Peloton replaces CEO and lays off 2,800 people
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
1) ended officially
2) waned on to the point that it became "normalized" in how to handle day to day activities out
Largely, I think some things that were popular in the pandemic got outsized growth through it, may fade in popularity quickly or outright be out of business as people want to resume more normal behaviors they had pre pandemic.
I wonder how Zoom will fare. I think its more sticky than Peloton because everyone is transitioning to remote work for White Collar workers and I don't see that particular bit being given up quite so easily now, we shall see if thats the case over the coming months I think
Plus, as noted, Zoom has lied repeatedly about what they do, how they do it, where their data goes, etc., and every time has somehow escaped any real repercussions. They are not trustworthy, regardless of certification.
— Thomas Sowell
I'm with you on the second statement. I don't see the first immutably flowing from it.
Zoom is dominant, but switching costs are small and their competitors are well capitalized and eagerly assaulting its fortress. Add to that their geopolitical vulnerability and their long-term dominance is far from assured.
Zoom's China links have put it in hot water before [1][2][3]. If tensions flared, it could find itself cut off from some combination of a large section of its customers and/or large section of its workforce.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/china-based-executive-u...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/technology/zoom-tiananmen...
But I don't see why Zoom would lose so much market share or revenue streams as to disappear or become a marginal player. Something extraordinary should happen for it to cease to be here to stay.
It wasn't anything extraordinary that made skype lose market share - just a gradual slide into irrelevance as competing products got stronger, and they tried to make a profit when everyone else was giving away the product for free.
If it's a problem in both environments I could see remote work with closed captioning being a big benefit for people with certain types of neurodivergence.
It’s a bit easier to resolve because there’s more context/body language available, but I still often ask people to repeat themselves. Sometimes overtly, sometimes by restating the portion of what they said that I understood and prodding them to elaborate so I can implicitly fill in the missing pieces.
I think Zoom is here to stay at the enterprise level. Video conferencing was always a niche product until the pandemic. It was a big business, but never quite large enough to experience network effects. Now that it's a mainstream part of most people's lives, that has all changed. Zoom was in the right place at the right time to capture that, and it's going to be very hard moving forward for someone to unseat them at this point.
Must be. It's become pretty standard across companies I've dealt with. Maybe a 9/10 split with MS/Google.
They've got CIOs utterly snowed, which is honestly a huge indictment of CIOs, including and especially those in "government" roles.
https://community.zoom.com/t5/Meetings/Why-is-the-Zoom-app-l...
Everyone else seems to be betting the farm on webrtc and web browsers. But video meetings in chrome or Firefox don’t look or sound as good as zoom does. And Google Meet and the rest are at the mercy of web standards. Its much easier for zoom to add features to their product because they’re in control of the entire stack.
I hope the situation changes, but I think it’ll be several years before browsers are able to meaningfully catch up to where zoom is today.
The principal architects and security team don't care that Teams is neither good nor secure. They just know that they can blame Microsoft if things go wrong. Slack was too startupy. God forbid people just start texting each other, or even worse, use Discord.
(Before you say, "But...", PAs don't care if Slack is owned by Salesforce now. SF is just some weird tool that Sales requires and won't stop screaming about.)
So, they already use MS for Office, file shares, Exchange, etc, why not just throw another piece of MS crap into the ecosystem? Who cares if it sucks? Who cares if it was a hastily thrown together piece of garbage that MS scrambled to make when they suddenly realized Slack was beating the snot out of them? They don't have to do any work because they're already in bed with MS.
- Most of the time, people don't setup a dialin number, so I can't use my phone
- There's no way to display both the attendees list and the chat at the same time
Those are two examples of things that just cause it to be an "also ran" in my mind. It's just missing a lot of the "nice to have" features; much the way Zoom did when it was first release... it feels incomplete and unpolished.
There's another one that I forget the name of that used to have the mute and hang up buttons right next to each other. I would constantly drop off calls because of it. Video and sound quality are important, but so is UX.
If everyone had a nice camera, nice microphone, and nice headphones (I think all three of these should be provided by employers to remote workers), and just used the video conferencing software the way it was designed, a lot of the friction and annoyances would go away.
