Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Apple Fitness+ (apple.com)
254 points by tosh 11 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 347 comments





I like the idea of Apple Fitness+. That it provides an integrated experience with the watch and another device (iPhone/iPad/Apple TV) is exactly what I’ve been waiting for all these years!

No need to create yet another online account on a service that may share (or sell or probably lose) my workout and health information. The workout recommendations are computed on-device, and the data stays on the devices (health data is encrypted before storing on iCloud or in iTunes/Finder backups on the Mac). This is how private I prefer it to be.

The casual fitness market (for lack of a better term) is really huge. With Apple Watch SE and the standalone yearly price (covering family members) which seems like a great deal, this is just the beginning of another growth area for Apple. If Apple combines fitness with fun, like Wii Fit or Ring Fit Adventure, that’ll be the biggest worldwide fitness service ever.

I can’t wait to try this out.


I would prefer the market be more diverse.

I spend a fair amount of time on fitness and haven't found any tracking app that floats my boat -- Apple's being especially awful from a UX perspective in my opinion -- and I'd really like to think that if I come up with a better idea, I won't have to subsidize Tim Cook's latest vertical takeover with 30% of my indie revenue, or worse: my customers' indie revenue.

At the risk of veering off topic, I think Apple is making a huge mistake trying to capture as much app-related revenue as possible. Passionate developers are a big part of what enables their industry-leading margins on all that shiny hardware. 30% is fair, or at least "normal," for some things, but trying to get it from my personal trainer is beyond the pale.


> Passionate developers are a big part of what enables their industry-leading margins on all that shiny hardware.

Apple needs developers far less now than it did ten or fifteen years ago. They have been very successful at commoditising 3rd party software.


> Apple's being especially awful from a UX perspective in my opinion

Well it’s a minimum baseline kind of thing: I use a specific app for skiing and biking but for my needs it’s just fine for hiking, running, IIT. Some others may want specialized apps for those — great! But my needs there are pretty trivial, and actually t acted as the “gateway drug” for me to buy the specialized apps I did.


Agreed. Going for popular third party apps like that can and probably has to lead to developers avoiding their platforms. It looks very uncompetitive.

Your personal trainer doesn't have to pay a 30% cut to Apple.

Are you sure?

Say I make a training platform that does some interaction (one-to-many as is quite typical of training) and also handles the payments as well as tracking etc.

As I understand the rules "I" will have to give 30% to Apple in that case, but if my business model is fine with say 5%, won't she (the trainer) effectively pay the rest?

https://marco.org/2020/09/11/app-review-changes


How much of a cut do they give to the gym?

At my gym, nothing, but that’s probably not typical.

The Peloton app already does this (you don’t need their fitness machines). Their digital team is pretty great.

I disagree.

YET ANOTHER feature that is linked to ONE SINGLE account. If apple decides to block your account, everything is gone. This happened some time ago to my microsoft account - everything gone. And why? Because I have uploaded (automatically) a nude picture of my gf to their cloud, it was detected by their algorithm and my account was locked.

I had to communicate with microsoft by a PAPER LETTER(!) to understand WHY my account was locked in the first place and that they would not care to unlock it.

This happened 3 years ago. Their policy might differ today regarding nude content. But for me it was a shock and a lesson.


Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.


Are nude photos not permitted on iCloud? With the ubiquity of iPhones, it's difficult to believe iCloud isn't filled with nude photos.

They are permitted. My girlfriend and I are often long distance and we share an album. I didn’t know Microsoft had such bogus restrictions.

The anecdotal evidence is helpful, but it doesn't fully answer the question that GP really wanted answered: Is it Apple's policy to allow nude photos in iCloud?

Apple is known to start enforcing broad rules in new ways without notice. Unless they've made a positive statement confirming that such photos are allowed (I don't know, seems unlikely), I would assume that it's possible for Apple to turn on a nudity classification ML on everyone's photos tomorrow and ban anyone that matches just like Microsoft. I also think that Apple seems to respect user privacy / rights better than Microsoft (though not so much developers). So you might say it's unlikely, but my point is that it's possible; act accordingly. Is it your personal account and you have a backup and you don't think the risk is worth the hassle? Sure, do whatever you want. But is this Apple account even associated with the developer account of an app that makes your living? I would think twice.


Can you describe this procedure more?

For example, did you use the same album each time? Did you both uploaded to the album or only her or you? Did you keep the previous photos in the album? How'd you feel seeing yourself in the album?

Curious as I've never heard anyone shading albums ... Makes sense of course.


Don't you remember when all those nude celebrity iCloud photos got leaked?


Ah yes, those pesky Microsoft-Apple™ cloud guidelines.

It can be really tough to see beyond one's own isolated experience, but you are expressing something analogous to a refusal to fly on any airline because one airline lost your ticket. Whilst there's certainly a risk of your ticket being lost, as you found, for 99.99% of people tickets work just fine and are never lost.

It’s also a pain for shared resources, e.g. Apple TV

Was your girlfriend of age?

To the best of my knowledge the only thing Microsoft searches for and actions in user uploaded files is content that hits against PhotoDNA. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/photodna


From what I understand, PhotoDNA is used to recognize _known_ images of child exploitation. It will never recognize any pictures a user takes themselves, even if they show child exploitation, unless that photo’s hash makes it into Microsoft’s database.

We don't know the parent posters exact relationship status. It could have been an online catfish and the person on the other end sent photos of a minor they found online.

Does it matter? As a parent I might upload a private nude picture of my kids which is perfectly fine.

[flagged]


Depends on your relationship with cloud storage:

10-20 years ago it was pretty normal to keep and show off nude photos of your kids. I've seen plenty of nude photos of my friends from "a heatwave in the garden + paddling pool" when they were a toddler.

There's nothing sexual or nude about it unless you want to make it that way. For 99.x% percent of us, having one of two genders is as universal as it comes...


Every parent I know (and I'm 28) has photos of their kids running around doing generic kid things while nude, or making weird faces while playing in the bathtub.

The practice finding its way into the modern cloud is completely unsurprising.


It is no longer private if you upload it to cloud.

My gf is 29.

pretty personal question there bud!

let me point out that PhotoDNA can't check a woman's drivers license, and getting shut out of your account because you love an A cup is pretty dismal stuff.


photodna compares to hashes so this is a weird take.

One word: Woz

Two words: Pear Shaped

(Young/foreign moderators won’t get it and downvote..it’s like a double entendre do love this site.)


I put the note in about being downvoted before I tapped Submit for the first time. It was a backhanded insult against Hacker News —whatever it is, it isn’t about hackers...more like people who dream about being hackers..or guys making too much money bein’ told they’re hackers (and trying to wear size 14 shoes to watch the Warriors roflmao)

Hey at least they’re physically fit!


i just watched the fitness+ segment. it was so targeted at upper/upper-middle class (white) people, it wasn't even funny (despite, as always, featuring a fair diversity of people). most americans simply don't have the time and mental space to carve out big chunks of time (not to mention living space) to devote $10/mo and a commitment to multiple apple devices that it requires. it's myopic, to say the least.

even though i like and almost exclusively use apple computing devices, i feel apple has jumped the shark as a lifestyle brand. the whole thing feels so fake and overproduced (reiterating this, as it's not the first time feeling this way). the tech and products are still interesting; the marketing and the branding are increasingly not.

fitness+ was a definite turn-off for me.


