I don't see how Peloton is going to win this in the long run. Strategically a bad move IMO. May be because I still see Peloton as more closer to a fad than something sustainable. They did well to make bank at the right time and go public. However its their game to lose. A competitor will do a solid integration with the Apple watch and get promoted in the Apple Store and the site and it will automatically boost their credibility among the same people that buy Pelotons. It will slowly eat away at their base.
Peloton told The Verge Apple told them to remove it
> The spokesperson also said: “Peloton is committed to bringing the GymKit integration to all workouts and disciplines within Apple’s terms of service,” seemingly suggesting bootcamp workouts didn’t fall under those terms.
I don't understand why the other fitness types ran afoul of the rules... Maybe there wasn't a strict 1-to-1 mapping of activity types which Apple didn't like?
Which would be stupid to do this on their part then, because this would be the most obvious argument to open the app markets because it would be classic, if not textbook, anti-trust circumstances.
Right but that didn't happen during a period where the US is poised to leverage anti-trust action any moment now against a large portion of the tech industry. Context and timing are important.
Ehhh, they didn't really say that - if they were told directly to remove that ability, one would expect them to come out and say so directly, and not make a wishy-washy statement like the above. Anything that 'seemingly suggests' something can be assumed to have been crafted specifically to suggest it while not telling the full truth.
> Ehhh, they didn't really say that - if they were told directly to remove that ability, one would expect them to come out and say so directly, and not make a wishy-washy statement like the above. Anything that 'seemingly suggests' something can be assumed to have been crafted specifically to suggest it while not telling the full truth.
I owe you a citation for what I'm about to say (or hopefully someone else has a link; my google-fu is failing me), but other devs/founders/etc on HN have noted that Apple also objects to devs calling Apple out for enforcing their own rules.
This would be a subtle way of working around that draconian restriction.
Peloton should definitely try to work with the Apple Watch as best as possible. We are hearing mixed reports on if Apple or Peloton wanted Peloton to pull back on some of the integration.
I recently got a Peloton Bike+, and it is one of the best mixtures of physical and software product I have ever seen. By far the best for anything exercise related.
I had been riding on a basic bike with Apple Fitness+, and I enjoyed it a lot, but the Peloton is next level. For cycling classes, it blows everything out of the water. It doesn't just have the standard music and cycling stuff that Soul Cycle and others made popular in person, it has all of the Power Zone classes that are based on improving your specific fitness levels with data and classes tailored to you.
Have you tried actual cycling products when you say it blows everything out of the water? Like Zwift, Trainerroad, Sufferfest, Rouvy etc? For instance Trainerroad is miles ahead when it comes to structured training with progress.
I would consider myself a pretty avid cyclist (annual century ride and 1000+ miles per year). Have done two years on Zwift (Kickr Core) - which I thoroughly enjoy. However my wife just got a peleton a month ago, and partly due to the novelty, partly due to the sheer ease of use I haven't been back on my Zwift set up yet.
I am not giving Peleton the win I am just saying that it is pretty slick interface for getting a work out and making you sweat without the small headaches of integration on Zwift etc. That said - if all I want is to improve my cycling, Peleton doesn't help me in the same way. However if I am trying to stay fit with small workouts and lots of variation in the off season - its perfect.
6 months from now I'll figure out which one gets the W.
Do you have a twitter or a blog where one could follow your progress - I'm the opposite, used to be super into fitness and stopped dead on tracks due to injury, COVID, depression all of which have caused an Insulin resistance. I've gotten my jabs, but would still prefer to return to fitness via a home gym.
Curious to learn more about maximizing the use of a very expensive hardware (for me).
Unfortunately I don't really have any socials outside hackernews. If I was to choose between on of the two of them I would - if I was a heavy cyclist and already had a good road bike Zwift would be the natural route. If I didn't have a road bike and not a heavy cyclists but really enjoy spin classes - I would go for Peleton. If you have more space at home to do a home gym - Peleton has a lot of other classes that you can do as well. Our space is limited so only can do the spin classes.
Yes though your point is taken - this is definitely expensive hardware in both circumstances. Both have addictive (in a good way) qualities to tie you back into coming for more. Normally I would say that as a negative thing but in this instance it is a good thing.
Peloton owner. Long time Zwift user. Have spent a little time each with TR and Sufferfest. Peloton is the most polished experience by an incredibly wide margin. Most people aren't so much looking to be incredible cyclists as they are just wanting to be in shape, and the combination of premium hardware, dead simple interface, and the ever-expanding library of classes across a variety of disciplines is far beyond what most people would ever want/need. I do wish that there were better structured training options within Peloton beyond the intro to power zones program, but I think they could add that fairly easily if there was demand.
When I was training for races I would want to be primarily on my bike, but for just offsetting my Oreo addiction the Peloton is perfect.
Zwift, Trainerroad, etc. are good for people looking to train to become better cyclists. You do largely need to bring your own setup, which can often be complicated (although you can then get a setup that mirrors your outdoor work).
I am referring to fitness training, not training to become a better road cyclist, and I suspect most people that use a Peloton or go to Soul Cycle have no intention of training to become better at road cycling. They are doing so to become fitter, and Peloton's training is specifically aimed at improving various areas of fitness. So when I refer to training, I am referring to training to improve specific fitness goals and not training to become a better cyclist.
I have no interest in becoming a good cyclist, but I am looking to improve my fitness across a variety of metrics. I also weight train and do other stuff, but I have found the Peloton approach to indoor cycling well suited to helping meet specific fitness goals.
I love road cycling but also weight lifting and other stuff. You can perfectly use Zwift just as an indoor fitness trainer. Yes you need a trainer and a used bike that is comfortable for you but a peloton isn’t cheap either and I can stow away my Zwift setup except for the bike of course.
My Peloton is one of the best fitness purchases I've made in years. And thats after a couple of years on a Wahoo Kickr Snap and a year on a Wahoo Kickr Core, mostly using Zwift with a bit of TrainerRoad mixed in. The classes on Peloton are just so much fun, motivating and uplifting.
Nothing about your comment per-se, but damn, these company/product names are getting more and more wacky. *Wahoo Kickr Snap* and *Zwift* is something I would only imagine in a cartoon about an imaginary product.
I'd agree with the general tone of a few others here. IMO Peloton and Zwift cater to two different groups although there is some overlap between them.
Peloton caters more to general fitness types with a "spin class" approach using "instructors" and their slick hardware and ecosystem. It's probably a better choice for people who aren't cyclists.
Zwift caters more to dedicated cyclists who typically use Zwift to augment their outdoor training routines with indoor time (avoiding weather and timing/safety issues etc). Cyclists use their own bikes since they're fit for the rider, with their own (more accurate) power meters, etc. Zwift also considers weight, bike aerodynamics, etc. in sort of a "gamified" virtual representation of cycling.
TLDR; Peloton is a group of people riding Peloton machines in "virtual spin class" while Zwift is a group of people riding their own bikes indoors, most who also ride outdoors on Strava.