4K webcam (Logitech BRIO), Blue Yeti for the microphone + a pop filter and a shock mount, and my noise cancelling headphones. All together they cost a fraction of what my work laptop does.
No one complains about my audio. Except when teams decides to randomly switch back to the built-in laptop mic which is hideous as it's right next to the cooling fans...
People calling in from a phone is a separate issue.
From a personal perspective, I prefer the phone for sound quality. I have poor hearing, especially when it comes to understanding speech. As such, I make sure to own a high quality phone with an excellent speaker-phone. The sound on the computer just doesn't compete, and it makes my experience a lot more difficult.
Oddly, various VC tools I've used with dial in properly map the caller unique pin code to the calling user.
In any case, I know that Google meets at least supports dialing in using phone.
FWIW, I live in the heart of Silicon Valley, but there's only one ISP available so it's perhaps unsurprising that service isn't stellar.
I've given it a fair shake (probably in the hundreds of hours of video conferencing) and I still feel like I don't understand how I'm supposed to use it for anything but pure video conferencing.
This is malware behavior, plain and simple.
From IT departments' point of view, buying MS Teams license is a no-brainer.
edit: typo
That is a long standing issue in many companies; the people who buy the software aren't the people that use the software. Which results in the people that use the software being unhappy with what winds up being an inferior product for their use case.
I will never work for any company that uses Teams as their internal communication tool again.
I'm done talking about "admins who set up groups wrong", or indicators that I'm holding it wrong...
I feel very strongly that Teams is a consequence of a company that doesn't care what it inflicts on workers, regardless of price.
The way teams shoves itself down my throat (we do not use teams at my current company and it was one of the reasons I moved here) is astonishing too[0].
So, no, Teams is not "pretty good".
Try make a header or footer and edit it in one of the other apps MS offers.
Try edit or move an image.
Try work out how much text fits on a page.
It’s incredible how much market share teams has achieved with such poor functionality for basic tasks.
Not a single time did we have a meeting on Teams that worked properly. Not once.
Guess that’s not everyone’s experience?
I would also consider joining a company in the future that doesn't use teams as a form of communication.
[1]: the 100% CPU, the fan noise in the background of many peoples calls, the 500-2500ms lag between clicks and a screen update, the UX disaster of teams vs chats vs private channels, etc.
Teams in comparison is heaven video and chat together... Wow. Of course it eats processing power like hungry, is slow and requires thrid party cookies.
My brief use of Teams (granted, like 3 years ago) put it firmly in the latter category. God that UI was a mess.
MS Teams is the worst of the bunch by far, mainly because it's not a video conferencing tool but wants to be everything. So it's hard to just schedule a call with someone in another organisation. Works fine with Zoom and Meets, doesn't work with Teams (also the HTML link in invites does not work in my calendar solution, why not just have a simple text link?)
Zoom is the easiest and has the best video and sound quality and is my prefered tool (also support raw audio which is excellent when working with my speech coach).
(I invest in my setup, Sony ZV1/Elgato HDMI, Bose QC, Rode Podcaster, 500mbit fiber and I don't like it when the software tool reduces this to 90s video internet for no reason).
I dread seeing a Teams meeting put together, because almost always, at least 1/2 of the people on it will struggle with sound, video, random crashes, and inability to share.
Zoom, for the same people, on the same equipment, doesn't have any issues. It's night and day.
However when people in suits take decisions then "why pay for N products instead of one?" becomes compelling for many. I saw a tweet last week saying Teams have 10x user count of Slack apparently. I guess some upselling from MS who already has Office does wonders.
I didn't use Teams more than 1h at once so maybe long term it's not that bad when you learn to use it? But Zoom and Slack seem aay better products for me.
Eric Yuan at Dreamforce - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7DmHSxsYoI&
There's another video of Eric and Benioff having a chat at Dreamforce.
real question though is who does SF acquire to gain a foothold in the email arena? superhuman?
Ironically, if anyone is going to threaten Zoom, its likely to be Microsoft with Teams, and only because so many organizations are already on Office 365 and Microsoft seems to be sinking some sales channel hooks into Teams specifically, and arguably Teams is good enough and has most of the same extension points as Zoom does, including its own add on store and API for most major integrations[2][3][4].