Who else than the upper-middle class do you think is going to be using a group workout subscription service on their iPhone/watch?

And, more interestingly, what would that ad look like?

"Ugh, appealing broadly to most Americans is so lame, we should inject some 'inclusive' racial/class flavor!" sounds like the utterance that birthed every cringey ad of the last 10 years.


yes, it was cringey not only for that reason but also for its tone-deafness.

the dissonance comes from a company who's strategy has clearly shifted downmarket and into lower-price services since the peaking of iphone sales in 2015 but is composed of an overwhelming majority of decision makers and marketers too far removed from anything less than an upper(-middle) class existence. they're trying to sell a lifestyle they firmly believe is desirably luxurious to a broad group largely composed of people with starkly different lives and challenges (in a year that's clearly made those differences more readily apparent to all). they slap on a layer of feel-good, socially-conscious color over a monotonous, lululemoned lifestyle to push a decidedly limited-appeal product, and they can't even see the mismatch or disingenuousness of it.

you see the same blindered strategic mistake with news+, icloud, and even tv+, whereas apple music (which, along with ipod, saved apple from irrelevance) actually cut across class and race and appealed to a broad and diverse customer base, and without trying so hard to sell us on it.

besides the interesting socioeconomic angle, fitness+ is a clear indication that apple is losing touch with customers, a dangerous sign for their future.


Are people not allowed to make products aimed at upper/upper middle class people? Why would that have been anywhere near funny? Why is a luxury brand targeting those with discretionary income short sighted?

Apple is a luxury brand. The fact they have such a market share is an aberration not the norm. The ex-ceo of Burberry works at Apple. They are for rich folks, 1500 for a phone remember!

Their incredible success has been in convincing non-rich folks their product is worth stretching their finances to get a new one as often as they can.

Every product line is marketed as a luxury product. It’s not surprising that their services are also marketed in the same way.


> The ex-ceo of Burberry works at Apple.

If you're talking about Angela Ahrendts, she left last year.


The Apple Watch SE is $279—that’s not luxury level money.

If you think $300 for a watch, smart or not, isn't luxury level money, I think you really need to re-evaluate where "rich" starts and "most people" ends.

I watched it too and I failed to see how the whiteness of those people was relevant. I can understand how skin pigmentation may correlate with income in the US, but that’s an American problem not a property of the skin colour that Apple are not required to solve

I believe OP is talking about class, not race, and is making the same orthogonal observation as you that race is tied up in class to some extent. But tbh that makes it a strange point to my eye: Apple remains a luxury consumer goods and services manufacturer, it should not be a surprise that they target the upper/middle classes.

Pointing out that someone is white is about race and I don’t see why we should bring race into this.

Are Nike basketball sponsorship deals targeted at black people or are they targeted at the most successful and famous basketball players regardless of their skin pigmentation?


Some people have nothing interesting or valuable to say, they just always talk about race. Somehow everything becomes about race, even things which have nothing to do with race.

A few years ago I read an upsetting news story about a girl who was sexually abused for three years by her stepfather, up until the age of eleven or so. She was so traumatised by it that a lasting symptom was a fearful, hysterical reaction to sausage.

It was an upsetting, almost cartoonish detail in the story, but it might be helpful to you here. On a rational level she should not be afraid of sausage. But years of abuse meant that she was. It's sad, but understandable. It's just how trauma and conditioning work.

One doesn't need to be a victim of racism to empathise with the fact that it has a profound and traumatising impact on people. Maybe you know something about OP that I don't, but if you are right, and there's no reason for them to be talking about race in this instance, it's unlikely you'll persuade them with incredulity that they hold the point of view they do.


> Pointing out that someone is white is about race, and I don't see why we should bring race into this.

OP didn't point out that anyone was white, they pointed out that although Apple included a variety of races in the video, they believe that this is a service which will appeal to upper and upper middle class Americans, which means predominantly white Americans.

They are talking about class, and noting as an aside that they believe this service caters to a predominantly white audience as a consequence of catering to the upper and middle classes.

The point is inane because ultimately Apple sells luxury consumer goods which are affordable only to the upper and middle classes, and as you point out Apple rightly has no interest in fighting for equality through its new fitness service.

I agree with your point, I'm just saying that OP's point, whilst unintentionally clumsy, did not bring race into it in a meaningful way.


The point is inane because ultimately Apple sells luxury consumer goods which are affordable only to the upper and middle classes…

This is so not true.

As someone who works with students from families that are low-income, they have lots of Apple products.

If Apple is a luxury brand—which I disagree with—then it’s the most accessible luxury brand out there.

It certainly is a quality brand. There’s way too much focus on $1000+ flagship phones instead of items like the iPhone SE, which even low-income people can afford at $199 on contract.

The Apple Watch 3 is also $199. These devices are less expensive than a shirt or scarf in a Neman Marcus…


Lots of people who can't afford or can barely afford Louis Vuitton also have LV stuff. Low income families buying Apple products doesn't mean they're not luxury, it means they are aspirational.

Lots of people who can't afford or can barely afford Louis Vuitton also have LV stuff. Low income families buying Apple products doesn't mean they're not luxury, it means they are aspirational.

I disagree, but I understand this line of thinking, as it supports the false narrative that the iPhone is a luxury item like a Louis Vuitton bag and thus equally unattainable compared to the alternative.

You have it backwards.

A designer handbag is not a necessity; it's a nice to have. It's optional, especially a new one that costs $3,750.00 [1]. Owning such a bag shows you can blow nearly $4000 on a decorative item and not be concerned about how you're going to pay rent, buy groceries and all the rest. Many people aspire to be able to spend $4000 in a carefree manner.

Certainly we can agree that it's a luxury item.

A new iPhone SE is $399 ($16.66/month), well within the reach of many more people—that's before we get to a carrier discount, etc. A cell phone isn't a nice to have; it's pretty close to being a necessity for the majority of Americans. Interestingly enough, it would easily run circles around Android devices that cost twice as much.

Almost by definition, a luxury item is expensive for what it is. A luxury item is exclusive—you can't just get it anywhere or at anytime. You kinda have to know where to go to get such an item.

Apple has sold more than 1 billion iPhones and you can buy one at Walmart, Target, Best Buy and dozens of other retailers. You don't need to be part of an exclusive club to get one. Apple has 40-45% of the US smartphone market, making it pretty common.

Real luxury items have a tiny marketshare, usually in the single digits. Part of the allure is these items are not common.

High school kids from poor families bagging groceries after school have their own iPhones these days.

[1]: https://us.louisvuitton.com/eng-us/products/twist-mini-epi-n...


iPhones are still selling very well. The Apple Watch has been a massive success. People subscribe to various services. Apple identified that people owning a Watch for fitness reasons may also be interested in a fitness subscription integrated with their Watch. In a pandemic, the demand for such service may be higher. End of story.