Its something that annoys the crap out of me with Apple and the marketing of their products. Apple's Fitness+ app markets itself providing an experience like no other workout in the world.
It markets itself as being a master of all trades, jack of none. When it is infact a jack of all trades master of none. For example the cycling workouts are far far behind what Trainerroad, Zwift or Peloton provide, with regards to dynamic workouts based on physiological performance.
Agreed, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
The reality is that Peloton doesn't really have an option, since the competitive advantage is health/exercise data. Allowing Apple continued access to user health data via Apple Watch means Peloton devices will be increasingly viewed as commodities - it's just an exercise bike. Also Apple probably will add spin classes to its Fitness+ service soon, which puts them at a direct competition with Peloton's core revenue stream.
So you either try to stem the bleeding early, or fade slowly into irrelevance as your products become commoditized. Users may love their Pelotons but I'm surmise that they prefer their Apple devices more. It's like users don't care much for their mobile carriers as long as their iPhones are compatible on those carrier networks.
A key feature of the Apple Watch is its Apple Health app, which tracks more than just your time on a bike. Peloton locking a portion of your data away from you is going to make it a lot more tempting to switch when you find a bike that integrates with all your other data.
I think there are two (or more) segments of Peloton riders. The data geeks who want to track all of their workouts and metrics, and the casual rider who just wants a convenient way to get some solid exercise without leaving the house. I fall into the casual segment - I ride my Peloton 1-2 times per day, and I don't care about any of my stats, but I love the workout and I love the Peloton instructors. Unless another platform somehow convinces my favorite instructors to leave Peloton then I'm sticking around.
*edit: I also own an Apple watch, but I only use it for tracking # of minutes while running outside. And for telling the time.
Across all of their active subscribers, the average is 21 workouts per month [0]. So that user is technically above-average, but I'm curious what the actual distribution looks like, if it's like a bell curve or more "camel shaped" with a mixture of infrequent users and very frequent users at opposite ends.
I don't own one, but from people I know that do own one, the brand seems very good at turning their customers into that sort of ideal fanatical user. [1]
[1] I don't mean fanatical as an insult to the users :P More power to you if it makes you work out. But for a company a 'multiple times per day' user who is probably also telling friends about the product is the dream.
It’s worth noting that many riders add 5-minute warm-up, cool-down and stretching sessions to their main rides. Peloton counts all of these as separate rides and frequently recommends them. Frustratingly, they also count toward the user ride milestones that take up so much instructor focus during rides (100 rides, 500 rides etc.).
It all seems intentionally designed to juice their engagement data.
This. As a peloton user, I actually wish there was a way to set the system to "ignore" those rides for the purposes of ride count, stats, Strava upload, etc. The warm ups/cool downs are important things to do but it makes for a ton of digital clutter. If I ride 5 days a week that is 15 "activities" minimum.
That being said, most of the more casual users are probably not doing this. I know that most of the people I know/follow on there are doing one or two activities per day of use, and it seems they are a mix of discipline, so like a 20 min ride and then a stretching class or weights.
Same here. I do a lot of bike riding, hiking, canoeing and open water swimming. All this stuff keeps me in very good shape. I look fine I feel even better so do not care bout them metrics.
The Apple Watch health stuff kind of sucks (the health app itself that can take in/track other data is okay). It sounds like Apple is just blocking Peloton from their fitness competitor bootcamp stuff, but Peloton can still integrate data in Health.
I have a Peloton and Apple Watch, I've historically had a FitBit.
The FitBit would recognize when you were on a run and auto record everything - the Apple Watch can't do this, about 20% of the time it'll ask if you're on a run and makes you confirm that you are (which is easy to miss).
The Fitness app has a bug that suggests nobody even looks at it. If your speed is increasing (you're running faster) and so your mileage time is going down (takes you fewer minutes to run a mile) and that's trending down as a result the App says "oh no you're trending downward" - but obviously in that case getting faster and getting your mileage time down is a good thing.
The Peloton stuff is solid and you can still share it to the health app - real time tracking via the watch doesn't matter that much. Anyone who does actual cycling will have a garmin computer or something anyway.
The Apple Watch fitness stuff is maybe okay for people that don't exercise and just want some walking tracking motivation - it's pretty bad for everything else.
You can (and many Peleton members do) just start a workout on the Apple Watch's Workout app whenever you take a class. It is more or less tracking the same thing, except your workout will show as "Indoor Cycle" or whatever instead of "Alex's 20 minute Hip Hop Ride".
The one thing you lose is heart rate tracking on the Peloton. With GymKit, your Apple Watch tracks your heart rate as you work out and displays it on the screen, along with which heart rate zone you are in (1-5). It shows what percentage of your max heart rate you are using at any one time and gives you a heart rate graph readout when you are done.
You could just use a third party heart rate tracker to accomplish this, but that's one more thing to put on.
You could also use an app like BlueHeart to do it. It fakes a BLE HR tracker on your phone while pulling the data form your watch, so that you still get your HR data on the big screen.
They sell different packages and some come with a chest strap. I got just the bike and shoes. I already use an Apple Watch to track my heart rate for everything else, and it's been rated as accurate.
But if you got a chest strap with it, that would 100% do the same thing.
I like having one device that tracks my heart rate through all of the activities I do (including sleeping).
You can also "just" follow a youtube spinning class on a turbo trainer. The point of smart fitness devices is so that I don't have to put my diet, workout and schedule into 3 different tools and merge them myself.
So the issue then is with Apple Health integration, not with the Apple Watch specifically. Apple Health also runs on other iOS devices and has a back end API.
There are some neat things you can do with the Watch specifically - there's NFC stuff you can do to automatically start a specific workout type when the user taps their watch on a piece of equipment, for instance.
The Apple Watch is a pretty good heart rate monitor, and it brings your Peloton data into the Fitness and Health apps. If you wear and Apple Watch while cycling, your heart rate shows up on the Peloton, and it breaks it down by heart rate zones.
I use an Apple Watch with my Bike+. I only do cycling workouts, so I never noticed this limitation, but it does seem odd.
It's possible that Apple didn't feel some of the data tracking for other activities was particularly accurate. Apple spends millions to test people doing different workouts and to measure the caloric spend, and maybe Apple only thought the data was accurate for cycling. Bootcamp classes in particular are a really nebulous concept.
Apple has workout modes for all different kinds of exercise built into the Apple Watch based on data they have gathered from large samples of test subjects. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple felt the cycling data was accurate, and the other stuff that Peloton was doing a lot less so (and a lot less accurate than popping into a workout mode directly on your Watch).
I would say it's the singular most important aspect for a large number of riders. My wife is absolutely obsessed with hitting her numbers everyday. This is all done through the apple watch and Peloton.
Peloton is certainly a fad, but Bowflex still exists. The idea that Peloton isn't just an exercise bike with an at home gym subscription, is is highly suspect.
