Is that similar to a video store masquerading as a tech company? Or a book store masquerading as a tech company? Or an apple masquerading ... Oh wait, that actually IS a tech company.
I kind of agree it's time to depedestalize "tech"founders. Every company is a tech company and their bosses can be just as scumbags. The religion that worships infotech as inherently unevil and idealistic needs to die.
The fawning over Steve Jobs (and I don't mean apple coolaid folk) is always bizarre, and I think really drove a lot of the "super star ceo" nonsense these days.
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.
Steve Jobs was, quite likely, one of the biggest jerks in Silicon Valley history. I've worked with two people, over the years, who worked closely with (or directly under) him, at one point or another, and they both loathed him. I mean serious hate. It was pretty shocking, as they were very calm, likable folks, otherwise.
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).
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.
I think the point is more about people who worked with Gates not having that many bad things to say about him. I used to follow MSFT news very closely during the Gates era and invariably you'd hear stories how people at the company genuinely liked him.
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.
Wall Street thought he was a loser too after we was fired as CEO of Apple and just another dumb founder and he should sell his company to IBM. This story repeats again and again. Steve Jobs proved them all wrong and now everything Apple does is brilliant and they should buy Peloton.
I know plenty of people who argue about whether Netflix is a tech company - certainly their infrastructure is non-trivial but are they meaningfully different from HBO?
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?
I think of "tech" companies as companies where you've got large fixed costs to build out and maintain the product, but the marginal cost of your product is very close to zero.
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.
In spirit it's to take big bets on things that may not work; the transistor radio, the microprocessor. The eventual goal is to push forward something potentially for the social welfare such as say a logarithm table or star catalog in an earlier time.
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.
It's an academic economic term. Economic rent isn't the same as the common term. Taking a back catalog of content and charging for the right to view is a form of academic, economic rent. Licensing models, such as a video store, are frequently used as examples of rentierism.
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
There is two sides to Netflix. One is the content side, which is much like HBO, and the other side is the infrastructure side, which without a doubt is a tech company. They could contract out their infrastructure and they would surely not be a tech company, but as long as they develop that, they are a tech company in my book.
I think of tech companies whose main purpose is to sell or make software for businesses and people. Netflix is a media company. Tesla is a car company. Apple is both a consumer device company and tech company. Peleton is a fitness company.
I dislike running outside and live somewhere that is freezing cold almost half the year.
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.
Well, that's more or less what I was saying in a sense, though I'm a little surprised that anyone would prefer that experience to running outside, supposing it wasn't mid-winter. I personally would prefer to spend the money on snowboarding or something, or living somewhere without winter, or somewhere more interesting to run, but I'm sure there are circumstances that you favour living in that place for.
It sounds like you're fortunate enough to live in an area with good outdoor air quality. There are many places where aerobic exercise without a good HEPA filter in the room with you is almost certainly a net negative for health and longevity.
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.
Certainly, if I lived somewhere with shit air quality, I'd prefer something indoor. But then if I was in the market for a peloton, I'd probably have enough money (which I don't and am not in either case) to live somewhere worthwhile instead of struggling to breath as soon as I step outside. At least, that's where I'd be trying to allocate my money. Idk why someone would want to be a part of a social network to interact with other people who are sitting in one place and who bought the same product. Seems like the friendship would be pretty shallow.
You've never owned, or likely even used, a really good one.
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 not a personally derived anecdote, just an observation. I just don't see people who aren't sufficiently motivated enough to go for a real bike or workout at a gym changing their mind because they consoomed a new $$ one. I do know some people who do, but they basically have no choice in the matter but to do something in winter.
It's like buying an iPad pro and expecting yourself to find an interest in illustration.
People are motivated by the most diverse stuff you can imagine.
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.
Yes, in some circumstances I absolutely agree, there's a lot of reasons someone wouldn't be motivated to do something, but my opinion is that the overwhelming factor is that they don't find it fun enough to try and overcome those things. Sure, someone might feel uncomfortable at a gym, but often that's a matter of finding one that suits you, getting used to it, or finding it remotely fun for some reason. If you find running satisfying enough, the likelihood that there will be an insurmountable obstacle to doing that is usually low. Buying $400 shoes won't make you love running.
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.
You aren't just buying an indoor "replacement" of an outdoor activity. You are also purchasing a coach/work out buddy. It's this latter part that is the differentiator between a normal indoor trainer/treadmill and what Peloton sells.
Right, because treadmills are exactly a boring replacement for an outdoor activity, and you need to augment that to convince people it's different and you should consoom their version.
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.
I'm not sure what the parameters look like, but the deck needs to exhibit a combination of sturdiness and resilience underfoot to make for a comfortable running surface. Basically it should be springy but not too springy, and only in the normal direction. The frame needs to be solid and massive, again so that the whole thing doesn't move in unwanted directions while using it. The motor should be strong enough to operate smoothly at speeds up to at least 10 to 12 MPH, preferably more to allow for headroom.
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.
The subscribers aren't subscribing for using the treadmill, they are subscribing for fitness courses and the likes.
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)
Aren't gyms generally famous for cashing in on people who sign up for memberships they never actually use? Seems like a genius plan to disrupt that tried and tested business model with a more efficient alternative where users buy the gyms for you so you don't need to maintain them.
(unless you want your job to be meaningful or something)
I think Richard Simmons already brought us this disruption, and you can pay what you want at the closest yard sale!
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?
Second hand kit? Aren't you and your goals of self improvement worth more than that? ;-)
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.
You don't need any of their hardware. A large portion of the courses are exercises that need nothing but a floor. The quality of the classes is very good. Its a SaaS media company with an optional hardware upsell.
I get that, but when a lot of what they sell is the subscription, and streaming content still takes some work, I think there's a non-trivial amount of tech that makes that happen.
Their stock dropped like 75% in a bull market. That's what gets the vultures circling. If the CEO was a weirdo who gave some bad interviews while the stock doubled we'd all be calling him an eccentric genius. It works for Elon Musk.
They are a realtime content company that just happens to use technology in the same way a tv station is not a theatre troupe. Did they ever try to give the impression of being a tech company?