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.
Do you see an alternative? Each year more companies move to a subscription model, even when it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. In many cases if you have the time to do proper research and/or a lot of technical savvy, you can find alternatives from companies no one recognizes. Most people don't have the time or know-how, and the companies that like subscription models are spending billions making sure their names are the only ones people think exist.
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!!!
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.
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
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 & conditions
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.
The tech world has become and endless conveyor belt of stupid greedy miseries.
No subscription-based company products should be in public schools. That would stop with inculcating model acceptance.
No federal agency should be using any subscription product, including any cloud products. Public data should not be capable of being held hostage or monetised.
Both are a waste of public funds and set a bad example.
We can put marketing teams in the fields and mines doing honest toil.
The tech world has become and endless conveyor belt of stupid greedy miseries.
Simpler. It's easy to create artificial maintenance costs there as needed. That, of course, wouldn't work well without oligopoly.
Government officials are interested in buying such products due to kickbacks, which means that everybody else directly or indirectly needs them for interoperability. Thus oligopoly persists.
It's as if only radical solutions would work, be it radical authoritarian or radical libertarian.
It’s easy to create artificial maintenance costs there as needed.
That reminds me of the bricked polish trains, not only did they create artificial maintenance cost, they also tried to ensure that only they (and not their competitors) would be able to do that maintenance (unflipping the kill-switch)
So they shouldn't lease buildings, or subscribe to water and power? Should they also not use document archival and storage services that have existed for decades?
Water and power still need to be reconfigured, obvs we're not there yet, but they don't contain my personal info and can't leak it.
I'm not against govt working with entities when needed, but it's become a lazy solution to outsource functions and often the blame for failure as well, rather than build a responsible solution.
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.
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
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.
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.
But this fee wasn't there when people originally purchased this was it? If so, they will now have a less valuable product since they won't be able to sell it as easily. Or are they only doing it for new units?
The people getting up in arms are upset because they see it as a slippery slope. First just the idiots pay for subscriptions, then it creeps into the lives of everyone. And eventually it's harder to avoid the bullshit than just pay, and the whole market becomes more predatory. Like if the idiots give companies an inch, they'll eventually take a mile
Wife and I bought a Peloton. It works well, we love it. I'm going to cancel the subscription and just use the damn thing without attending the classes etc like an old school stationary bike.
Sucks bc I enjoy a couple of the classes but this is BS
If more people were like you we wouldn't have such shitty companies. They'd still be thirsty for every last penny but they'd know they cannot get away with it.
I think it is the opposite. Because everyone knows they don't need the subscription, right or wrong Peloton needs to make up for subscriptions losses by introducing these one-time fees.
It's a huge tablet screen, probably running Android or if I had to guess. I haven't bothered trying to look. Joining my friends in classes was fun and the mini social network aspect of it, especially during the lockdowns. But in the end the stationary bike aspect works and I dont have to pay to go to a studio somewhere
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.
I recently read that a baby crib did the same thing they charge an activation fee after it’s sold. First we had subscriptions now we have reselling activation fees. It’s just another way to get a little bit more money.
Cradlewise.
At least that is a one time $120 fee and you don’t need an additional app subscription to use it, for now. It might get worse as the first set of users are just starting to sell theirs, as it’s useless after 2 years.
For Pelaton, it’s reactivation fee + app subscription.
Is this even legal in some other countries outside of the US and Canada lol, I know there is some countries out there with quite strict consumer protection and I'm pretty sure second hand Market is one of the more regulated ones
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.