You can already see the start of this with Beat Saber. Imagine a Peloton, but instead of the 2D workout video, you’re in immersive 3D VR cycling trails. Though Peloton still has like 7 years leeway, they won’t have the VR chops to make it happen and will probably be acquired.
Some commenters think it won’t be the case due to sweat? Good luck betting $100B market cap being stopped by the lack of innovation in preventing sweat issues.
That's an over exaggeration. It's an issue, but it's also safe and comfortable enough. Like with riding a stationary, I just use a towel from time to time. There are other accessories that help too. You should try it before forming such a strong opinion.
I sweat a lot. All of it in the upper body including my face. My shirt is drenched and hard to take off post VR workout, even with a towel hanging from my neck. A VR workout is still doable with heavy sweating; you just have to try it several times before dismissing it.
Not Peloton but I have smart bike trainer and familiar with related software (zwift, RGT, tacx etc). My experience: using VR set the way they make them now is extremely uncomfortable on a bike trainer. And yes it will drown headset in sweat and kill it in no time.
Agreed. There is no way something like this takes off in this segment if it involves something on a rider's face bulkier than a pair of sunglasses. Most people running Zwift in 2021 are doing it on relatively underpowered platforms like appleTV and ipad, so we're no where close to a situation where VR would even be worth the development effort for these companies.
> And yes it will drown headset in sweat and kill it in no time.
Is this from personal experience or just conjecture? Because this is not common problem. Also this is what towels are for. You can also have interchangeable padding to either be more absorbent of sweat or less depending your preferences.
Are you saying that sweating prefusably on an indoor cycling trainer is not a common problem? I must be misunderstanding.
I'd need to have a couple of these absorbant interchangable sweat pads for an hours workout if I wanted this thing to have any chance of staying in place. And cleaning it afterwards would be a must, even so it sounds absolutely grim after a few uses. Plus they are pretty uncomfortable (my experience). I suppose it might be tolerable if I was just lightly spinning through a magical VR world enjoying the views. But I'd rather be using regular Zwift and getting fit.
>Are you saying that sweating prefusably on an indoor cycling trainer is not a common problem? I must be misunderstanding.
No, I'm saying that lots of sweat will not break a VR system ie it will NOT "drown headset in sweat and kill it in no time.". Personally, I just use a towel on my neck and it's more than good enough for both my VR and stationary cycle workouts, but everyone is different
Yes it is a personal experience. I might change my opinion when / if VR headsets will look like a regular glasses so my fan can move the air properly.
As for towels - do you ride while periodically removing your headset and wiping your face? I can't imagine myself doing it. I have giant industrial fan that takes care of a perspiration and which is totally useless if most of my face is covered with that blob of VR set.
Yes, I ride with a towel on my neck and I periodically wipe my face every 30 minutes. Most of my sweat drains into my towel because I use silicone covers over the VR headset padding.
I consider myself a heavy sweater since my shirts are drenched even working without VR
You sweat a lot during exercise. It's literally dripping off my face throughout the exercise. There's no "grabbing a towel to wipe if off" while I'm wearing the headset. The headset will absorb the sweat.
>"4. Repeat when sweat becomes an issue again in 30 minutes"
I my case the issue resurfaces in a minute or so.
>"Not if you add a silicone liner on top of the padding of your VR headset"
Actually in my case liner or not any area of my body that is covered sweats.
Anyways your advises sound like I have to bend backwards to make use of that VR. I'll wait till VR does that instead. If not fine with me. I have other things to do.
>"It seems like most of the pundits critical of using VR for working out haven't even tried it themselves"
> I my case the issue resurfaces in a minute or so.
You need a VR headset or strap that's easy to take off and put on. They typically operate with a dial on the back. You also probably need to rely on multiple pads that can absorb sweat. Not sure if there are any other solutions to mitigate extremely heavy facial sweating.
I'm a pretty heavy sweater myself, where it feels like the entire top half of my body is drenched in sweat including my face. The only time facial sweat annoys me is when it clouds the VR screens. Otherwise, my ritual works fine since I'm still able to constantly wipe the portion of my face that isnt' covered the VR headset and any other sweat gets caught by the towel on my neck
How would you even know what would happen working out with VR when it seems that you haven't even tried it yet?
> You are making unfounded assumptions here.
It's a pretty healthy assumption when you have commenters here making ridiculous claims like sweat routinely destroying VR headsets. I'm ok with valid criticisms of VR and there are many; I can write a fairly large blog post focusing on just downsides of VR. However, I'm not going to tolerate bad assumptions that aren't based on any real personal experience, or just reality in general
I workout with VR daily 1-2 hours. Most of the time it doesn't even feel like heavy cardio because all I'm doing is playing games dodging bullets and swinging swords. There are even VR games for stationary bikes (https://virzoom.com/ & https://www.holodia.com).
VR is more accessible, more flexible, offers a lot more variety, all for a much lower price than Peloton and other similar offerings.
Building your products around an Apple product is like building a product around a parasite.
They'll wait until you depend on Apple hardware, or until they trap your users within their own user-base ecosystem, then will casually demand you pay the piper.
Insert standard Cory Doctorow style rant about how if Peleton had Open APIs on its devices and its services, anyone could add Apple Watch support without their permission.
From the article:
> But even if it is planning a release later this year, taking away some of the Apple support now could be a strategic tactic to help early adoption.
Is this the type of competition that's good for consumers? Is this a good market outcome that we like to see happening? Or would it be better if Peleton was forced to compete by adding new features to their own smartwatch rather than taking features away from every other platform/device?
The problem is, publishing an API is making a promise: you're promising that it's safe to build on the API because it will be maintained into the future and will avoid breaking compatibility.
These promises can be expensive to maintain, restrict changes and if you break the promise, it's worse than if you had not made the promise in the first place.
Imagine Peloton did open their API and some third-party did create Apple Watch support. Every time they do a software update or release a new machine, they may break something in the third-party integration, which leaves the third-party to scramble to fix the issue. To mitigate this, Peloton would have to do communicate changes and provide beta releases -- that is, start and run a developer relations program.
This is not small potatoes. Opening an API that will actually be useful is a big, on-going deal.
Now also consider the third-party who has created the integration. They are making a promise of their own to their end-users, especially if they are charging or manage user data. Yet they are highly dependent on Peloton's promise (API) to be able to fulfill their promise to their end-users. It's a precarious network of dependencies that will break when the interests or priorities of any the parties diverge (and they will diverge over time -- they are separate parties with different concerns).
Keep in mind that if Peloton has decided they no longer want to maintain Apple Watch support, they could just as easily (and for the same reason) decide not to maintain the API that would make it possible for a third-party to provide that support. In fact, I think Peloton would be a lot more OK with cutting off a third-party developer -- who is not their customer -- than in taking features from their customers directly as they did in this case.
It's bold of Peloton to assume that their cult is willing to go along with removing features from another cult.
I love my Peloton but don't have an Apple watch so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have friends who do who really look to their Apple watch for HR/general fitness monitoring, and if the idea is to get people to adopt to the Peloton watch/wearable, well, that's gonna be a real tough battle to win.