It seems Google is having a lot less luck here, first hand experience being that every business I've worked for in the last few years have been Google Workspace customers, yet still prefer to use Zoom over Google Meeting, despite Google Meeting being effectively free with the rest of the Google Workspace product.
I'm still mind boggled that Slack didn't capitalize on video meetings, they had all the technology and know-how, however execution matters like anything else, and I don't think they've been able to entirely execute on adding strong robust video offering to their core product.
[0]: https://investors.zoom.us/news-releases/news-release-details...
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/06/zoom-earnings-q1-2020.html
[2]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2019/03/1...
[3]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/platform/sam...
[4]: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/find-teams-apps-d...
I loathe it when 3rd parties send a damn zoom or teams link cus they always want me to default to using their app that has settings/config issues with my hardware, etc...
Most of the ultra large 10k+ employee companies seem to not mind paying for both though. My wife works at big oil and they use teams internally cus it's included but then use zoom with external cus it's "cool".
I find that I’m using Slack’s “Hangout” features more and more often, especially for ad-hoc 1:1 meetings.
Intentionally or not, they seem to be taking an approach that allows them to embed themselves more deeply into work culture one piece at a time.
Before Zoom, it was always 10-15 minutes at the start of each meeting getting people online, able to see and hear, resolving questions, calling them out of band on the phone to walk them through getting started. Most of that didn't happen with Zoom.
I hate online video conferences, but Zoom is the least bad experience of the ones I've used.
Pre-pandemic almost no remote companies that I knew used Zoom. It was almost exclusively google meet with a few use of other, lesser well known services. Zoom did some great early pandemic marketing and was able to quickly capture market share, especially in the "meeting with a 1000 attendees") type calls. I've known plenty of teams that switched of zoom into other platforms relatively quickly. I suspect that zoom will replace Oracle's webex and similar products for "business meetings" but will not achieve dominance in day to day meeting space.
People already have solutions for the majority of their video chat needs:
- small office meetings: Google meet/slack video - family calls: FaceTime (or equivalent) - socialization: Discord
I suspect Discord will grow a bit as younger people enter the work force. Since they've optimized around gaming/livestreaming their screen sharing video is remarkably more crisp than either Google or Zoom.
Even if Zoom's average usage per paid user goes down post-pandemic, it's revenue will remain constant and could still grow as new employees are hired and new companies switch over.
Zoom was easy for corporations to adopt quickly in the pandemic rush, but companies that already had Webex or others didn't switch.
When a player offers cross-sell discounts with other products they offer and as long as the functionality is 80% as good, they will absolutely go with the cheaper vendor.
Zoom needs to diversify to stay competitive five years from now, the Five9 acquisition/merger was Zooms first attempt at trying to figure this out.
This isn't to say Peloton is bad or people will not keep using it, just that there was almost sure to be a reset as we all reset and at least partially revert.
And to a lesser degree, Fitbit, which of course was bought out.
I'm guessing Peloton will follow the Go Pro IPO trajectory.
What are your arguments in favor of Meet? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to start an argument.
Peloton forgot how easily they can be replaced. You can buy a used exercise bike, and play whatever YouTube videos you need on a mounted iPad.
For a while Peloton started to position itself as a tech company, competing with FAANG when it came to total comp.
I've also seen an explosion in fitness tech companies. Peloton struck gold, and should've remained a much smaller company. Instead they started expanding rapidly, and lost the plot.
My heart goes out to the laid off though.
Peloton is also far from insolvent. I'm not saying they were mismanaged or not, but the fact that the gamble they made didn't pay off is not on its own evidence they shouldn't have tried.
Not a wrong comparison at all. His point is that Amazon was a place that sold books. They took risks and grew into a marketplace for selling everything. One mismanagement of their AWS development or platformization and things could be very different.
Peloton is a manufacturer of fitness gadgets AND a content provider of fitness classes. What they could grow into if they take risks is an open and interesting discussion.
Manufacturing a fitness product with streamed classes seemed to be tackling the hardest part of what domain? Sure they could try random things now, but where are they ahead of a media, robotics, car or e-commerce firm? Investors are quoted as thinking he doesn't know what he is doing so probably he shouldn't have built up staff with no new market to enter with an advantage.
