[randshift]

The title of this article is somewhat silly to me. The subscription fee has never been a surprise to anyone who's owned one.

The point of a Peloton is to do the classes, either for running or spinning, which require a subscription. It would be silly to buy a premium device who's point is to use the subscription based features and specifically intend to use it without the subscription. Just buy a similar treadmill from another company.

[ErikVandeWater]

The title is poorly worded. But intentionally bricking customers' devices post-purchase to require a subscription is an absolutely insane decision, especially given that the reasoning they give for it is a reminder that they just killed a child.

[_jal]

> It would be silly to buy a premium device who's point is to use the subscription

I think you could have stopped there.

The business model appears to be: sell an expensive hostage, justify ramping up recurring ransoms by threatening to kill the hostage.

[jen20]

> subscription. It would be silly to buy a premium device who's point is to use the subscription based features and specifically intend to use it without the subscription.

What if they go out of business?

[nradov]

I suppose that's always a risk but Peloton is in a strong financial position. They're highly unlikely to go out of business within the expected lifespan of a treadmill.

[altacc]

Currently performance is not a guarantee of long term outcomes, many companies have appeared to be in a strong financial position and then suddenly collapsed. As it is Peloton is currently running at a loss. You also have to factor in acquisitions, which occasionally have led to a loss of support for devices.