I have Apple watch. Apart from fitness monitoring, Apple watch is tightly integrated in the ecosystem - I can answer my phone on it, check my notifications, ping the missing phone, I have 1Password app on it for various PINs, it unlocks my Mac and I can double-click on the button on it instead of typing my password, I can allow my kid's requests for additional screen time on it, allow two factor authentication requests, tell my podcast app what should do with incoming episodes... Everything above I'm doing on daily basis. Leaving all of that just for a fancy indoor bike looks like a tough sell. But I don't have Peloton, so maybe I'm wrong.
I also have an Apple Watch. I looked at Peloton's offerings back when we were in the market for a treadmill. Would have bought one, too, except that giant-ass screen is good for one thing: watching Peloton classes. No Netflix, no nothing on that screen but Peloton. And people complain about Apple's lock-in? So we bought something else that works with Zwift and a host of other offerings.
Horizon Fitness' finest treadmill[0], paired with a 27" monitor and Apple TV in the garage. Except I don't have the monitor in front of the treadmill just yet. Without shuffling stuff around, the monitor is used for the rowing machine that we already had (NordicTrack) and Apple Fitness+ classes. On the treadmill we just use our iPads for now until I figure out what to do with the whole arrangement.
The treadmill works seamlessly with Zwift, which shocked the hell out of me considering that Bluetooth is involved. Fire up the 'mill, fire up Zwift, and Zwift asks if you want to connect. I'm more of a "I'd rather run in the rain than inside" person, but I've used it often enough to say that the Zwift/treadmill connection is solid and works reliably. I have not attempted to connect the treadmill to anything else. I have used it for Fitness+ workouts, and just use the spinny wheel controls to control speed and incline. My wife uses it work walking/running workouts with iFit doing the same. I don't think we're missing much by not having software control the effort. On a treadmill, I don't even know that would be safe (I'm curious if, for example, Peloton's treadmill does that).
As for the treadmill itself, I avoid treadmills when I can so I'm no expert. But after about nine months, I'd recommend it. I used to be fast, now I doubt I'd crack a 3:00 marathon due to age. With that as a baseline, the deck is long enough for my 6'/1.8m frame, and it's fast enough (12mph/~20kph) for intervals. Speaking of intervals, it has two easy-to-reach buttons (on those stalks, if you're looking at a picture of it) that can be preset for speed/incline. One button "recovery", one for "interval effort", and intervals are less fiddly. Presets are per-user, too, so my wife can have her own setup.
To honest "Peloton"* seems a pretty poor solution to indoor cycling training when compared to smart trainers and smart bikes from the likes of Wahoo, Tacx and Wattbike.
All of those can be connected to simulators like Zwift or a host of others and provide way more training options than you can get on a high priced, proprietary "Peloton" spinning bike no real ergo features.
For example, if you want to ride in an actual indoor peloton simulation and make use of drafting for fun and profit, you want something like a Tacx Neo running Zwift ...IMHO.
If you ditch "Peloton" and go with what the pros train on you can use any smart watch you like.
* It's in quotes because peloton is a common word in wide usage in cycling and this company, "Peloton", has tried to trademark it. They've spent a not inconsiderable amount of time and money threatening bloggers using it in it's true meaning.
I'm very solidly in Peloton's target market. I have _zero_ interest in anything related to pro cycling, and to be honest near zero interest in cycling. I needed to lose weight, and it helps to have someone on the other side of the screen pushing me to kick my own ass. I like being able to look at my workout history and re-do past classes to see if I can push a little harder. We got one mid-pandemic, and thanks to it I'm likely to exit the pandemic at the lowest weight and in the best shape I've been in over the last ~20 years. Cost was not a factor in our decision-making process.
This. It’s kind of like putting together your own PC vs buying a prebuilt.
Not everyone is motivated enough to build it themselves if they have the means to buy a prebuilt.
Having said that, an exercise bike was sort of my gateway to hobby cycling and I ended up investing in a smart trainer and a used road bike. Once you set it up and find an app you prefer, you can’t go back. Just as you can’t go back to buying a prebuilt PC if you’ve built one in the past.
A little bit of research goes a long way, but some people would rather not and just focus on what’s important: getting fit. Setting up a smart trainer, although extremely simple, wasn’t obvious when I first got into it. I wasn’t sure which parts to choose and why.
> Just as you can’t go back to buying a prebuilt PC if you’ve built one in the past.
Eh, I think it depends on where your life takes you. Other than an IBM PC XT, I'm not sure we ever had a pre-built desktop PC in our home while I was growing up. Naturally I built all of my computers going off to school, but around ~2004 I made the jump to mostly Macs (and later Chrome devices) -- since then the closest I've come to building my own PC at home is buying an Intel NUC kit and outfitting it with an SSD and some RAM. That said, I think I get my fill of computer tinkering at work fiddling with BIOS and other firmware SPIs, PCIe cabling, bad QSFP optics, and even the odd trivial PCB rework :)
On the other hand, while I don't see it as likely I'll get into biking, I own enough sets of skis to call it a quiver, yet I'm still actively debating which new kit to pick up for next season.
Peloton is a great solution to 90% of the market. 90% of the market just wants simple exercise classes with energetic instructors.
An actual indoor peloton simulation, with drafting is definitely superior on Zwift. 90% of people don't want this - the target market is very small and doesn't make sense. This is fine! Leaves room for smaller players.
considering zwift has over 2.5 million users, and a billion dollar valuation, I think the market is larger than you think. I personally know dozens of people who use zwift nearly everyday (although my friend groups skews heavily towards cyclists/fitness enthusiasts)
"We're not [publishing MAU numbers], but I can tell you a couple of tidbits. We've had over 3 million accounts created on the platform. We recently peaked around, I think 45,000 simultaneous users, but hundreds of thousands of customers are using Zwift on a daily basis."
So they definitely don't have 2.5 million users. Maybe they'll get there though!
If we want to compare market caps, Peloton has a 35 billion market cap to zwift's 1 billion. Also, to counter your anecdata, I live in Texas and no zero people that use zwift, but many that use a peloton.
>"I live in Texas and no zero people that use zwift"
This is simply not true. Perhaps you do not know those people but there are plenty of Texans using Zwift.
As for market cap - I own and use many old things. As long as they work why would I give a flying fuck about market cap of the companies that had made those. They might not even be (like my treadmill) in business anymore.
I do use bike trainer in winter but could care less about classes like Peloton or Zwift (their graphics is utterly boring to me). I mostly use cycling applications that show actual real road videos.
I have a friend with a $1200 smart trainer setup and he rides his Peloton 4x/week. The bike is way smoother and quieter than a Wahoo and he finds the coached workouts more motivating than riding in a CGI countryside.
Especially in the time of COVID and many more people working from home, the huge difference in volume between a magnetic resistance spin bike vs a bike on a trainer cannot be overstated.