Maybe on the hardware side, but I don't know if the same can be said for their content. Having tried many, I don't know if anyone but Apple has even come close to providing the same kind of consistent value for general fitness instruction.
It's the first result for "disable Zoom incoming video".
EDIT: apparently some of you disagree. Change my mind.
But it would be easy to see peloton fitting in with gym classes for people that like to work out everyday but adding 1hr around a gym class to travel and get ready on days that time may not be available
To be fair Peloton was doing ok before pandemic I think. They got disproportionally hyped since pandemic and now returning back to what is realistic value. Myself, I would not touch it with a wooden pole but that's just personal preferences - I do not participate in organized activities. Do everything on my own.
But the narrative that they are essentially a failed company, when they are still growing their user base, and haven't even really done much of an international expansion, is so far off from the reality that their management just spent money like drunken sailors on new businesses that no one wanted.
I'll attempt to change your mind with a bit of math. And some context. I've used/use Peloton, Zwift, Future, and finally brick-and-mortar 24 Hour Fitness and Equinox.
My EQX membership is $240/month. My Peloton membership is $40/month.
You're saying that people are going back to the office and want their classes/gyms, but that's not exactly true. I'm going back to the office, at most 3x a week, typically 2x a week. Work in Manhattan, live in Westchester County (30 min commute).
$240 / 8 visits per month (2x per week) = $30 per visit. $240 / 12 visits per month (3x per week) = $20 per visit.
That $240 made sense when I could go to the gym 4x+ per week. And use multiple locations linked to the membership. It's now a very expensive line item on my credit card statement for doing something 8x per month.
Meanwhile, I can hit 2 or 3 Peloton classes per day, for $40 per month. Some of the most basic supplemental equipment (bands, dumbbells, etc.) can go a long way with some care after dealing with their upfront cost.
So, I agree with you that people want their gyms and classes but I don't agree that people are willing to pay for things they can't physically use as often. Meanwhile, anything you've built up at home is right there waiting to be used with almost no lost time.
That being said, she argues she’s never felt healthier in her entire life and so I can’t complain if she’s happy!
It would be rather normal if cult members never describe cult as "Oh it is just a typical cult with some suspicious ideology, providing dubious benefits and led by a charismatic charlatan"
It seems similar to Yoga where you can find incredible quality online but its really not.
These people always burn out once the gimmick wears off. Then they go searching for the next thing and the next.
Throwing money hand over fist bc they cant figure out to eat better and put the proverbial foot to the concrete.
I'm sure they were all convinced their apple watch was going to keep them on track. These are the people who ran out and bought those stupid finger-toe running "shoes". They thought the Wii Fit Board was going to revolutionize things.
These are people who have perfectly matching and stylish gym outfits. they buy endless supplements to enhance performance or weight loss.
Just go do some hiit. Lift some weights. Take a yoga class. Quit eating like a jackass.
Nutrition and fitness can be complicated but beginner to intermediate changes aren't. 90% of people have an effort and habit problem.
And the western world thinks in consumerism terms. That fitness is something you buy at the store and name drop the brand to your friends.
And it's why they'll yo-yo their efforts all their lives before just giving up entirely
Trainers and peloton classes and such give people the option to rent someone else's willpower, though. (plus leverage sunk-cost sentiments and other tricks)
It's probably part of why fitness levels go up and waistlines down as one's gaze travels up the SES ladder. Someone with money who kinda wants to get fit can pay someone else to do their giving-a-shit for them, and might get fit. Someone without money who kinda wants to get fit—won't. That's what you'd expect to see even with all else, including the distribution of willpower (however we measure that) among various social classes and income levels, being equal.
Spin classes are just HIIT over a 30-60 minute window.
Throw on some tunes and move your ass. If you're not sweaty or tired by the time you're done you did it wrong
Tada.
I reiterate though, it's working well for her health journey, so I'm all for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Acquisition_University
The tech is also pretty well rounded. You can get pretty much all info that the bike has at any time on the app. During a workout, the Apple Watch communicates back biometrics.
I'm a pretty cynical and skeptical person, but after just getting one, I can definitely see the appeal.
She is focused on the Peloton power zone classes. For power zone, you take an FTP test every 6 weeks which measures your ability to produce power output over 20 minutes. The bike then knows your 7 power output zones, from easy effort to max output. Based on that, Peloton instructors design classes which are zone based, and drive improvement at whatever your level is.