I don't see what the problem is, honestly.


How do you know? Do you believe everything Apple tells you? Do you even know what type of encryption they are supposedly using in the cloud? What about when you login to your iCloud account, do you not think they can access your data if they wanted to?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Given Apple's own iCloud security detail [1] stating explicitly:

  > For certain sensitive information, Apple uses end-to-end encryption. This means that only you can access your information, and only on devices where you’re signed into iCloud. No one else, not even Apple, can access end-to-end encrypted information.

  > In some cases, your iCloud data may be stored using third-party partners’ servers—such as Amazon Web Services or Google Cloud Platform—but these partners don’t have the keys to decrypt your data stored on their servers. 
I'd like to see your evidence to these claims, if there are none then please retract them, HN isn't reddit.

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303


Do you like the idea of Apple owning the operating system you use, the computer it runs on, all the apps running on that operating system, the entire network stack, all of the network services, the gym you visit, the money you use, the school you attend, the church where you worship, the food that you buy, the place where you work, the hospital where you die?

Can't you see where they're going with this?


> Can't you see where they're going with this?

Can you see the slippery slope you're invoking? Apple owns the operating system you use. That is where it stops in your example. They don't force ownership of software, the network stack, the gym you visit (lol), where you work, etc. Where's your head at, other than "ApPlE BaD"?


Right, but it is almost impossible for anyone else to compete in the ecosystem.

If another major fitness brand wants to do the same the probably cannot because: - The tight integration is not possible, only Apple can build these kind of Apple Watch experiences. - They would need to pay Apple 30%, maybe making this not profitable especially against Apple's own offering that can have internal pricing where the 30% never comes into play.


Peloton’s doing a great job, they have an Apple Watch app, and I don’t believe Apple is getting 30% out of them. Peloton’s ecosystem is awesome.

I have a peloton bike and I love it. I also like to run with peloton outdoors, but I can’t do that with just the Apple Watch. It seems likely the Apple will offer something similar for their service that will work with watch only.

Probably not as tight as their integration, but we have a (far less polished, but effectively made by one person) workout app with Watch and Music integration. On Watch, iPhone, iPad and Apple TV. One-time cost though as opposed to their monthly subscription.

Apple owns your operating system, your hardware. It sells networking devices, printers, misc. peripherals. It offers service as software replacements, for email, file hosting, navigation, speech recognition. Apple has a marketplace for software. It has a marketplace for books. It has a marketplace for multimedia entertainment. It has its own tv. You can handcuff an apple device to your wrist, and let them own your watch, your voice, your fingerprints. Get your head out of the sand.

> It sells networking devices, printers

They do not.

> It has its own tv.

The do not

> your fingerprints

Fingerprints never leave the device or stored in iCloud


You're not paying attention

Apple NAS: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Apple-AirPort-Time-Capsule-2TB-St...

Apple 802.11ac wireless AP: https://www.priceblaze.com/me918ll-a-Apple-Network-Routers?r...

Apple TV: https://www.apple.com/apple-tv-4k/

I was wrong about printers though. They just have their own proprietary printer protocol in air print

And how do you know those biometrics stay on device? How do you know they will continue to stay on the device? It's not your kernel. It's THEIR kernel. They can do whatever they want.


You're not paying attention. Apple discontinued the Time Capsule and Airport product lines in 2018: https://www.macworld.com/article/3269361/apple-discontinues-... And a media streamer box isn't a TV

They no longer make networking devices. The one in your link discontinued for a few years.

And the Apple TV isn't actually a TV :/


It's worse than a TV. It's a multimedia streaming device where they can promote their own subscription based multimedia streaming platform over all others.

This is nonsense.

I use an AppleTV every single day and their streaming offering is nothing more than an app that I have hidden at the bottom of the screen. At the top I have a dozen streaming apps e.g. Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime.


When you say "own your fingerprints" what do you mean? What does it mean to own my fingerprints, and how does Apple own them?

They collect our names and biometrics for multi-factor authentication.

Your fingerprints and face ID data never leave the device. There’s plenty of documentation about this.

Are you talking about on device authentication or iCloud authentication? The biometrics for unlocking are only stored on device. Your name is associated with your account, yes.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling? You also haven’t said what it means to “own” fingerprints.


In fact they do not collect biometrics. Not even under the NSA’s definition of “collect”.

That's a gross exaggeration of how much pull Apple has. I'm no fan of it or how much data these new devices will collect but saying "the school you attend, the church where you worship" is some Twitter-comments level of hysteria. Yes, we should be worried about corporations owning too much and having too much power. No, Apple isn't going to buy up schools and churches.

It would have been nice if Google hadn’t betrayed their promise of Android being open.

Then we’d have had a good alternative.


Google didn't betray their promise. Android is open source and Apple not Microsoft have open sourced their operating system.

With each new release, more and more parts of Android are reliant on proprietary Google APIs. It is known.

If you remove everything Google from Android 19, you'll be surprised how little it can do.


Little as in what? You're being very vague. Do you want to use official Google Apps without the Google APIs? At least the OS is open source, but I can have a very functional device without needing gapps. Same with COS on their cloud platform. Apple is actively preventing users from even installing apps outside their app store.

I think by now it is common knowledge in anyone interested in this subject. A good place to start is this ArsTechnica post from 2013 (updated in 2018) [1].

One nice user on Reddit made a list [2] of AOSP apps replaced by Google:

Google Services Framework removed in 1.1, replaced by Google Play Services

Search removed in 1.5, replaced by Google

Music removed in 2.3, replaced by Play Music

Browser removed in 4.2, replaced by Chrome.

Calendar removed in 4.4, replaced by Calendar (G)

PinyinIME removed in 4.4, replaced by Google Pinyin IME

Gallery removed in 5.0, replaced by Photos (G)

Messaging removed in 6.0, replaced by Messages (G)

Camera removed in 6.0, replaced by Camera (G)

LatinIME removed in 6.0, replaced by GBoard.

Contacts removed in 7.0, replaced by Contacts (G)

Phone removed in 7.1, replaced by Dialer (G)

Clock removed in 8.1, replaced by Clock (G)

Calculator removed in 9.0, replaced by Calculator (G).

This extends to APIs too. For example, Android Location API [3] has a very nice warning on the documentation page:

> This API is not the recommended method for accessing Android location. The Google Location Services API, part of Google Play services, is the preferred way to add location-awareness to your app. It offers a simpler API, higher accuracy, low-power geofencing, and more. If you are currently using the android.location API, you are strongly encouraged to switch to the Google Location Services API as soon as possible.

To learn more about the Google Location Services API, see the Location API overview.

Hope I removed some vagueness left by my previous comment.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/fossdroid/comments/c332yr/what_impe...

[3]: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/pac...


This is really nice listing.

Android Location API uses Google services to provide better location data using Wifi hotpsots and other devices. I wouldn't expect to be able to use Google services without Google. You don't have to use it and get accurate results without it as well.