I know a couple people with Pelotons, and am sure it's the best option for them. They're not technical at all, and one of them doesn't know how to ride a regular bike. They just want something that's good quality that they can plug into an outlet, get a decent workout on, and sometimes join classes or watch videos while riding. IMO, that's exactly who Peloton is geared towards.
I think smart trainer with Zwift + classes would be a perfect combo. Trying not to get dropped is damn fun.
Personally I need outside time be it running or riding a bike. And I don’t care to train at home for improving my performance. Still a good enough simulation with a good coach and I might bite
I didn't think so, but you could very well be right.
That being said... /Peloton/Apple/s and I feel the point still stands. It's a weird feature of IP law that either Apple or Peloton deciding that they don't like each other means X hundreds or thousands of users just have their products that they've already bought suddenly get worse overnight.
I think at some point we should ask whether that's a consequence of IP that's desirable for the market and/or for users.
The proprietary nature of Peloton is a big reason why I didn't get one -- if you want any fitness tracking at all, you have to pay their $39/month fee. Plus I didn't want a bike with a big expensive display that's going to need to be replaced some day.
I went with Keiser, which I pair with my Garmin watch for tracking.
But Peloton still gets some money from me since I use their $14.99/mo (edit: the app is $12.99/mo, with tax I pay $14.30) standalone app for workouts.
I got a Keiser, too, mostly because the Peloton wasn’t available for like 10 months when I wanted one, but also for the money the Keiser is a much higher quality bike plus you have the flexibility of using Zwift or other apps. I currently use the Peloton app for 100% of my rides, but I hate the idea of spending $2500+ for a piece of equipment that I’ll probably never replace and being locked into their ecosystem and not having any choice (it’s not an iPhone that I’m going to replace every two years because it has better and better features- it’s a stationary bike). I suspect they recognize that the TAM for bikes is pretty well saturated and need to look elsewhere for opportunities.
I have a Fitbit because all I wanted was a fitness tracker, not a fully functional smart watch, but the ability to use it for my workouts is important. But it does a decent enough job of tracking effort just based on heart rate without knowing every detail of resistance, cadence, etc.
No graphical screen, just an LCD bike computer with basic information.
I used to use an old iPad to watch Peloton classes, but now I have a Roku for the TV, so I run the Peloton app on the Roku so I can watch the class on the big screen.
Yep in the exact same boat as you. Went with the M3i and pair it with the Peloton standalone app for classes. Have been meaning to try out Zwift but I've started running more due to the nicer weather. Eventually!
Many of my friends went with the Peloton and swear by it. If you're fine being platform-locked for $39/mo it's a great option. The bike is quality, the classes are amazing, and the peer competition is motivating. All that wasn't for me though.
The problem for me wasn't just the $39/mo, that's still mildly affordable, but figured if Peloton raises the fee, there's not much I can do about it since I'm locked in.
Since I use the standalone Peloton app with my Keiser, if Peloton raises their fee I can easily switch to another one.
I would venture to guess that most people buying a Peloton are not doing it for the data tracking. They are buying one because it is a really nice spin bike paired with daily live classes across multiple sports that then go into a massive content library that you can stream on demand. You certainly pay a premium for the whole thing to be tightly integrated ("it just works") but that is clearly worth it to a huge number of people.
Anyone that already likes spin classes wants one of these bikes. And compared to what you would pay to go to a live class at a spin studio the $40 a month is a drop in the bucket. The fact that both you and your spouse or roommate can use the same subscription with separate accounts further stacks the financials in Peloton's direction. The fact that you can hop on the thing whenever you want from the comfort of your home is another huge plus.
The bike won't last forever, but its not like the screen is going to "age out" at any point. And if the whole thing somehow completely dies in 3 years it will still have been a fine investment relative to the alternatives. Certainly you can ride for cheaper but nothing else comes close to the experience for the money.
It's not a rental fee for the device, it's a subscription fee for the content that can be used on it. You can still use the bike as a plain exercise bike without a subscription.
It's the same thing as buying a Roku and paying for Netflix.
It's the same thing as buying a Roku and paying for Netflix.
Seems more like buying an expensive Netflix player, which will only show photo albums from an SD card unless you subscribe to Netflix.
Or, buying a Peloton bike is more like buying a Roku to watch movies and then having to pay for a Roku subscription or it's useless because it doesn't work with Netflix.
Although Peloton charge $40/mo if you bought their bike, or $15/mo if you use your own bike. $15/mo is in line with competitor prices for similar services. So it really seems like the extra $25/mo is “vendor lock-in” premium.
There are features gated to the Peloton bike which gives a downside to the bring-your-own-bike route and muddies the waters somewhat. If the Peloton app supported ERG mode with full interactivity, I’d probably be willing to pay $25/mo, because it is a really high quality service.
I do the same, but with an Echelon. There's really no comparison to the Peloton class experience imo- The Echelon class production quality is not good and the music leaves a lot to be desired.
The article speculates that Peleton might be planning on launching their own smartwatch. That doesn't sound like anything that could possibly end well.
With fitness trackers people ultimately care about how well the tracking data syncs with third party systems. Given that the Apple Watch is a fashion/status symbol that also happens to have a highly accurate fitness tracker in it as well I suspect people will be more willing to drop their Peloton than drop their Apple Watch so I hope Peloton knows what they are doing.
I’ve used a number of smart watches and the Apple one honestly just works better. Android wearables have just not advanced at all since they first came out.
I've played with and it is highly accurate and I like that it keeps the data "on the device" and doesn't send it to any 3rd party server. To query the data you actually need an iOS app running on the device. You can look at your data offline too when you're on a mountain with no cell service.
However this kills half their market because of people like me who are invested in the Android eco-system so much that having an iPhone is a non-starter.
The Galaxy watches from Samsung are equivalent though and I'd say about the same accuracy for things like step count, calories, distance.
Being able to sync different devices into one place is key. How do you get an overall view of fitness and health when information gets siloed into different applications/services. If you don't have a central datastore that they can all send info to, then you're forced to stay within a single ecosystem. Which sucks if you like different products from different companies and becomes impossible when you want equipment that the ecosystem you're stuck in doesn't even offer.
This is why I joined a gym. The cost of one of these fancy home bikes will pay for several years of membership (edit: if Peloton costs $39/mo for services, that alone will almost completely pay for my membership indefinitely), and I don't have to worry about maintaining equipment or having it take up space in my living room. I have access to not only stationary bikes but also treadmills, rowing machines, and all manner of strength training machines and free weights. There's also a sauna which I don't have at home either.
And if I lose motivation and stop, I just cancel the membership. I don't have to dispose of equipment or have it sitting around reminding me of my failure.
But the Peloton people are more fanatical than the Apple people, especially lately after years of missteps and apple products no longer "just" working.
Also there are people who workout who use Android phones.
What he's saying is Peloton's market share and brand awareness is minuscule compared to Apple's. It's not about fanaticism. A minuscule market inhibits manufacturing savings at scale. They may be better off working with already-established players such as Apple and Fitbit. Creating their own fitness tracking market is going to be a tough slog.