I tried powerzone after seeing my wife do it, and although it’s only a part of my exercise, I really like it. You can really see the improvement. I’ve never liked exercise classes in the past, but I like the powerzone classes and instructors.
My wife also signed up for some third party website (I forget what) that is essentially like a team based and powerzone based training plan. It motivates her over longer periods.
Having tried it, I think the peloton bike product is really good. It may have pulled forward a lot of demand and grown too much, but it offers a lot of real value.
Its just where fitness and trendy luxury brand peacocking intersect.
The Peloton's value for many is that the workout in within few steps and 30 seconds from being in the home office chair.
Having not used their software or hardware, I'd assume that for people purchasing a really expensive bike, $40/mo isn't bad. Still...it feels steep.
Edit: Thanks everybody for the explanation. In my head, gym == myself + good ol' iron. It seems that that is cheap in the US as well as in Europe :)
If you (like my SO) is going to the gym and using multiple provided amenities and training programs, that price can get very pricy very fast because those amenities are usually upcharged.
So I can really see the appeal.
if you want classes led by an instructor, you're probably paying more than that -- e.g., the YMCA in my city starts at $50/month/person
If you HAVE to stay inside for bad weather or something get a trainer for that bike. There are several youtube channels/patreon channels that film their mountain-biking/road biking and you can put those on and feel like you're riding along if you need that aspect.
I feel like the type of people that fall for these electronic gadgets typically don't like exercising and are hoping they'll somehow get more motivated with digital content. Invariably, after a few months they quit using it just like every other exercise program they've started.
Spin classes have their appeal and benefits that aren't the same as regular riding. A spin class is (typically) a high-intensity activity done for a fairly short period of time (say, an hour). An hour spent outside on your bike does not impart the same benefits, plus issues of weather and traffic detract (for some) from the overall appeal.
I'm a serious road cyclist, so I kinda dismissed Peloton initially, because I figured because it looked kinda like a bad deal for road-cyclist indoor workouts then it must be the same thing, but it's really not. I have a fancy indoor riding setup using a Wahoo trainer and one of my bikes and an iPad, and that's PERFECT for the kinds of FTP-boosting workouts my coach sets up for me, but Peloton isn't in my market AT ALL. Just because it'd pedaling indoors doesn't make it the same thing.
Spin has its own (typically well-heeled) devotees, and Peloton is pursuing that market. There is almost ZERO overlap between the sets of "my serious cycling pals who do indoor training" and "my friends who own Pelotons," which just highlights the difference.
I've lived in rural areas where biking outside was great and in cities where biking was prioritized but I've also lived in many places where biking outside put myself at a much higher risk of being injured than biking inside. Especially at night after work which is when many exercise.
When I am on vacation I do Peloton audio based outdoor runs to keep my Peloton workout streak alive.
"trainers don't work if you have 7+ bikes in a household with differing drivetrains, even the ones that attach at the wheel"
They absolutely DO work, even then. Wheel-off smart trainers (Wahoo KICKR Snap, e.g.) don't care what your drive train is. We can put every bike we own on ours, and that includes bikes with 9-speed, 10-speed, and 11-speed drivetrains.
If you opt for a wheel-off trainer, sure, you'd probably need to ensure chain/cassette compatibility, but then you're clearly making a tradeoff for a superior "feel" and better power calibration -- in other words, you're probably racing and have no interest in keeping your 9-speed bike on a trainer when you race on 11. ;)
£40/month is worth it. The quality of the classes is impeccable. It's like they've been produced with TV budgets! This price does also include the digital membership which has yoga, boxing and loads of other type of workouts.
The bike (Bike+) is expensive but it's a solid piece of kit and does come with a 24 inch (Android) tablet.
Edit: Forgot to say, the £40/month is per bike, not per member. So you can have your entire family using the bike for the £40/month.
Not sure how recent those instructions are.
commercially available single purpose computers are such a scam
I don't need or want any interactive features that the bike provides, especially at a $25 premium to what I pay now.
does come with a 24 inch (Android) tablet.
