I'm not saying he didn't save apple or whatever, I'm just unconvinced that being that particular model of arrogance was necessary part of said "saving". Obviously we can't roll back time and replace him with an identical clone with the only difference being that he didn't shout at people or have personal vendettas against other people.
I don't recall similar stories about Bill Gates, and yet MS clearly did well.
I don't know about yelling and vendettas, but he has a checkered relationship with the open source/hobbyist community because he imposed proprietary licensing on his BASIC implementation despite the computer hobbyists of the time working more on a FOSS model. When hobbyists copied his software despite the license, he wrote an open letter claiming they were stealing from him. However, the rampant copying also meant Microsoft Basic became the most popular variant which solidified Microsoft's market lead.
He was, unquestionably, a true visionary, though, and his obsessive, brutal management style, allowed him to implement his visions, with little interference. It reminds me of the "bad guy" in Braveheart, Edward "Longshanks" the First. He was a complete bastard, but he also unified a lot of what is now Britain.
Steve Jobs was also an outstanding persuasive speaker. He could not only convince you that the world was flat, but sell you First Class tickets, on a boat to the edge. The "RDF" was real.
But so many people think that dressing, and acting, like Steve Jobs will somehow allow them to channel him (see: "Cargo Cult"). They get the "asshole" part down, but can't quite synthesize the "visionary" part.
It's a bit ironic that Tim Cook is sort of the polar opposite of Jobs. It seems to me, that he's actually a rather decent chap (as much as any CEO can be).
Business people, startup people, VC funders, etc all idolize a specific image of Jobs, which mostly appears to focus on how he dressed, and how he was an asshole to people.
We will never know if being an asshole was needed to get Apple to where he got it, I'm inclined to think it isn't.
For Amazon though, it's incorrect to refer to them as a bookstore - AWS is a huge portion of their revenue.
On the other hand you have Google and Facebook that people call technology companies, but their core business is advertising.
I think at this point "tech" in "tech company" doesn't mean technology, because otherwise surely Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc would surely be tech companies?
So Facebook and JCDecaux are both advertising companies, but only Facebook is a "tech" company.
Lockheed Martin is a tech company, but Google is a "tech" company.
I don't think it's a great term for that kind of company.
Companies like Uber or Netflix don't do this. They're platform for rent-seeking of services or durable goods (or perhaps call it "assisted living for people under 60")
Tech investing (big bets in say, a new solar panel manufacturing technique) has really been replaced with very conventional investing that uses technology (a platform to say rent panels out and have the rental fees paid by the power sold back to the utility company).
Sand Hill Road has lost its mojo. I'm part of the problem. The rentier multisource funding model sounds way more attractive to me then some technical way to reduce manufacturing costs by say 80%.
Our minds have been polluted. We need to get back to the fundamentals and avoid the lemon squeezing extractive stuff. That's not how we move things forward and it's part of the reason many people have lost faith in capitalism; it's become too much a siphoning of the commons instead of a servicing to it. It needs a reorientation.
I've got zero interest getting into one of those internet "debates" where a bunch of people extremely unfamiliar with concepts flex their knowledge to show me how "wrong" I am. No interest
Have a good day and forget about it
Are you really saying that Netflix offers no “contribution of productivity.”? Or that they don’t have any added value.
If you had said that the 30% App Store fee is “rent seeking”, I would agree with you.
FYI: I have an MBA that I never used…
I don't know if Peleton makes good ones, but Precor certainly does. That said, it was weird of Peleton to overpay for a company that makes expensive fitness equipment purchased largely by gyms, who probably aren't purchasing much of anything these days.
It's like buying an iPad pro and expecting yourself to find an interest in illustration.
It's perfectly reasonable to believe that there must be people for which treadmills are incredible.
I like riding and running outside, sometimes really early in the morning when the sea is good for surfing. But I can understand people who would consider the few miles I have to run or ride to the beach utterly boring to ride or run a few days a week.
Other than the different asshole drivers trying to kill me from time to time, there isn't much variety in my outside rides tbh. I can understand someone preferring riding a Peloton bike under nice air-conditioning, with their favorite music in the background, under the watchful eyes of their cat, while watching they kids playing outside.
Sometimes people watch a movie that makes them cry and they decide to learn guitar just like the girl with cancer in movie.
Or they decided to buy a really expensive bike and now this is a big motivator for them to ride everyday.
Or sometimes people live in a cold place, they are shy and have feelings of inadequacy and won't feel good in a gym where they think people will judge them.
Or maybe they are from a minority and kind of don't feel welcome at the only gym in the backwards small town they live.
Of course this is a personal anecdote, but I found in my life plenty of people who were never motivated enough to go to a gym, to learn surfing, to practice jiu-jitsu until they become.
Change the environment, nudge a factor here and there, tweak an incentive here, and maybe you just did enough to motivate someone.