With the ridiculous cost of the bikes and all their other workout equipment, I think they're probably correct in thinking their customers aren't the most price conscious
The bike price isn't that ridiculous for a quality spinning bike. I paid nearly as much for my Keiser bike. It's the $39/month fee that's expensive... That's almost $500/yr.
That $39/month permits several users and access to a lot of fitness classes beyond just the bike. If you've ever hired a personal trainer at a gym or paid for gym classes, you've almost certainly spent more than $39/month, and certainly more than that if it wasn't just for you.
If you just use it for the cycling classes and for yourself, it's probably not a great deal (financially). But if you also do the HIIT, running, yoga, strength, etc. classes and you (like many people) are a bit more consistent with a coach (even a virtual one) than working out by yourself, it can be worth it.
I pay $14.99 for the standalone Peloton app, which also lets me do all of of those classes. And if Peloton raises the price of that app to where I think it's too expensive, I can move to another one without losing all of my fitness tracking history since I track that with my Garmin watch.
You make an excellent point. It enables them to create a "workout platform" where all their products interface directly with their fitness tracker. Their customers presumably wouldn't mind wearing a separate Peloton fitness tracker while working out whereupon they could then upload their data to their phone if they so desire. Then they can move all the multi-device interaction complexity to a single product line, the fitness tracker, and the reset of their portfolio only needs to interact with a single product - the fitness tracker. This actually makes a lot of sense.
Its certainly a certain set of people who are most familiar with them - but that's not a "valley" vs "outside the valley" thing.
> Peloton was popular before the pandemic with a wealthy subset of home exercisers, but with the quarantine, it has become something of a phenomenon in a certain socioeconomic bracket. There are Peloton message boards (“Joe Biden has a Peloton,” Peloton Forum reported this week), and the company’s celebrity instructors have huge followings on Facebook and Instagram.
The article indicated that people were buying Apple watches specifically for use with Peloton, so there does seem to be at least some market there. By disabling Apple Watch, those people won’t have an alternative option.
If I bought a product for a specific feature and that company then removes that feature, I would absolutely not want to buy their new product - out of spite, in part, but it also just seems like an unwise investment
I’ll go one further: I ordered the plus version of the bike, and the sales guy spent a good 50% of the upswell from the regular bike explaining about the Apple Watch support. I’ll be cancelling the order (before it’s even been delivered) now, and probably never considering another product from them.
I don’t know about the US, but in Germany taking away a key feature from people who paid for said feature without compensation is enough for a big lawsuit.
I wonder if this is less to do Apple watch and more to do with Apple's Fitness+. It is a cheap alternative to Peloton with nice happy people and high production quality. Likely not as good as Peloton, but will squeeze out a lot of the more casual users. From a later comment on going to war with Apple it doesn't seem to be a good strategy. The games of hardware compatibility are frustrating and limiting to the whole industry. But monopolies don't seem to do much better either.
Orange Fitness has a smart watch that you only wear when exercising, and seems to have been thriving with it prior to the pandemic. Apparently it zero-interaction authenticates you to their gym equipment, which is a great user experience. Peloton cult folks might wear branded apparel and the watch beyond exercising, but everyday folks would no doubt wear the Peloton watch while exercising and then take it off afterwards, same as Orange.
If true, an interesting move; failing to account for the possibility of the iPad dominating the tablet market essentially sunk Peloton President William Lynch's run at Barnes & Noble when they invested too heavily in the production of first party Nook tablets. Those Nook tablets were actually a great product, far superior to the Fire tablets Amazon was eventually able to muscle in to their own niche, but it didn't ultimately mean that much in the face of Apple's domination.
I'm a dissatisfied apple watch owner. The battery is basically gone after a year and a half, and while some of the first party apps are cool, third party apps underperform with only a specter of the feature sets they have on other devices - likely due to constraints with the hardware and software. Syncing music is a absolute travesty taking 4+ hours to sync even a modest catalogue. The official debugging forums are themselves an 8th circle of hell.
It does not feel like Apple cares enough about the watch relative to its other businesses. If they did they wouldn't have shipped a device that should probably be in beta.
If I was a partner firm I would not invest significantly in the watch platform. Maybe in a 4+ years, but I really doubt it.
The point of syncing is that you leave it overnight. It’s simply not designed for syncing while you wait. The settings app makes this clear too. Moreover, how often are you syncing a totally different musical catalog to your watch? It sounds like you have a nonstandard use case (needing instant syncing of large amounts of music regularly) that Apple intentionally did not design for. I imagine most people leave the default settings to sync recent and frequent music, or pick a few playlists and leave it at that.
I stream my music collection from the internet on my watch and it’s instant. I don’t know why you are trying to follow a pattern from 1995 and wondering why we don’t do that anymore.
One of the selling points of the Apple Watch is being able to use it (though not own it since it needs an iPhone at some point) in isolation. Having to stream content isn't always an option or isn't the best option. I use mine on my runs, but it has no cellular data of its own so I downloaded music and audiobooks to it. Even if it did have cellular data, streaming the music would drain the battery even faster since I'd be using every capability: health stat monitoring, bluetooth, GPS, and cellular data.
A lot of snark for someone who's trying to use what many considered a core scenario of the non-cellular Apple Watch... listening to music without your phone. Even my iPod from 2003 synced music more reliably than an Apple Watch. It's definitely one of the most frustrating experience with an Apple product I've had.
If Apple didn't expect users to use this feature then they shouldn't have released it (or advertised it at WWDC no less) in the first place. It's like selling a manual transmission car with a broken clutch and then complaining that nobody uses clutches anymore, who cares if the clutch is broken?
Not everyone is like you. I do not stream my music. My phone does not even have mobile data plan. I have hard copy. Since my phone has high capacity SD card all my music fits though. I just play it on random using foobar2000.
> I do not stream my music. My phone does not even have mobile data plan. I have hard copy. Since my phone has high capacity SD card all my music fits though. I just play it on random using foobar2000.
...though sounds like probably more people are like birdyrooster than like you.
Okay this was too snarky and if I could flag my own post I would. I need to be more thoughtful about what I post. Sorry to people who sync their music.
Been playing Rome: Total War for the past few days. It going me thinking that empire just can’t stop expanding. You conquer one province, thinking that barbarian neighbor won’t be a problem ever again. But then you realize your empire now borders some other barbarians who start harassing you. And then you need more troops to keep the new citizens from rioting. Which requires money, which means the drums of war are at it again...
You’re identifying a deficiency of imperial systems. They were one of the only ways to get growth in our close to zero sum past. In a world with a growing global economy, on the other hand, warring and imperialism are self-defeating long run strategies.
Objectively, no. They don't. You can't capture the intangible capital of a country through invasion. The greater the ratio of intangible capital (skills, trust, institutions, et cetera) to tangible capital, the less effective classical empires become.
Resource-rich countries, on the other hand, are still subject to imperial dynamics.