As you can see they also provide examples of alternative apps that can be used that do not rely on Google, or you can install F-Droid and use apps from the open source marketplace that are open source as well.

This is much more than Apple, who won't even let you install apps outside their app store. While it would be nice for Google to open source their apps as well, they aren't necessary and there are plenty of alternatives and phone manufacturers who have built their entire reputation on providing an alternative to the Google experience while using Android.


> You don't have to use it and get accurate results without it as well.

And this can be applied to nearly every 'improvement' in all Android releases. Can you name any improvements to AOSP in the past five years? All I see on every their presentation is more and more Google Services, FCM, Assistant, etc.


Almost all of the items listed here are improvements to AOSP rather than to Google Play Services, including the changes in the last 5 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history


It doesn’t matter that it’s ‘more than apple’ or if some parts are open source.

Android as most people understand it is not open source.

Google promised an open alternative and have simply reneged on that promise.


It matters more than you think. No one expected Google to open source all their apps. Android has plenty of open source apps.

How does it matter?

Because they literally have an open source operating system that is being used by a multitude of phone manufacturers, kiosks, home security systems, developers, hobbyists, security experts, Amazon Kindle, etc without any licensing fees which can be audited by anyone.

This is simply false.

There is not a multitude of phone manufacturers using an open source operating system.

The Android that phone manufacturers use is largely closed source, and only part of it is open source.

This has been irrefutably documented elsewhere in this thread.

This thread is about phones.

The fact that you can use the open source components of Android to build a home security system, but not a phone, just proves the point, that Android as a phone operating system, as most people consider it to be, is not open source.


The operating system is open source. You are trying to say Google apps and services are part of the operating system, but they aren't. I take it you've never installed a custom Android ROM before, who frequently don't package gapps? Are you suggesting that before you have an operating system, you have to install the gapps APK?

Certainly some of the apps and especially services are considered part of the operating system by most people.

You only have to look elsewhere in this thread to see all of the features which have been moved out of AOSP into Google Play Services to see this proved.


So you're suggesting that without Google specific proprietary apps and services that Android doesn't boot up and the phone can't be used with third-party apps?

Third party apps won’t work if they rely on Google play services as many do.

Whether it boots or not is irrelevant if it doesn’t do what people expect a smartphone OS to do.


The claim that Android is open source has long been false.

Yes, there is AOSP, but that’s only a small part of what constitutes an OS these days.

Here’s a link to a post showing how dismal things are: https://bitcannon.net/post/finding-an-alternative-to-ios/


Does that mean that Linux needs to have Gnome to be considered an OS?

Why would it?

Because that is all the Google apps are really, are one iteration of a group of apps for functionality. You can always use F-Droid and install great open source alternatives.

The fact that you can install a different operating system on some android phones doesn’t mean that the Android that phone manufacturers actually use is open source.

Indeed the fact that you have to install a different operating system that isn’t even called “Android” proves that Android as people know it is not open source.


GP here. I agree with your point (and upvoted it to counter some downvotes). I am indeed concerned about the kind of power concentration that Apple has with its user base, and I certainly have disagreements with its App Store and its fight against Right to Repair.

At the same time, I also see a lot of value in the Apple products and services that I use, especially when combined with its stance on privacy (which is far ahead of any other large tech company). I’m just hoping, perhaps naively, that Apple doesn’t become like Google or Facebook or Amazon.


Please spell it out. I’d like to know which flavor of dystopia you’re picturing.

> Do you like the idea of Apple owning...

This is what bothers me. I think there is a lot of evidence Apple's claims that they keep as much of this data on-device as possible. Even so, Apple's increasing dominance in certain aspects of my life bothers me.

After watching Google progress from being a company I loved and respected into a gross corporation, I'm concerned will eventually follow suit. Even if you assume Apple's current management are a bunch of great guys, in 10 years Cook might get replaced by a corrupt douchebag.

It's concerning. But at the same time I appreciate the previous posters view as well, I'd rather not have my information painted across dozens of small companies who are easily acquired.


Honest question, when was Google any different than they are now. What would have been their business model?

When Google started they sold the platform based on better search results with an interface that didn't put advertiser content above organic results. Now you usutally don't see organic results without scrolling. When Google first started advertising, they didn't have the massive tracking network they have now. Advertising was based on surfacing advertising related to the terms you searched for and was often relevant to what you wanted.

They were profitable enough under that model to buy You Tube, Android, and many of the other services now under the Google umbrella. I would assume their business model would continue to be selling advertising based on relevant search terms.


Good answer, thanks!

I don’t think this comment should be downvoted because I think it’s worth addressing directly.

So, no. I don’t like that. Do you think Apple is going to start buying churches? Why?


That's a bit of hyperbole to go from fitness classes to owning hospitals/churches/food.

[flagged]


At least his comment contributed something to the discussion, agree with it or not. Yours (and now mine) is just noise.

I think Apple Fitness+ will be fine as a standalone product, but I believe this is a stepping off point for more fully fledged fitness products from Apple.

Using their AR technology (iPad/iPhone/etc), they can replicate a lot of the same functionality a multi-thousand dollar product like the Tempo provides. They can automatically correct form, recognize weights, etc.


If Apple did this for home workouts I would subscribe to Fitness+ in a heartbeat. I currently practice yoga at home, and the worst part is I don't have an instructor to correct my form.

Check out Mixpose https://mixpose.com/ . It's a livestream yoga app on iOS,Android and Web with 3+ live classes a day. Since it's live the instructor can correct your form when you have hard time doing it. Eventually we are going to turn on the AI pose tracking. Disclaimer: I am the co-founder so let me know if you have any question.

Your service looks pretty cool, but there are a few things preventing me from using it:

1) Not having a live instructor is both a blessing and a curse, but largely a blessing for us introverts - I'm not comfortable with somebody watching me work out. But maybe I'll give Mixpose a shot when the AI option is released and has had time to mature.

2. I can't personally justify the high cost of the Mixpose service - an actual gym membership is around the same price (and that includes a couple of 1-on-1 personal trainer sessions each month), and my current yoga app (without feedback, admittedly) is $20 per year. In direct comparison to Apple Fitness+, I can sign my wife and myself up for the new Apple One Premiere bundle for $30/mo and get music streaming, news, 2TB of storage, and other goodies on top of Fitness+.

3. If the rumors of Fitness+ utilizing iPhone camera and Watch sensor information simultaneously are true, I feel other AI form-correction solutions won't stand a chance - but I'd be happy to be disproved on that front!


Great feedback. We are not in the VOD business since it's just too competitive and there are a lot of great free contents on Youtube already. Fitness+ is only using Apple Watch.

Yeah, probably a good call to not try to compete in the fitness VOD sphere, it seems to be a very quick race to the bottom. For the record, I do think your offering is a good and innovative solution to the issue of wanting to workout in the comfort of your own home but also wanting in-person classes and personalized training - I just don't think it's for me, personally.

> Fitness+ is only using Apple Watch.

