- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- Peloton is introducing a $95 “used equipment activation fee” for bikes purchased from outside its official channels in the US and Canada, aiming to boost revenue and maintain onboarding quality for new subscribers.
- The fee has sparked criticism as it reduces the cost savings typically associated with buying secondhand equipment and diverges from practices in other industries, potentially discouraging used market purchases.
- Peloton’s hardware sales continue to decline, but subscription revenue has seen slight growth; the company still faces financial struggles despite cost-cutting measures and layoffs.
You must log in or register to comment.
Company: we’re limping, how can we recover and pick up the pace?
CEO: How about we shot ourselves on the foot?
Company: die
CEO: Why would customer do this to us?
This is about an exercise bike, right? Why the heck is there so much nonsense surrounding it?
Peloton is designed for rich people. They don’t say it explicitly because thar ruins the illusion, but the bike is meant to be a status distinction. You may only own it if you’re eager to be seen as someone who spends too much money on an exercise bike.
Ah thanks. Though for enough $$ they could get even more status with a vintage Cinelli track bike and some Weyless rollers. I mean I’d be impressed if I saw that. Unlike with the Peliton.
That doesn’t have brand status.
Cinelli is a much more prestigious brand than Peloton, heh.
To you. Not to the people that they’re trying to impress.
Yeah I guess I’m showing my age. Still though, there must have been other fancy bikes after I got out of highschool.
Jokes on them, I think lowly of people with exercise bikes. I’m on a level of pretentious they can’t reach.
Because it’s an exercise bike ✨on the internet✨
The F in IoT stands for Freedom
Why make crazy amounts of money on a stationary bike only once? When you can every time they want to use the bike? Capitalism innovation for the win baby!!!
deleted by creator
The answer is actually corporate greed and synthesized hype for what’s probably a pretty quality piece of equipment if you remove all the enshitification from it.
The correct answer is people are fat cats. That commenter was so close.
Impossible, the Internet would not lie to me.
I mean you’re not wrong in a sense. Their marketing campaign centered around targeting a specific demographic (high income insecure millennials)…those that would spend a lot of money to get their own exercise equipment than go to the gym with other people around.
Now there’s nothing wrong with that (with wanting your own exercise equipment, at least). I just wish people realized other gym goers don’t give a shit about you. I literally don’t remember anything about anyone after the gym (like “wow that dude was so fat”).
But alas, here we have our lovely corporate propagan-….I mean “Public Relations”…manufacturing insecurity in the mind of the consumer.
As much as I dislike Planet Fitness’s predatory business model, I do gotta say they used this “gym insecurity” manufacturing from other PR firms to their advantage. “We know you’re insecure about going to the gym. Here’s a gym for the regular joe. Super cheap and the gym won’t have those judgmental gym goes (who never existed in the first place) that other gyms have. It’s only $10 a month! Yeah, we make it so you literally need to give us your left kidney in order to cancel your subscription, and yeah 90% of our revenue comes from people who never actually use the gyms, but hey, if you’re one of the 10%, then that’s even better since the 90% basically pay for your membership, new equipment, clean gym, amenities, AND the gyms won’t be crowded!”
So yeah…predatory as fuck…but at least their PR campaign centered around taking advantage of a manufactured insecurity rather than adding to it? Or maybe by perpetuating this myth that there really do exist a bunch of toxic gym goers at other gyms isn’t really helping…I’m not so sure now haha.
I like the ones that advertise “$10/month” and just don’t mention that there’s an additional sizable annual fee that you also have to pay.
They hired some PR firm that did a really good job of marketing the enshitification to a specific demographic (high income millennials)
Still too steep if thats what they consider a bargain price. Im all for companies making money long as they pay their rank and file fairly though
lol
Havent heard anyone talk about this but its particularly inisidious because most likely consumers wont find out about this fee until AFTER they buy it…
I predicted Peloton’s failure on launch, two of my cryptobro friends laughed and dumped semi serious money into it.
LOLLLLLLLLLLL
If this shit is allowed, every other company will follow. Imagine buying a used car and getting hit up with a $1000 activation fee, fuck that
They do. At least for optional features like Apple Car and Android Auto.