When I bought my bike, I saw that 24 inch screen built-in to the Peloton as a drawback, my bike has a simple 4 line LCD bike computer, which I expect to run indefinitely, but it never needs software updates and if it breaks, it costs $200 to replace. And I don't have to plug it into the wall, it runs for a year on AA batteries.
I link my bike to my watch so have all of my workouts in once place -- spinning bike, running, outdoor biking, etc.
25-50/mo. Tops.
20-40 per class is robbery.
It's like asking whether any other digital media subscription is worth it - my wife follows certain instructors and says she really enjoys the rides/classes - there is a certain element of "star power" in this space; the production values are excellent; the integration with the bike is top-notch.
Bike would've been cheaper if I had bought before the pandemic but home gym prices went up, unsurprisingly
Even in the middle of my small town, drop in classes at the gym at 8$ each, on top of your monthly membership.
Fwiw I dont own a Peloton, I prefer running, I just dont think its nearly as bad of a deal as people make it out to be
Just because something can be offered cheaper at scale, doesn’t mean it should or needs to be.
+1 for the IC4, it seems like a much better piece of kit than it had a right to be at the (pre/early pandemic) price point - like $800 IIRC.
And I definitely wouldn't say I'm a member of the "culture", I get on, do a class, get off, that's it. The price is worth it for two people in the house I think.
Its kind of like saying "Quake is cool, but I don't know why I would ever want to play multiplayer..."
If you have the motivation to keep yourself on a bike with just some headphones or a video on a tablet, more power to you, but there are many of us who can't do that. Add in that this has replaced my wife's multiple times a week soul cycle habit, with each class being $40, and Peloton is actually a significant cost savings in my home.
I would get a bike tomorrow if that cost was $15-$25 a month.
It's disappointing to have such nice hardware that's so limited--can't watch youtube or listen to music directly on the device, no built in interval training, no way to pause a run... Now that I think about it, it's one of the least-capable treadmills I've ever owned.
That is in fact as bonkers as it sounds - my wife has a $700 spin bike and just puts an iPad on the front of it. Because she didn't spend $2000 or whatever on the Peloton bike, she says a third of the price for the content.
Has been working like a charm for years now. Feel fancy, just BT to connect the Peloton app to the bike if you want to attend an actual class.
Note, that's a nice bike, you can get no name bikes from Amazon for $150.
Currently, I have one of my bikes mounted in the basement on a $1000 Wahoo Kickr smart trainer and use Zwift for $15/month (which I cancel over the summer).
When I do yoga, I want a live class because I want the instructor to adjust poses based on my skill/flexibility. Mindlessly cycling through sun salutations does nothing for me.
A few family members who aren't fitness buffs have Pelotons. They all slowly stopped using them over time. So the bike is basically a very expensive coat rack.
Like some other comments here, the almost cultish following is quite fascinating to witness in person. Would I get one myself -- probably not, but there's something to be said about the intensely passionate users Peloton has. This passion comes not from the hardware itself but from the trainers who've become celebrities themselves.
I have to admit that this is unlike any workout machine I’ve had. Being totally silent is a big deal; I could watch Tv, take a call, or just generally feel less like I’m working. The classes are also a huge deal; I didn’t know my forms and I wouldn’t structure my own workouts to have the interval training they do. The leaderboards against both other students and my own personal PR push me every day (I just beat my last PR by 8%!).
I really hope the company stays afloat. This has been the best I’ve adhered to a workout plan in almost a decade.
I think they both continue to generate the same reaction in many. They are both over priced products with users that are near cult like in their support of the company. If you are not part of that cult you view people in the cult as a little crazy
You can buy a set of kettlebells up to 24kg, a barbell, and enough plates to make 315 lbs for the cost of a Peloton. Completely different crowd, though.
The customer base also includes me - I ended up getting an exercise bike during the pandemic, was in the price range for a Peloton (expensive as it may be), but ended up not choosing the Peloton.
The biggest factor for me is that I didn't want to tie an expensive bike (which will last for many years) to the upgrade cycle of a consumer electronics device. Which is to say, I wanted to bring-my-own-tablet, knowing that I'd want to upgrade the screen far more often than I'd ever want to upgrade the bike. The tight integration here is actually - at least for me - a downside.