One, there is more in the universe than this earth. And two, the resource intensity of GDP growth is falling. (A new iPhone is more capable than its predecessors without requiring comparatively more resources. And a web comic can create millions in value with comparatively little burn.)
There are less violent forces behind expansion. Shareholders prefer to invest in companies that are growing. Employees want to work in organizations where they can be promoted.
Absolutely. But it doesn't look like they are any good at it, considering how the Apple Watch totally didn't eat the market of incumbents like Garmin at all (Garmin is almost drowning in money now that the Apple Watch has made it socially acceptable to spend high sums on wrist gadgets). The Apple watch excels in engineering, but the software environment is so focused on mainstream appeal that almost everybody has some niche interest that isn't served there at all. And those niches are tight: one might think for example that Garmin and Peloton are direct competitors in the field of home indoor workout bikes (Garmin via the Tacx Neo Bike) but in reality those serve very different markets with almost zero overlap. Apple misses all those niches because they are not only committed to ignoring niche features but also exert too much control on the walls of their garden that third parties won't rely on them as a platform.
No one claimed Apple stopped making computers, so you're attacking a straw man here. All that was pointed out is that there is no Apple Computer (note the capitalization) company anymore, as it was renamed to Apple Inc. in 2007.
I interpreted "OP" as mentioning "Apple Computer" for emphasis, as in they are a computer company, not a fitness company.
This was a flawed comment because the premise was incorrect - they stopped being "Apple Computer" a long time ago.
Yes, Apple makes computers like macs and iphones and watches. A huge part of their "watch computer" is fitness, and they have an on-demand fitness video service to accompany that.
That was my point: both of these companies have expanded well beyond their initial purpose and now overlap. If you look at their origins, there is no overlap at all.
Yes, sort of...
Apple Fitness is fitness videos, using the Apple Watch to track HR and other stats, with Apple's Health app used to view info later.
Peloton does the same, but also has bike hardware as the foundation of their experience.
If Peloton releases a fitness watch, then in addition to competing on fitness videos, they begin competing on the watch. At that point, Peloton's only unique offering (WRT Apple) is the bike.
Peloton also have a much cheaper (than the bike/tread membership) video-only product for strength training/HIIT/yoga etc. which is pretty directly competing with Apple Fitness. It's a similar price, though they do still differentiate by having live classes and instructor overlap with the bike/tread side.
It feels more likely that Apple disallowed their other classes (since Apple has their own offering) than Peloton decided to disable some tracking, but not all tracking.
Doesn't Peloton still have ANT+? Plus a lot of other gym equipment uses ANT+ too, I can't understand why the apple watch doesn't have this functionality.
This is why I bought a Wahoo Kickr. Mostly open platform, I can use it with whatever apps I want (Zwift, TrainerRoad, etc). And at a fraction of the cost.
Any suggestion for someone interested in the same stuff (Zwift, open platforms, etc), but who doesn't have a dedicated bike to hook up with a Wahoo Kickr? The Concept 2 Bikeerg[0] had my eye.
I don't know anything about the BikeErg. But, I do own a CII rower. The rower's data goes through CII's servers, then synced from there to Strava (or wherever else). No direct integrations (though I think the signal is open, just nobody has built an app apart from CII).
My recommendation, if you're a cyclist, would be a Wahoo Kickr Snap (wheel drive). Easy to mount the bike, wheels stay on, so easy to pull off when you ride outside. Then use whatever app you want (Wahoo's own, if you want basic stuff; Zwift if you want the social stuff and racing; TrainerRoad if you want straight up training programs with no fluff).
The Wahoo and Stages bikes both look really nice, but they're mega-$$$$ (more than the Peloton, IIRC).
They do have lots of integrations with other platforms so you can get at the data via what those platforms expose, but do you have a way to get at your data without going through a 3rd-party? I don't think Wahoo have their own public API yet, still.
I don't think the data goes to Wahoo at all. I'm not running their app (other than firmware updates) - the trainer's BT+ signal is picked up directly by the iPad/Zwift. That's the big difference - Peloton uses a proprietary signal, so nobody other apps can use it.
Maybe a fraction of the money, but you still pay for that cost elsewhere, mainly in terms of convenience. Of course with something so integrated like Peloton, you pay in lack of extensibility.
Not really. A Wahoo KICKR costs WAY WAY less than a Peloton. The KICKR Snap is even lower. The hardware itself has no subscription fee. They integrate with the training platform or platforms of your choice.
And the integration is super solid. You pretty much just turn on the trainer, and open up (eg) Zwift on your iPad, and you're off to the races.
Source: I am a serious cyclist, and use these things 3-4 times a week.
Well, you've got to pay for a bike as well, because the kikr doesn't come with it. Or use the same bike you're using outside for normal riding and faff around with mounting it each time you want to use it.
What I'm saying is that Peloton is a whole integrated experience which has, in some regards, more conveniences. Some people value that.
If all you want to do is ride inside, you can get an entry-level aluminum road bike for $900 new, or about half that used. The upgrades you get on nicer bikes are things that don't tend to show up for inside riding.
The entry level KIKR is $500. So, yeah, still WAY cheaper than Peloton, even with an entry-level bike, which was the original point.
As for mounting, the entry-level models are actually EASIER to deal with for this than the nicer ones. The higher-end KICKRs are "wheel-off" trainers that mount directly to the bike and have their own rear cassette. This is better for lots of reasons (stability, power accuracy, plus no need for a "trainer tire"), but mounting is more of a chore because you have to deal with the chain.
The lower end models are "wheel-on" trainers that have a resistance wheel that you spin with the real bike wheel. Mounting is a sub-1-minute operation. Most serious outdoor riders even up just keeping an older bike on their trainers, sure, and I mostly do that, but my wife also uses our KICKR, so there's still swapping to do. It's really no big deal. I expect it's only slightly more difficult than changing the adjustments on a Peloton between riders, to be honest.
...but my wife also uses our KICKR, so there's still swapping to do...
We did that for about a month. Then bought a second KICKR. We leave out cyclocross bikes mounted. I'll swap my road bike on over winter because the taller gearing is needed for Zwift racing.
Are you using a wheel-on or wheel-off version? BC I'd have to do the swap many, many times to justify buying another trainer in terms of either floor space (urban living, yo) or dollars.
One of each. Mine is a Kickr, wife's is a Kickr Snap. It is nice to ride at the same time.
It does take up significant room - our basement family room is more than half exercise equipment (2 trainers, 1 Concept II rower). The remaining space is barely enough for sofa, TV on a sideboard, and a bookshelf (which is half full of bike helmets and related gear).
In therms of dollars, yeah, it's pricey, but compared to gym memberships (now all cancelled), or the bikes themselves, it's pocket change.
The space is the bigger issue for us. If we lived in a typical suburban house with a basement, yeah, it'd be easy to do two. I have a friend here who lives in a much bigger home -- he's wealthy; former oil co. CIO -- who has a "dual KICKR" setup for him and his wife that includes custom built (by him) cabinetry and air bladders underneath that can be pumped up or relaxed to provide more realistic on-bike motion. Each is paired to its own computer for Zwift with a dedicated display.
