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.
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?