While this is currently true, my original comment was stating that Fitness+ would be worth it to me, for $10/mo, if Apple were to make an integrated movement tracking system using multiple devices, as the comment I replied to posted.


What is the pricing? It seems to all be free on the webpage.

I'm unsure what the pricing scheme is if you purchase through the Mixpose website or Android app, but it's $20/mo or $200/yr through iOS in-app purchase.

75% percent of the classes are free now. On the web is all free now but we plan to turn on the subscription soon and will add more live classes soon.

This seems like a good use for AR -- Epic was showing off an app a few weeks ago where Unreal Engine devs could use the front-facing cameras on iDevices to capture skeletal animations, and I could see a fitness app using this tech to detect bone positions and provide guidance.

Everyone is different, and there's not going to be an automated way to fix your movement and training form unless the app can ask you questions as it walks around you to look at you from all sides. Generic form guide for a heavy squat could lead to injuries. Our bodies are too varied for this to be feasible at the moment.

Totally agreed. There are too many problem of using computer vision. Camera angle, lightening and even the cloth you wear will make the differences. End of day people just want to do workout instead of finicking with technology.

I could see a combination of iPhone cameras and sensors + Apple Watch sensors offering a fairly good picture for an AI program to base form critique off.

You can try https://yoganotch.com - uses motion sensors to give feedback on yoga form

Actually it takes a minute to put four sensors on and calibrate your posture before class. I’ve used it since my gym shut down in March, and do not plan to return there any time soon. This sensor kit with the free app with cool classes totally transformed my practice with respect to the depth, focus and effectiveness. Imagine having a private teacher who is paying attention to you, measuring your posture in Asana, gives you immediate feedback and praises you when you do it right... and it costs a fraction of $ you would pay for your private session. None of the big fitness brands come even close to this technologically. It’s a future of home yoga practice whether some may resist “invasion” of tech in yoga or not.

calibrate

Cool product if it really works. But too much work and friction to put on the sensors if I want to quickly do a workout.

cool design! + I don't need to film myself while doing yoga. what is the accuracy?

Thank you! I am one of the founders, the accuracy will vary depending on how the person is wearing it, but regardless it will be well within clinically acceptable values for something like physiotherapy or rehab.

Yoganotch itself is new (2020) but we've been building these devices for a few years - have a number of peer reviewed papers published based on Notch (https://wearnotch.com/papers).


This looks like a very interesting solution! Is there a subscription fee for the YogaNotch app, as well, or is it just the one-time sensor purchase?

No, there is no subscription :)

Don't you think is coming? Baby steps. First they'll launch and polish the trainings and sort the experience, then they add shit tons of tech there.

Think on the Nike's kinect game. Or Wii Fit, but 10 years later with a whole ecosystem behind it.

One of the most exciting services in a long time


Don't you think is coming?

I think he does. That's why he stated, "I believe this is a stepping off point for more fully fledged fitness products from Apple."


I wonder what that means for companies like Peloton. I can imagine an Apple Watch and a small "smart" bike trainer[1] would be infinitely more practical and affordable for most people and still allow Apple users to track all of the same metrics as Peloton.

[1] Something like this, but with an odometer and WiFi: https://www.amazon.com/Goplus-Exercise-Trainers-Flywheel-Sta...


They could just buy Peloton. "Apple Peloton".

They could, but if they have superior hardware I doubt they'd want to have to support the long tail of Peloton users with existing bikes.

Why not? If Apple buys Peloton, they also get all their staff and offices. The existing staff can continue working on their existing products just as before, while transitioning to Apple, no?

If Apple believe they can make a competitive product to Peloton (and I imagine they do) then the additional staff and offices aren't necessarily a good thing.

To put it another way: why should Apple buy Peloton? Apple itself is already a premium brand with huge awareness, so a buy for brand reasons isn't that persuasive. Peloton has a whole range of hardware but none of it is compatible with existing Apple hardware, so integration might be a drag.


I have no idea if Apple should buy Peloton or not, I was just objecting to your reasoning. It's completely normal to get acquired by another company and keep on working on the existing products as is, that's all I'm saying.

It's normal, yes, but is it preferable for the buyer? I'd see it as a potential reason not to buy.

Or just Apple Bike+

This seems more likely to me.

Apple would want to design their stationary bike from The ground up w their bicycle experts. (They may already have done this a few times)

Also, letting Peloton do it’s thing is a small safety valve on the anti competitive question.


Watch the event from today, specifically regarding the new iPad. They show it analysing someone's tennis form providing knee extension info and ball speed etc.

Should check out Gymaholic iPhone app. Really good use of AR and overall nice experience.

https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/gymaholic-workout-tracker/id64...


I love Gymaholic, but I don't understand how the AR is useful at all. How is it better for me to watch a 3D model do an exercise with my couch as the background, rather than just a black background? Is it the ability to walk around the 3D model? It's much easier just to spin the model with my thumb.

That is how I feel about most AR is in general. It just filters out the app background and makes whatever your camera is pointing at the background.. without really adding any value.

I'm sure AR will have some absolutely amazing applications in the future. I just haven't seen much of it yet.


Yeah I like walking around the model aha. I wouldn’t be surprised if Gymaholic got bought out. It’s too good.

I wouldn't want to be Peleton, Mirror, or one of those similar companies. Is it worth the extra $1000+ up front and $30+ monthly for the Peleton and Mirror trainers to mention your name?

I tend to agree, but its always amazing to me how much that seems to matter to viewers on twitch. The entire streamer business model centers around people paying to have someone say their name.

I was just having this debate the other day on HN. Just because "saying someones name" is the most visible return someone gets for a Twitch subscription does not mean that is the primary or only motivating factor. People don't donate to NPR solely because they want a tote bag. Supporting and motivating creators is also a huge reason for donating even if it isn't a tangible return.

You're right that it's not solely because of that. But I think it's probably the main reason, by far. It's almost impossible to bet on human vanity and lose :-)

its always amazing to me how much that seems to matter to viewers on twitch

It's like when you're at a Cheap Trick concert and the singer shouts, "Hello, Madison! Are you ready to rock?!"

Hopefully, the concert is actually in Madison, and isn't in Hoboken.


Or if you want to have an even funnier example, Bucharest and Budapest.

For those that don't know the backstory, Bucharest is the capital of Romania. Budapest is the capital of Hungary. Romania and Hungary don't like each other. The safest way to get a crowd to boo as an entertainer you is to mix up the two names :-)

Or, for more embarrassment: https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/400-athle...


That only really applies to donations. There's much more to Twitch and live interactions than someone saying someone's name. Not to mention that Twitch is a largely free service for viewers if you don't want to pay.

The Twitch business model revolves around communities more than it does a streamer saying someone's name. I subscribe to streamers but the emoticons to use in other chats. Many people donate not just for someone to say their name but for their donation to get read out by text-to-speech engines. Some streamers even have AI driven TTS which has famous people voices.

The same can't really be said about things like Peloton.


Loneliness will be one of the big problem of this century.

I doubt most donations are made just to get a callout. That seems like an overly simplified, pessimist view.