Don’t give them new ideas. Cars are already slowly turning into a SaaS on wheels.
removed by mod
So you’re saying there will soon be a scene dedicated to cracking Peloton software.
Cuz that’s what I’m hearing.
Already exists. The Peloton subreddit has a guide on rooting your bike and installing custom apks.
Damn. Might be time to pick up a used one.
Thanks for the heads up.
Yeah I mean I’m not surprised that this business is failing. It always just seemed like a worse and more expensive version of something that was always inherently pretty boring.
I mean it was already overpriced for what it was, and it was only really good/popular during covid. A lot of people now will either go to the gym for classes or just get a bike without a $12-$49 monthly fee. I just can’t wait to see how long until they lock the wheels without a subscription
This is basically admitting that consumers don’t actually value their subscription service for the cost. If users were buying used bikes and signing up for subscriptions Peloton would be thrilled, they would do everything that they could to encourage that like free trials. But it must be that most people who buy used bikes don’t find the subscription worth it and cancel within a few months. Adding this fee both extracts more money and creates a sunk cost fallacy that will cause them to go longer before cancelling.
If the product sold itself they would just let people pay them subscriptions, its basically free money.
So they lost resale value and will have more trouble selling new hardware as well?
My thoughts exactly. This seems like a short term play to boost the stock price, let execs get out of the market, then sell off the company before it goes under.
Also how are they gonna prove you didn’t buy it before the announcement and just didn’t register/use it until after? Seems to me that’s gonna be sticky in the eyes of
copyrightterms & conditionslet execs get out of the market,
A new business architecture without this particular flaw seems to be in pretty capitalist demand today.
Maybe something about conflict of interest being illegal for such positions. Maybe just cooperatives with modern technologies to help make them more organized.
deleted by creator
I don’t get what it has to do with copyright?
It’s as simple as they built the equipment to require an app. And it needs the cloud, so its either accept the license or stop using the hw.
It’s happening everywhere.
Thanks, I meant terms & conditions, fixed. If I buy a product that does not have an activation fee in the t&c at time of purchase, legally I probably shouldn’t have to pay it even if they implement it later and I waited to activate. That would maybe still require you to sign up even if you aren’t paying to get the t&c then though. It could be argued that since the fee was not in place at time of purchase it shouldn’t apply and that is what I meant by ‘sticky’ is all.
They should have been more conservative in their business and expected that it was only surging because of the pandemic. They cashed in on the IPO but should have gotten out. Now they’re beholden to investors. Probably made enough money to not care if the company crashes and burns.
Don’t Tesla do the same bullshit? If you paid for some feature then sell the car, the new owner has to pay for it again?
This shit should be illegal.
If you sell it to a new owner directly you decide if you want to leave it with the car or take it for yourself (assuming you have another Tesla where to use it).
Only if you sell it to Tesla, they will remove it.
That’s the “full self driving”. All the newer cars come with computers capable of doing it, but you either pay a $99/month subscription or a one time $8k charge.
I just checked out their website and apparently you can either transfer it to a new Tesla or leave it with the car and basically sell it to the new owner. Not what I expected at all.
Just outlaw things that don’t work without internet connectivity. Activation included.
AAAAND that’s the moment I’d go from frothing progressive to bomb-slinging radical. That very moment.
Why?
I hate the IoT with a fervor of ten thousand rabid honeybadgers and if it were legally mandated for every piece of technology, I would go full luddite and tear as much down on my way out to a cave in the woods as I could.
Ah, I meant the opposite, outlaw things that only work with IoT. Leave things that don’t.
But I’m not against you going bomb-slinging radical to make it happen
removed by mod
Cory Doctorow calls this one “it’s ok because we do it with an app” and urges regulators to enforce the laws already on the books. It’s an absurd defense legally, but there’s no enforcement of antitrust or consumer law at all anymore
Lets hope a blue wave changes that. I mean I don’t have any illusions that dems aren’t almost as corporate owned, but Harris has voted more consistently with Bernie than any other congressman
For a subscription fee of [+$5/six months] your brand new pair of Peloton Underwear™️ won’t shit themselves.
Anti-shit underwear? Sign me up!
The downside: You have to shit them yourself.
Will no one think of the onboarding quality?!