It's also very, very obvious that he is a wealthy former engineer. In a charming and nerdy way.
the other "cost" is also figuring all that out. doing research, knowing your options, etc.
I was looking a lot at all this, as I was pretty keen on Zwift, and then i finally just threw my hands up, realised i couldn't be bothered, and just bought a peloton.
Curious, what part of Zwift did you find confusing?
The set-up is dead simple. You need a stationary bike of some sort, usually with some sort of BT speed or power sensor. Pair that to pretty much any standard tablet or laptop, run the Zwift software, and off you go.
Slightly less "auto-magic" than Peloton, but nothing particularly confusing either.
$900 for the Kickr direct-drive trainer (plus the cost of a bicycle, if you don't own one)
And then $15/month for Zwift.
Peloton is $2500 (if you want auto-resistance). And then a $40/month subscription. And if Peloton folds, or changes their mind on services, or obsoletes the device you purchased, you're SOL.
I have my Kickr set up in the basement. It's no less convenient than a Peloton - it's there all the time, and I run Zwift through an iPad (but it will run on a laptop, Apple TV, Android phone, etc).
Why doesn't Apple just buy Peloton and add it to the vast network of Apple products that they can slowly kill and release a better version like they did with Beats?
My theory is that Apple isn't that into low-differentiation devices that aren't directly related to their core businesses. Beats were on the forefront of wireless headphones, which ties nicely into iTunes/etc. While Apple is super into fitness now (because of the watch, as well as the Peloton-style recurring revenue subscription market) the Peloton stuff isn't really groundbreaking hardware: it's an unremarkable bike with an unremarkable display bolted on to it, with an unremarkable app that runs on it, and a remarkable marketing/astroturfing campaign to drive the wheel.
The hardware brand itself isn't that valuable, IMO. Perhaps the subscription revenue is, but Apple doesn't need Peloton's undifferentiated bike or brand name to participate in that market, and has world-class marketers of their own.
Apple probably won't make exercise hardware unless they can make exercise hardware vastly better than what is presently available. Peloton is not that.
How hard it is to connect even the first generation bike to a watch or heart rate monitor is ridiculous to the point that I’ve never figured it out. It seems confirmed impossible with an Apple Watch; supposedly it’s possible with other brands but was prohibitively difficult with my Garmin.
Agree that this is short sighted and a game they can’t win. My watch works perfectly fine for me without being connected to the bike; they lose for not ingesting my heart rate data.
I find the video amusing as the dude calls it the "annoying toy tactic". aka when parents conveniently "lose" a very annoying toy a child might have.
However the correct term for this, I think, is "bait and switch". When you buy a tech product and it has a feature that is arbitrarily taken away from you. Frankly it should be illegal. Lots of companies have done this and will continue to do it until they can't.
Wow! I just ordered the Bike+, coming May 22nd. A big reason was the Apple Watch integration. I might just get the bike (cheaper and can get in a week) or cancel the entire order.
sorry website servers were overloaded at Connect The Watts. It should be back up soon. In the meantime, you can find a video version of the article here: https://youtu.be/858l-fBoZN0
Or, they may be watching what Apple is doing and seeing that working off of the Apple platform puts them at risk somehow. IOW, because of Apple's reputation they may be looking to hedge against a possible change in terms.
That may have influenced their decision to market their own watch as well.
I am guessing you mean the popularity of Apple Watch as a developer platform, which is totally correct. In fact, it might be the first platform where developers said “sorry Apple, we aren’t interested in making you more money.”
Most development around the apple watch caters to using the data somehow rather than actively running code on the watch. Even if all you're doing is number crunching you're ultimately creating demand for the device.
I don't typically see many good use cases for running your own apps on the watch but there's many medical/fitness applications for the data itself.
Developers always want to “build relationships with Apple” by implementing the silliest ports of their existing apps for new devices: Apple Watch, Apple TV.
I think the developers actually said "people keep either not installing or uninstalling watch apps that don't make sense to be on a watch so there is no point"
My watch only has a few apps outside of fitness and alerting, everything else gets deleted. I found Audible and podcasting apps useful.
Speaking as a Day 1 Apple Watch owner, not as a watchOS developer.
I think the first generation of Apple Watches were woefully underpowered for what they pitched as a development platform. The resources were very limited. Developers had to nail optimizations, and that was a shock in today's world where too many developers just npm install or pip3 install their problems away. It's very telling that early on, despite having a ton of apps, the fastest, most stable ones were the included ones by Apple and Google Maps.
The result were a ton of slow, crashy apps with poor connection reliability. Users, myself included, got pissed, blamed the apps, and developers just said this wasn't worth it.
I took it seriously at first. Anecdotally, I see them being worn much less by my peers than 2-3 years ago. Cool/newness factor died, IMO. Then I looked at stats:
> Apple shipped 7.6 million smartwatches worldwide in the first quarter of 2020, according to recent data from Strategy Analytics, an increase of 23% compared to 6.2 million in the first quarter of 2019. As such, Apple now claims 55% of the smartwatch market, representing a slight increase from the 54% it controlled in the same period one year ago, according to the research firm. [0]
While the coolness factor has gone down (anecdotally, I've gone back to wearing a nice watch when out on date or something; or I would if going out was still a thing) people are still using the Apple watch for everything else.
I've had both a Polar and Garmin watch and neither were close to my Apple 3 for GPS accuracy or heart rate. My wife has a 2020 Garmin and we stand around waiting for her watch to get all of it's "bars"
I traded out my Apple Watch for the Garmin Forerunner 245 (2019), and couldn't be happier. The newer Apple Watches may have improved on these since I had an Apple Watch 3.
* The 245 locks GPS really, really fast. I never have to wait for it. Much, much faster than my older 630. The Apple Watch doesn't even tell you if it has locked a signal. I think it would lock fast if I had my phone with me, since it would use the phone's GPS to save watch battery, but I think it would be confused if I left my phone in the house while stepping out the front door for a run.
* The 245 has physical buttons that reliably work with sweaty fingers in the summer and with gloves in the winter. So many times I couldn't stop a workout on the Apple Watch because of the swipe needed.
* Display is always on, no need to raise my arm directly in front of my face to turn it on. Too many times I had to raise or twist my arm multiple times to see my pace with Apple.
The Apple Watch battery life whilst using GPS is something like 5 or 6 hours, right? I don't know about a 245 but my Garmin watch does double that normally, and over a day in the less accurate ultratrac mode. And yes, I have required more than 5 hours on a few occasions. 5 hours is probably enough for most people most of the time but it's lacking compared to what a real sports watch can do and I personally wouldn't pay top money for Apple's half-arsed version.
Oh man, yeah, the sweat thing is painful. I don't know why they can't have the buttons work in "water mode". I sweat a lot in the summer and run in the rain ...