There are also a plethora of subscription services now that do on-demand/livestreamed classes that aren't Peloton, and bringing your own tablet allows you freedom to choose any of them. Oddly enough - subscribing to Peloton's own content on an iPad is cheaper than doing so via their own bike, which further compromises the appeal of their hardware.
I ultimately got a Bluetooth-enabled bike that didn't have any screen at all, but instead has a large tablet holder. Throwing my iPad on it and putting in my AirPods has been very usable.
Those weights do pretty much nothing for your cardiovascular health, unless you've somehow got some crazy 40+ minute routine.
That said, is intense cardio really that important for health? moderate cardio seems to give most of the longevity benefits.
I find these differences fascinating. I used to work out at one of the top bodybuilding gyms in Europe (I’m not a bodybuilder but my trainer was) — and none of the hardcore members would have been caught dead swinging a kettlebell.
Now I work out at a more corporate gym and am trying to learn to stop worrying and love the functional because my trainer is in fact a professional and I pay to learn from him. But I totally give the side-eye to the flimsy TechnoGym gear.
I’m pretty sure that for any given exercise trend, you will find purists and haters and they will be outspoken. Just like in tech, but don’t tell my PT!
But what keeps us doing peloton is really the classes. The content is really broad, there’s always something to do, if you don’t like an instructor, there are plenty more.
It’s hard to articulate this to anyone who hasn’t dived in.
One friend said they don’t need their therapist after doing peloton classes. That’s a stretch but it’s something like that.
A bean counter at the helm?
Ok, they are done.
CEO needs to provide vision based on the financial projection from the CFO.
I found the news about Peloton working with Google to use Stadia as a platform for gaming on Peloton devices, very interesting. So far, what we've seen from gamified exercise equipment has been cheesy, at best. Seems like there is opportunity there.
On the other hand, it's a durable product and they should worry about market saturation.
That said: I totally understand their desire to expand into running, but Zwift as an idea just seems so disconnected from the culture and practice of running that I'm not surprised it's not landing super well with at least some runners. Zwift is a cycling platform first, and it shows.
I don’t know why they did this because someone internal had to know this was a one time thing. Yet they acted like they could just power through and sustain growth through mere force of will.
I think Peleton believed too much of their own BS and flew too close to the sun.
Also, a good Zwift setup will cost more than a Peloton. A reasonable road bike with an 11-speed cassette starts at ~$1k, then you'll need an extra cassette (~$100), smart bike trainer (~$1k), ipad or computer+tv (~$1k), etc.
That said, a TacX Neo2T + Wahoo speed sensitive fan + TV is a fantastic combo.
Fundamentally, Zwift is for road cyclists who are training or stuck inside, and Peloton is for spin class fans, and never the twain shall meet. There's a big gulf between the two groups that is larger than it might seem to someone just casually observing that they appear to be doing almost exactly the same thing.
According to the article it sounds like they had ~14,000 employees
Edit: I misread. 20% of corporate jobs were cut which contributed to the 2800 number
They’re still a small company.
It was innovate when first launched but their half fitness-half entertainment focus has left them unable to do either effectively. Competitors have taken a much more serious approach to fitness and have a better product or have focused mostly on casual fitness (Apple Fitness) and have a more polished end user experience.
Why was any of this necessary on an exercise bike that is otherwise great quality?
P.S. I cannot wait to hear about what actually happened to the employee stock options.
No kidding. This might get really nasty.
Seems like it would be smarter to let others take the hardware risks and have an API for other bike makers to plug into.
Sure but they would inherit the memberships that Peloton has, and if they were smart about it they would do a gradual transition towards merging the platforms, similar to how they handled Beats music IIRC.
I guess Apple would prefer to stay dumb on this thing.
They prefer smaller companies who aren't going to overwhelm the culture of the company.
That said I would imagine apple would need to repackage and improve the product offering so it is up to snuff.
Peloton has 14,000 employees. 20x the size.
Yes, Peloton will be around for awhile, but the growth was never sustainable. I think it is strange anyone thought it would be.
If they need to expand their market beyond cult following, then they need to sell no-subscription options and focus on making the margin when selling the equipment.
Peloton Tread+ Treadmill Safety Incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onXNnlCYJ4Y (viewer discretion is advised)
After the safety recall, Peloton introduced various changes to their products.