Well you do it mostly to support content producers.

The $1000+ up front and $30 monthly is for the trainer product. You can subscribe to Peloton's (or Aaptiv's or any number of brands') workouts and BYODevice and pay in the neighborhood of $13/mo for the workouts.

Fitness+ absolutely is encroaching on that subscription workout space, but a physical bike/treadmill and a watch are not competitors. If someone wants a stationary bike they're not going to be shopping for a smart watch.


But, there's an argument to be made that they would be cross-shopping $500 Amazon-Prime-deliver-tomorrow bikes, to pair with the Apple ecosystem they already have.

I would be scared if I ran Peloton. Their entire MO is the ecosystem; you buy the bike, with the integrated tablet, and use their fitness program. Outside of the top 1% who could drop three grand on the Peloton system without blinking, Apple's whole "$500 dirt cheap bike + $300 brand new iPad (that you may already have) + $30/month Apple One Premier" system (that you may already subscribe to) is killer.

Yeah, you can BYOB to Peloton, but Fitness+ (especially as a part of Apple One now) is dirt cheap. At that point, Peloton (and competing products) basically just has to hope that the workout quality in Fitness+ sucks, which isn't likely (this is Apple we're talking about, they rarely half-ass things).


Peloton is the ecosystem, I agree. It's the bike and everything around it. I obviously don't know Peloton's financials, but I see its marketing as being trainer+services primarily and BYOD treated as a second-class citizen. When people think Peloton, (I assume) they think about the integrated trainers and the classes structured around them, not _just_ the app for subscription fitness classes. At least that's my view of Peloton and what I'm basing my comment on.

$500 stationary bikes are crap. Apple Fitness is only slightly cheaper than Peloton standalone - $10 vs $13 - so I don't think that would be a factor for many people.

The main drive of Peloton if you aren't buying their bike is the instructors and high quality classes - I struggle to imagine many people would care more about watch integration than class quality, and I don't think Apple will be able to win out on the latter anytime soon.


Apple has two hundred billion dollars in cash sitting in a bank account, a fitness ecosystem, and deep experience in fitness and video production. They've announced that the initial set of programs will include cycling, treadmill walk & run, yoga, core, strength, rowing, HIIT, and cooldown. They're planning to add new workouts every week, and have popular, properly licensed music (Peloton spent years illegally playing music, before switching to no-copyright music for a year. Today its in a better place).

I would not bet money on Apple losing on class quality, let alone variety.


You are forgetting families. Peloton is $12 a month, but the workouts are tied to one account - so your wife's workout gets synced to your apple watch.

Also Apple is offering yearly pricing that works out to $6.67/mo...and then there is the bundle which if you are in the ecosystem already essentially makes it a free service...


> and then there is the bundle which if you are in the ecosystem already essentially makes it a free service...

This is key. How many people would subscribe to Prime TV if they didn’t already have a Prime membership. My guess is not many. Luckily for Netflix people consume enough that it’s not really a killer. But with fitness you probably only need a single provider. That said, I’ve lost confidence in apple’s ability to execute, but this seems like a race they could easily dominate if done right.


But direct integration with sports equipment seems like it would be the next logical step on the radar for Apple.

You'll be able to go on Amazon and buy [Bike/Treadmill/etc] with "Fitness+ Compatible" that streams wirelessly to your watch/phone.

Then Peleton offers no value add. They're just a treadmill maker charging 250% of their competitors.


Gym equipment integrates with Apple Watch already, yes? At least that's what they advertise; I haven't hit a gym since I've had an Apple Watch. If true, I don't see a big leap from there to home equipment. We bought a NordicTrac rowing machine a few months ago, and it has a Bluetooth. I was thinking, "ya know, this thing is just a bit of software (and maybe silicon) away from just connecting directly to my watch."

I don't think it's fair to ignore the instructor and class content of Peloton. I use mine because of the classes, I'm not sure I would use the bike if it weren't for the instructors and classes that I like.

Peloton did also just release a new bike that does work with Apple's GymKit too, so, I don't think it's just the metrics.


> You'll be able to go on Amazon and buy [Bike/Treadmill/etc] with "Fitness+ Compatible" that streams wirelessly to your watch/phone.

This really isn't new at all (Zwift, Trainerroad, Sufferfest, Aaptiv, etc). Hell even today all that Peloton offers over competitors is nice treadmills and a closed/proprietary protocol for integration (unlike those other examples). I do expect that Apple will likely package and market it very thoughtfully for mass-market, which is significant. One could argue that Peloton is also all about its mass-market appeal, which is exactly why we're talking about Peloton and not the enthusiast-oriented brands like Wahoo.


$1000 up front? The new generation Peloton bike costs $2495, the previous generation costs $1895, and the treadmill costs $4295.

"Extra" $1000 up front. So presumably for Fitness+ you still need to buy a normal exercise bike or treadmill. Peloton's are priced higher, but the alternative isn't $0 either.

Unless Apple is releasing a bike and treadmill I doubt Peloton has much to be concerned with. Half the draw is the fact the tread and bike are both extremely high quality and directly track what you're doing (distance, not just heart rate). I don't even think Apple currently has a compatible cadence sensor?

Mirror... I never really understood that one in the first place but I'll assume the folks who love it love it probably feel the same way.


Unless Apple is releasing a bike and treadmill I doubt Peloton has much to be concerned with.

But with the Apple product, you're not limited to bike and treadmill. It was demonstrated with all kinds of workout routines.

And replacing a $1,000 Peloton with the far cheaper stationary bike of your choosing will be attractive to some people.


The people for whom that's attractive aren't Peloton's real target market anyway. If you're positioning as a luxury lifestyle brand you don't worry about the people building their own.

Peloton's competitor product is Peloton Digital which is £12.99/mo, doesn't require the bike or treadmill and includes all kinds of workout routines.

But if you want to buy a digital fitness program, why should you ever choose Peloton's? Especially when you probably already have an iPhone, an Apple Watch, and airpods.

I think this is really more of a people business than an ecosystem/technology one. Obviously there are benefits to being Apple, they might well give themselves some private APIs so they have features nobody else does, I'm sure they'll use Activity Awards exclusive to Fitness+. But ultimately Peloton has a massive backlog of great classes by great instructors, and a continuous stream of the same. Apple have to replicate that to play in this space, and if they don't then it won't matter how clever they are tech-wise or how much their ecosystem makes it appealing.

> I don't even think Apple currently has a compatible cadence sensor?

It doesn't sound like it would be too hard to do this with computer vision. I guess it would depend on whether the device is positioned where it can see your legs -- or you might be able to figure it out by observing head or shoulder movement.


Many other manufacturers with a lot more fitness experience have attempted to market devices that calculate cadence from wrist or chest sensors and all of them have been terrible. If you want cadence (or power or speed) on a bike, you need the respective sensor on the bike itself.

Doesn't the Apple Watch already do this?

Damn I'd buy an iBike.

I'd buy an iLoo.

Is it worth the extra $1000+ up front and $30+ monthly for the Peleton and Mirror trainers to mention your name?

