but still.

    I have an inexpensive treadmill that I use from time to time;I just get on it and cue up a movie or some Youtube vids to watch while I mindlessly burn off extra calories. Will spending 10 times as much burn more calories? Will the calories respect my purchasing decisions?

    • OK, but there are far more people who spend $4000+ on actual bicycles, where the same argument holds.

      Look at it this way, the peer pressure that makes people buy nice stuff is also what motivates that personality type to get out an exercise, so in that sense it does add value.

      • Not quite. Expensive bikes do add value, although after about 2 grand you start to get diminishing returns.

        • I realize more expensive bikes are better, mostly lighter, but that in itself is mainly a social benefit. You want to keep up with your buddies, both in climbing the local hill, and in the "keeping up with the jonses" sense. Expensive bikes don't do a better job of burning calories, or being more durable (I am talking over $2500 or so), and the few seconds you'll save on a loop of fixed length aren't the point either.

          • After a 100+ km ride in a hilly area a lighter bike is worth the extra money, especially during the last hour. And it is not just the weight. Shifters shift faster and more precise, derailers run better, brake modulation is more exact and so on. Has nothing to do with the buddies. I am a loner yet my bikes used to be very expensive.

    • A $4000 treadmill? Wow. Who buys a $4000 treadmill? Who does that?

      People with a lot of money. People that will also pay a subscription service to hear some dude go "You can do this! Great job!" when they could just go outside and walk / jog / run for real.

    • Decent treadmills are easy to find at garage salws.

    • A $4000 treadmill? Wow. Who buys a $4000 treadmill? Who does that? Give me their number so I can sell them a $500 coffee cup.

      They're already getting plenty of caffeine in their diet sodas; however, you might be able to sell them one of these... [buzzfeed.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      I have an inexpensive treadmill that I use from time to time; I just get on it and cue up a movie or some Youtube vids to watch while I mindlessly burn off extra calories. Will spending 10 times as much burn more calories? Will the calories respect my purchasing decisions?

      If the curated videos and sense of community developed through the group experience of the Peloton service gets you to put yourself on the exercise bike more often, then maybe it's worth it.

      • If the curated videos and sense of community developed through the group experience of the Peloton service gets you to put yourself on the exercise bike more often, then maybe it's worth it.

        "If" and "maybe", the two words that when combined often result in the word "no".

      • Ding ding ding...winner. They're not buying an exercise bike. They're buying friend substitutes. That's the secret to a lot of otherwise-inexplicable behavior. Why do people back things on Kickstarter and then never use the product after it arrives? Because they bought the "community experience", not some lame physical item that's going to break soon anyway.

    • My wife is/was a spin and fitness instructor, so I am ever so slightly biased, but here you go.

      Peleton has tremendous appeal to rich people that don’t want to go to a public gym for fitness. An average spin class is $15-20, and a new commercial spin bike starts at $1,000. So, $40/month and $2,000 is going to be cheaper for those people that go to a couple spin classes a week, and it gives you a lot of the same benefits of a spin class in terms of discipline, community, “fun”, and all tha

  • Bricked? AFAICT, it's just the remote video class stuff which will go away. Should still work fine as a basic exercise bike.

  • Overpriced IoT Trash burns and ripps-off customer. What a huge freakin surprise.

    What I seriously don't understand: Who in gods name buys this junk? Ring, Nest, Alexa, Google Assistant, Sonos ... all pieces of overpriced IoT junk and privacy nightmares. Who would get something like that for cold hard money?

    I fundamentally don't get it but I sure as hell get that this disaster isn't news at all to anyone paying attention.

    My 2 eurocents.

    • What I seriously don't understand: Who in gods name buys this junk? Ring, Nest, Alexa, Google Assistant, Sonos ... all pieces of overpriced IoT junk and privacy nightmares. Who would get something like that for cold hard money?

      Millenials.

    • Alexa is good for people who have some disposable income and a desire for instant gratification and a few seconds saved. It doesn't do anything that couldn't be done from a smartphone, but it can be done hands-free and in a shorter time. Why spend thirty seconds on the screen searching for the album you want to hear when you can ask for it in five? People are lazy.

  • That is what we need, a freedom respecting software powered hack able exercise gaming bike. That would be so cool. Someone go put up a kickstarter now with videos of hacking exercise bikes.

  • for $59/mo you can go to gym with way more then just an bike.

  • It seems that if you buy a product that can no longer perform it's function due to actions by the manufacturer, you should be able to return it and get a refund.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by larwe ( 858929 )
      Which you *absolutely* can... until the manufacturer goes bankrupt and runs out of money for refunds. No getting blood out of a stone, and all that.

  • I always love the Slashdot groupthink negativity, but I really don't understand all of the Peloton hate. If you don't want to buy and subscribe into the Peloton model, don't. What I don't understand is how many people hate on it because of its price without using it. The service provides terrific content. Sure, go ride a bike. Sure, rig up a homebrew solution to watch rides on a cheap Walmart stationary bike. It will not be as good. You will save money, but you will end up with a solution that you use less.

  • "A fool and his head are soon parted".

    'Nuff said.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Close