(I am not affiliated with these companies.)
My back of the envelope calculation suggests that over the last decade $200-300bn has been spent by VCs on startups, led by Softbank. And with very little to show for it. 95% of tech revenue, profit, and market cap is dominated by MSFT, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon - companies that took very little to no VC funds.
Just makes me ask what a world with little VC influence will look like. Will most likely be more resolute companies and founders building more sustainable businesses who take on this big 5.
It is tough but this is def. a big problem with VC-backed companies who are always under pressure to make the most money whatever happens. Most of us would see 2800 layoffs as a failure but the VCs probably think it a success that they made the most of the market bubble and are now adjusting for a more realistic size/income.
Based on a quick scan of glassdoor, I'd guess most of the people are in sales, customer support, bike repair/delivery, etc.
"cutting 2,800 jobs, including approximately 20 per cent of corporate jobs at the New York City company."
The headcount figures for January before this announcement were:
3281 - US
283 - UK and Germany
71 - Taiwan
Thanks for the correction!
I have to wonder what on earth those other 2800 people were doing?
I would expect a company like Peloton to have a workforce of around 700-1200 people, just based on the market they're in.
20% of that in Manufacturing, Manufacturing Engineering, and Logistics 40% of that in Operations (web, sales, marketing, productions, IT, etc) 15% of that in finance and accounting cost centers 25% of that in management, supervision, product management, general executives.
I guess if they had showrooms or retail operations that number might make more sense, that could add an additional 20-150 people per store (retail is headcount expensive - and how expensive varies based on square footage and desired customer experience).
Their headcount certainly surprised me for a cycling on the internet company :)
Not really when they were selling a far more premium lifestyle experience.
Peloton is an aspirational buy.
That's distinct from "just a bike and an iPad."
But if they want to scale to much larger then as you say they would be competing with 200 dollar bike + ipad.
I'd think that just enticing people who could spend 400 dollars / month might be financially viable then reaching out to masses to justify 40 dollars per month on top of already expensive equipment.
Even if people entirely stopped buying their bikes, they could be be acquired just for their content and brand.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Echelon-Connect-Sport-Indoor-Cycl...
i'm not _too_ surprised about 2800 people. i'm surprised there's anyone left afterwards.
Peleton design and manufacture their own equipment, they ship it globally, they have their own buyers and supply chains for that, They also build the tech that runs their business, from the customer portal to the video integration in the products. They make programs that include CGI and motion graphics. They do sales, and support, for nearly 6 million customers. On top of that there's payroll, and admin, and HR, and ... it's a very long list, that requires a lot of people.
We're bad at estimating large numbers so our first impression is usually wrong. It's important to factor that into any reaction to a number that sounds way too high. It's always worth taking a step back and thinking about why it might actually be correct.
That said, I still agree with the above post. Fitbit has 1,600 employees and actually ships globally. This was excessive.
Of course, per the standard corporate model nowadays, Fitbit in its time as an independent company didn't directly employ the people who do the manufacturing, logistics, retail sales, or front line customer support (nor of course the people who do janitorial services, security, food service, etc for those folks.)
So I don't think it was fair of GP to say:
> All your comment really shows is how little you know about how many people it takes to run a large business
Although perhaps it was more fair to say:
> you don't really understand what Peleton do
Personally, I concluded from the headline that there must be an interesting story there.
It's more likely that they'll do all the things they planned, but slower.
Or they're ramp up the amount of work the remaining staff have to do.
Or they'll cancel some things that would have happened without the reduction in headcount.
I have no idea. I don't work for Peleton. I do work for a large, global company that makes things though, and I do see how the manufacturing things, legal things, digital things (me!), retail things, support things, and admin things all come together and require a lot of work from a lot of people.
What doesn’t make sense is why do all of that themselves, instead of using third party providers.
Bringing more things in house often doesn’t even make sense if you’re a huge behemoth. But even then, it’s a great way to make your company fail, as you lose focus on what value you’re providing.
It's a pretty common reaction to scratch your head and wonder what all those people in $DEPARTMENT are doing all day. Some of them are probably wondering the same thing about your department.
The Peloton stores are the wildcard factor that likely gives them a much larger number.