Especially if you're one of the millions of people in a downsizing mood.

$1,000 + $30/month for Peleton, or a monthly fee to Apple that vanishes into the bundle of things you'd subscribe to anyway and use the devices you may already have. Or if you were thinking of getting one anyway, now you have a further incentive.


No it is not. Peloton is going to feel this once widely adopted. Brilliant service with Apple One to combine this with the other Apple service and all of Music.

Peloton or Mirror at the hotel. No. Outside. No. On vacation. No. Plus I thing this is a wider offering. Peloton yoga and weights workouts are really sub-par. I have no experience with mirror.

Disclosure: Shareholder of Apple and Lululemon. Not a shareholder in Peloton.


Apple is not really competing with them and doesn't ever need to. All they need to do is get some % of the people that own iPhones and iPads to use this service (or subscribe to Apple One and never even use this) and it will be immensely profitable. It's kind of like Apple Music vs Spotify, a lot more people use Spotify, but AM still makes tons of money...

How hard could it be to synthesize that with deepfakes?

Technically, probably not too difficult.

Business-wise, it would be a disaster. As soon as it was discovered (or disclosed) that the trainer saying, “Good hustle, Janet!” is an AI robot, Janet is not going to react the same way.


Unless they were up front with it.

I'm used to Siri talking to me already. Although she rarely says my name, if she were cheering me on during a personalized workout, I'd be lying if I said that wouldn't be motivating.

My fitness 'workflow' is pretty well established, and it's Apple Watch centric already. If this Fitness+ business will count my lift reps for me, I'll probably get it.


They must already have ridiculous margins; surely they have room to tighten their belts.

I'd be more worried about apple integrating into the hardware people want.


Peloton stock is up 5% at the moment.

There probably won't be an impact on PTON until Apple starts selling stationary cycles.


They were already up on the day. They dropped 5% at the announcement and then quickly gained half of that back. Still I would expect a bigger longer term drop in their business with Apple now as a more direct competitor.

Fitter, happier, more productive. Not drinking too much. Regular exercise at gym, 3 times a week.

Sleeping well. No bad dreams. Less chance of illness.


... A pig

In a cage

On antibiotics


Strangely enough, Apple actually ran an ad where someone said "I dutifully oblige when the Apple Watch reminds me to stand up every hour": https://youtu.be/N-x8Ik9G5Dg?t=62.

this comment made me sad.

So this must be why last week's updated "App Store Review Guidelines" explicitly excluded "one-to-many realtime experiences". Third party fitness apps need to fork over 30% to Apple, while they launch their own first party competitor.

3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/


The 30% cut always applied to one-to-many experiences. They removed it for one-to-one, but did not change it for other models.

Sure, but now them adding this product means we have yet another vertical where Apple has given itself an anticompetitive advantage over competitors.

The parent comment suggested that the conditions tightened, when in fact they loosened.

The parent comment doesn't suggest that the conditions tightened. They are merely calling out that the loosening does not cover this new first party product, and suggests this might not be a coincidence.

As this thread demonstrates, the maneuver was quite successful, if the idea was to give the impression they are becoming less anticompetitive rather than more so!


>rather than more so!

This is a very unusual product area for Apple. This end presumes the service will be a success.

There is many a slip between the cup and the sip.


The 30% cut did not artificially inflate the competitiveness of Apple's product vs its competitors.

Now it does, and for antitrust purposes that makes all the difference.


I'm not sure this applies. If the workouts are recorded, they are not realtime person-to-person experiences.

A lot of their competitors (like Peloton) do have actual real-time experiences though, and this is increasingly becoming more of a thing as the pandemic drags on and people want to do real-time classes with their favorite instructors back from the before-times.

There's no way to distinguish them though because it's all one subscription with Peloton - you can take the classes live or watch it on demand afterward. It's not like you're paying per live class.

Well now Peloton doesn't even have the option.

The sort of pre-recorded experiences Apple is offering here have always been subject to the 30% App Store fee. The P2P option was a loosening/ clarification of the rules.

If they attempt to enforce 3.13(d), Pelton, et al, will file complaints with regulators in days. That change was clearly intended to advantage Apple (i.e., first party) products over third party competitors.

At this point, it's only a matter of time before Apple gets broken up or severely sanctioned (more likely the latter), and it will be entirely their own fault.


In the age of COVID, this also includes plenty of far more profitable things like concerts, trade shows, online classes, etc.

Isn’t this Apple loosening the rules? That seems to make the opposite point you are

I can't understand why developers take these rules seriously and why they don't just abandon the platform. I guess it must be the money.

This was my first thought as well... Learning from hindsight, perhaps we can guess Apple's next move based on what they want 30% of.

RIP local fitness instructors.

Already battered by the pandemic, a lot of them have been successfully transitioning to an online only business model. This will make it harder.


I don’t think this would affect personal, live fitness instructors. Although it looks the same on the surface, the value proposition is very different (as is the cost).

You don’t make the same kind of human connection when the communication is one-way.

Put it this way: if internet streaming was going to kill off fitness instructors, it would have happened already. Apple isn’t doing something new here, they’re just putting their own spin on it and vertically integrating it.

Companies doing similar services might have more to worry about, though I think there is a lot of room to grow in this market, and i think it’s “niche-y” by nature, so I think there’s probably plenty of room for competitors.


I wouldn't jump to those conclusions so quickly.

I'm paying my local fitness instructor $25/mo for access to a private facebook group where she streams live classes via Facebook Live every day. The communication is one-way (you can post comments in chat, but the instructor can't see you). Nothing is in person.

This directly competes with my local fitness instructor who has transitioned 100% to live stream. Fitness+ is $5 more expensive than the local instructor, but of course cheaper if they bundle that cost into Apple Music, TV, etc.

Edit: But TBH, I'll always prefer my local fitness instructor's low-quality live streams. Something about professionally made workout videos with movie quality cinematography is not motivating for me personally.


What's the point of having a local fitness instructor if it's all streaming online? Doesn't that open the worldwide fitness instructor market (except language), so you can just pick the best worldwide?

> What's the point of having a local fitness instructor if it's all streaming online?

Human connection.

The first 5 minutes of the class are personally my favorite - the instructor is a hilariously funny person and a great community builder.

I’ve taken a lot of fitness classes with many different instructors. From my experience, people rarely stick with an instructor (or workout program) because of the quality of the actual workout... they stick with it only if they enjoy spending an hour of their day with the instructor on a personal / social level. Most people would choose a mediocre workout with an engaging instructor over an amazing workout with a monotone boring instructor.


Yes but the pandemic has changed things. For at least the next two years personal, live fitness instructors are going away.

In Vancouver, BC, where pandemic response has been relatively good, even there a successful in person fitness business Tight Club has opted to stop renting their space entirely and they've pivoted completely to online.


agree with this - I think the tech part of fitness+ here is cool (i.e better data and overlays on screen) However i'm not rushing to switch from my zoom classes where the instructor can see and correct form as well as personalize movements and intensity, because we've built the history and knowledge over time.