For me, I hate the cold more than I like snowboarding, and I don't really have the money to invest in equipment. If I loved snowboarding enough having had a very good experience initially, perhaps through one of those variables that you mentioned being tweaked, then I'd find a way to do it by sourcing used gear or w/e, but ultimately I just don't like it enough atm to do that. Therefore I'm very much in favor of tweaking anything to explore a new activity, but I'm doubtful that more than a tiny percentage of people stick with it for more than a month because they really wanted to play cancer-girl's song. It wasn't an innate drive to pursue an art, it was an external momentary source of novelty, akin to setting a New Years resolution.
Likewise with ice-skating or something. If you feel genuinely driven to do that, but you don't like skating indoors at the local rink, you'll try and do it regardless of your equipment, and try to find an outdoor rink, or maybe a frozen lake, or pond, or you'll be sad if you can't because you live somewhere too warm with a culture that doesn't support it, or you'll vacation to somewhere colder. I always recommend not trying to find something fun that you don't find fun, but instead just exploring many options horizontally to eventually find something you do find fun. Great, you don't like the gym, try climbing, try hiking, try swimming, try running, whatever. Then think about spending $$ as you see fit to support the thing you're actually compelled to do.
Genuinely curious as I've (in my limited experience) only ever seen them intermittently used a handful of times and then forgotten about. My dad used to buy up used ones for a pittance for their motors which he used for hobby projects, and most of the time they looked unused except for some dust or dry rotting.
Feature-wise, a good treadmill supports inclination of several degrees in the 'up' direction and at least a couple of degrees downward. Obviously the controls need to be responsive and easy to work with while running. And the whole thing needs to be designed without forehead-slapping engineering errors like the ability (much less the tendency) to pull objects beneath the deck. If the belt is exposed at the rear without a cover or guard of some kind, as was notoriously done by Peloton, that would be an example of how not to do it.
Basically, any treadmill that doesn't suck is going to end up weighing a few hundred pounds and costing several thousand dollars. It will be designed with gym use in mind, rather than primarily for home users.
I had a Precor C964 for several years, but sold it when I moved. I eventually replaced it with a similar model from the same company (TRM 425), and I'd say those two models are examples of very good commercial-grade treadmills that will last more or less forever in a home environment. Frankly I liked the older model a bit better, as it had simpler controls with less lag.
I use my treadmill daily. Even if I'm not doing a proper guided run workout, I'll just hop on the treadmill and walk for a couple hours while watching TV instead of just sitting on the couch. It's easily the best purchase I made during the pandemic. I'm not convinced the expensive peloton machines are worth it, but I'm rarely going above 9 mph so my basic one with a TV in front of it and the free peloton subscription provided by my insurance has served me very well.
Also, as others have suggested, Peloton is really a social network... or at least they should think of themselves that way, if they want to make money. Arguably they shouldn't be in the hardware business at all. They are trying to run two radically different businesses, each of which is hard enough on its own.
The punch line "we are not a window blinds company; we are privacy company" takes the cake!
Which... isn't a bad business model per se IMO. With the current trend of "self improvement", there are enough people willing to pay lots of money, for everything from gym memberships to individual personal trainers.
The issue is: this is not going to be an exponential-stock-growth-style business model, as many seem to expect. There is no hope for the usual "undercut the competition in pricing and establish a monopoly that can be used for rent-seeking afterwards" VC model, no hope for a make-everyone-filthy-rich acquisition by an established market player, at best this is going to be a steady, "boring" cash cow.
(Note, I don't hold any stakes in Peloton or competitors)
(unless you want your job to be meaningful or something)
The slide deck is comical in its defensiveness of the company itself, how does one compare video remote classes with boutique classes that had better have 8- students to explain $300/month?! Or is this people in LA assuming their local phenomenons are normal?
I do agree on costs, though. I'm a pretty keen cyclist (outdoors) and dabble in running. I have tried various fitness apps like Strava out of curiosity, even played around trying to analyze my own gps traces in Jupyter to figure out my aerobic threshold. But I don't see any of the apps as worth paying a subscription for [1].
[1] Except maybe trailforks, if I'm on holiday in an area I don't know that has unofficial mtb trails well documented on that platform. But now they've made it proprietary I'm far less inclined to contribute my own trails to the database, so go figure.
Expecting long term income from trend followers.
Just have an ear what many employees talk about at the water cooler or coffee machine:
* technology (in the engineering sense): tech company
* software: software company
* something else: ... company (for example finance company)
In other words: Is producing software the actual goal of the company or a means to an end?
* If software is in the opinion of most employees the actual goal of the company: software company
* Is software a means to the end of producing engineering products: tech company
* Is software written for high-frequency trading: finance company or investment company
etc.
The loyalty of their customers is a result of the high-production value streamed and recorded classes and the celebrity appeal of their instructors.
> which as a CEO of a technology company