Youtube has been a thing for a long time, and a free service. Apple is doing the same thing except they're making much higher quality videos, with hardware integration, and charging money for it.

If video workouts were to replace fitness instructors it would have happened over 5 years ago.


Pandemic isn't going to last forever.

I agree that it's bad timing. But where I live, the gyms are open, and I see personal trainers working with clients every time I go.

This doesn't compete with personal trainers or in-person gym classes, not really. As indicated elsewhere, it competes with Peloton and YouTube, and where Peloton is concerned, I'd expect them to be announcing an integrating pretty soon.


You make a great point. What if Apple did the equivalent of iBooks Author but instead of creating eBooks or iTunes University for creating online courseware it let individual instructors design workouts they could then sell?

Then again Apple still doesn't let third parties design their own Apple Watch faces. Seems like it would still be a pretty good and logical extension of iTunes U.


Nah, a lot of people want some combination of a) in-person experiences, b) lots of fancy equipment, c) the relationship/camraderie the class has, d) the psychology of going somewhere besides your house to do something

Or does it make their lives easier, by increasing the TAM of online-only fitness, which they can participate in?

(I suspect it makes things harder for mediocre-or-worse instructors, and better for good-or-better instructors.)


I'm skeptical people who are willing to pay for and desire a fitness trainer would be content with a much more generic service.

On it's own this service isn't that compelling. As part of the new Apple One bundle - it's actually not that much of a reach as I already am subscribed to a few of the traditional Apple offerings - adding this wouldn't be much of a stretch at all.

Which will be the real problem for Peloton and the other dedicated fitness offerings out there. Bundles are powerful, even if they sometimes are on the wrong side of the sunk cost fallacy.


> For usage with iPad, Fitness+ requires iPad Pro, iPad (5th generation or later), iPad mini 4 or later, iPad Air 2, or iPad Air (3rd generation). Fitness+ is supported on Apple TV 4K and Apple TV HD.

So if you don't have an Apple TV, you can't watch on a TV? That's a non starter for me (Peloton customer), seems a bit rubbish to be exercising in my living room and not using the TV to display the class.


wait... a $2,000 bike that only shows does bike workouts is fine, but a $150 device to stream entertainment and now fitness is too much? You can always just attach a HDMI cable to your phone or tablet (via converter) if you really want to.

No, I don't use the bike or tread, I just stream their exercise classes. I guess I could convert from my phone to HDMI, but Peloton works in the browser and that's a great deal easier. If I had bought a $2000 bike that only works with Peloton then I doubt I’d even be looking at Fitness+ :)

I have to imagine the percentage of people that can, let alone will, use a web browser attached to their TV is <1%. I don't blame Apple for not putting effort into it.

I don't know about that; I bought an HDMI cable and showed my 62 year old mother how to connect it to her laptop, drag the browser over to the TV, and then hit the "full screen" button, and she's been doing it ever since. This is the same person who became convinced her laptop no longer had Windows Media Player installed because she accidentally deleted the icon from her desktop.

It should work with AirPlay I'd imagine

I have no way to AirPlay to my TV as far as I know, because I don't have Apple TV. Are there other ways to?

Apple did a massive push to get the tv app and airplay into a variety of smart tv’s in order to launch TV+. So if you have a newer tv it may be supported.

Some "smart" tvs have AirPlay built in. (Samsung has some models). Ours did but we didn't know it initially.

There are also Lighting to HDMI adapters. I think it’s understandable they don’t support Chromecast for an Apple Watch centered service.

My hunch is that you are not Apple's target audience. They are fairly happy targeting specific users that are into their ecosystem.

HDMI?

Just wanted to take this as a chance to show what our company is doing: https://yoganotch.com - a smart yoga assistant, powered by wearable motion capture (which we have been producing for a while).

just launched this year. Happy to chat with anyone who is into quantified yoga.

P.S. I am one of the founders.

P.P.S. Saw someone mention it :)


I was just listening to a McKinsey presentation last week where the speaker went through, among other things, their data about which activities that have largely gone digital are likely to revert.

Food-related (both online grocery shopping and home cooking) were one of the main areas their data suggests will stay but online fitness was right up there too.


I have maintained my fitness and saved so much money by switching to videos on YouTube. I think this stuff should at most be a category on Netflix etc it's not worth $9.99 separately. The trainers are all good, the only thing missing is being able to superimpose your Watch metrics when you want.

How long until these 'fitness instructors' are animated avatars and new fitness programs can be quickly created programmatically?

Following this perhaps programmatically created work outs can eventually be uniquely tailored to the individual workout needs.


Ha! I was wondering what the point of Memoji were... it’s to copy our facial expressions or get us more used to animated faces to warm up to Memoji instructors!

Total Recall movie being prophetic?

I wonder how Fitbit plays into this all. Can they even realistically compete against the behemoth that Apple is at this point?

Well, Google owns Fitbit now, so it's two behemoths going at each other.

Plus you now have Amazon coming into the market with their Halo Fitness bands.


Is that true? I thought the acquisition failed because of the EU.

The EU hasn't decided whether to permit it, yet.

https://siliconcanals.com/news/google-fitbit-merger-5-things...


August 4, 2020, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...:

“The European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation to assess the proposed acquisition of Fitbit by Google under the EU Merger Regulation. The Commission is concerned that the proposed transaction would further entrench Google's market position in the online advertising markets by increasing the already vast amount of data that Google could use for personalisation of the ads it serves and displays.”

So, the jury is still out on that one.


EU has set a July 20 deadline for the deal. Google and Fitbit already have regulatory approval for the deal in the U.S.

Is that 2021? We're already past July 20.

Some people just want a heartrate and sleep monitor that lasts 5ish days.

For them, there's a Fitbit.


Before jumping at Google/Fitbit train, take a look at Withings watches. Their Healthmate app is solid. In my experience much better than Fitbit, and it isnt trying to sell me on any premium services.

I have a Steel HR & the battery life is measured in weeks.


If I end up not buying a new Apple Watch, I will look into it! My Fitbit broke recently and I'm on the market.

The EKG is ... really tempting, though - that's about the only thing that's pulling me toward the Apple Watch.


I’m curious, why is the EKG feature that tempting? I don’t really see what I’d do with it besides doing a reading once in a while

I have OCD and one of its manifestations is hypochondria and fear of any arbitrary chest pain. It'd be nice to have some software that could assuage the random fears so every little tinge in my chest didn't send me running to an Urgent Care.

I had a Fitbit Sense pre-ordered prior to today. The timing of Apple's release is pretty smart (and likely intended), considering the Sense doesn't ship for another 2 weeks. I ended up cancelling my Sense pre-order and bought the Apple Watch Series 6 today.

I believe the strongest points for Fitbit are its looks of a discrete non fancy fitness tracker with long battery. My mum didn’t even want to hear about Apple Watch, she just wanted something that counts steps.

Fitbit went broke, didn't it?

Amazon will be releasing their on Fitbit soon too!

Applications are open for YC Winter 2021

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: