You Don't Own What You've Bought: Peloton Treadmill Edition
from the everything-costs-money dept
We've written so many stories about how you don't own what you've bought any more due to software controls, DRM, and ridiculous contracts, and it keeps getting worse. The latest such example involves Peloton, which is most known for its extremely expensive stationary bikes with video screens, so that you can take classes (usually on a monthly subscription). I will admit that I don't quite understand the attraction to them, but so many people swear by them. The company also has branched out into extremely expensive treadmills with the same basic concept, but that product has been in the news for all the wrong reasons lately, after a six year old child died in an accident with the device (for what it's worth, that article links to a page on the Peloton site where the article says Peloton posted an open letter to its customers about the accident, but the letter is no longer at that link).
The death kicked off an investigation by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, which then told Peloton it should recall the treadmills and that people should not use them if there are children or pets nearby and apparently you should lock yourself in a room with them:
If people want to keep using the Tread+, they should only do so in a locked room and they should keep other objects away, the agency said. It advised people to unplug the treadmill while not using it and to keep the key to turn it on elsewhere and away from the reach of kids.
In a move that seemed guaranteed to generate bad PR, Peloton fought back against the recommendation calling it "inaccurate and misleading." It wasn't a very good look, and a few weeks later the company did, in fact, issue a recall -- though reports note that very few people will take the company up on the recall.
Not surprisingly, the company is also now facing some class action lawsuits. In that article, it notes that even for people who do not return their recalled Peloton treadmills, the company will issue a software update to try to maintain better safety and avoid children (and pets) from trying to use the device:
Peloton announced that they will refund the machine, which costs $4,295, and are working on a mandatory software update that will automatically lock the Tread+ after each use and require a unique password to be used to unlock the machine.
That automatic lock and password idea sounds sensible enough, given the situation, but in order to get it to work, but apparently Peloton hasn't figured out how to make that work for customers who bought the treadmill and aren't using its subscription service for classes. The Tread+ does have a "Just Run" mode, in which it acts like a regular treadmill (with the video screen off). But, as Brianna Wu discovered, the company is now saying that the "Just Run" mode now requires a subscription to work with the lock. The company is waiving the cost of such a subscription for three months, and it's unclear from the email if that means that after the three months they're hoping to have the "Tread Lock" working even for non-subscription users:
Wow. The Peloton Tread will no longer allow you to use your $3000 treadmill without a $39.99 a month subscription.
The pretext is their design issues that led to a child’s death.
Hope reporters will cover this. pic.twitter.com/XHKS6DaOeD
— Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) June 21, 2021
If you can't see it, the image is an email from Peloton customer support saying:
We care deeply about the safety and well-being of our Members and we created Tread Lock to secure your Tread+ against unauthorized access.
Unfortunately at this time, 'Just Run' is no longer accessible without a Peloton Membership.
For this inconvenience, we have waived three months of All-Access Membership for all Tread+ owners. If you don't see the waivers on your subscription or if you need help reactivating your subscription, please contact our Support team....
Now, it's possible that the subscription part is necessary to update the software to enable the lock mode, but that seems... weird. After all, there must have been some sort of software upgrade that locked out the "Just Run" mode in the first place.
And, obviously, you can understand why (given what happened), Peloton wants to make sure that everyone has upgraded with these new safety features. But the email is woefully unclear on whether or not after the three months of free membership, you'll have to start paying the $40/month to keep using the treadmill, or if it just becomes a quite expensive piece of weird furniture.
I get the need to deal with the risk of harm... but you'd think that the company would have done a better job of making sure it did so in a manner that didn't mean forcing people into a subscription they might not want. Indeed, as basically anyone could have predicted, once this started getting attention, Peloton promised that it was working hard to figure out a way to re-enable "Just Run" without a subscription. Of course, if that was always the plan, you'd think that the email would have said something, because otherwise, this concern was wholly predictable.
Either way, it's yet another reminder of how we don't truly own what we've bought any more thanks to such software locks and the ability to update things after they've been purchased, including taking away features. And that should concern everyone.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drm, just run, ownership, recall, safety, treadmill
Companies: peloton
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's shit like this…
That make me go for two options
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's shit like this…
3.
Ransomware.
As they shut off a device NOT connected to their system.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's shit like this…
That wouldn't be #3, because I don't fuck with Ransomware.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's shit like this…
They shut the machine off remotely. Its ransomware.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The letter from Peloton CEO John-Foley is on the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210507170506/https://support.onepeloton.com/hc/en-us/articles /360058677091-A-Note-from-Peloton-CEO-John-Foley-about-Tread-
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
bad url link ?
...but the CEO's viewpoint would be helpful
sounds like an expensive problem for Peloton but not uncommon in industry -- recalls and fixes to customer products.
Software fixes and upgrades are routine in most digital products and easily provided to customers.
Must be something that Peloton hiding and very concerned about -- or they would not have pursued such an awkward and restrictive software-fix distribution process ?
Poor customer service is the bottomline. Plenty of other companies competing in that market.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"bad url link?"
I got it to work by going to the linked NBC article and copying the original link, and pasting it into archive.org manually, but the URL I got as a result is the same as above. https://support.onepeloton.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058677091-A-Note-from-Peloton-CEO-John-Foley-abo ut-Tread-
It's just PR fluff, doesn't really say anything useful except to exercise common sense and contact them if needed.
"Poor customer service is the bottomline"
Possibly not. I've seen these kinds of issues before, where a company facing major backlash doubles down on bad PR rather than repairing good will with their customers. We usually find out later on that the company was in dire straits and the bad PR move was a desperate hail mary attempt to claw back subscription revenue.
Given that this move apparently disables a basic feature of the treadmill in order to get you to subscribe, the disabling happening with no problem for unsubscribed machines, that sounds likely to be the issue here. There could be more to it, but looking at the situation and similar cases I've seen before, I dare say that it's an attempt to get subscriber numbers bumped up to show investors that they're not about to collapse under the weight of lawsuits. We'll see how this goes...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The other possibility is stupidity, of course; don't underestimate its power. It only takes two to produce what we have here, and I've seen far worse from some companies.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd say that's unlikely. This is a very sensitive issue for the company leading directly on from a situation that required a direct response from the CEO to fend off the effects of legal action being taken against it. This new problem has been fairly well publicised yet I haven't seen any further comments from the company or the CEO, which implies approval.
Meanwhile, the "Just Run" feature is apparently not a new thing, so no change was necessary except to introduce the requirement for a subscription. That's a massive thing for someone to miss, and one that would absolutely require an apology from PR / CEO if it were a genuine mistake... yet, silence...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Link round two
https://web.archive.org/web/20210318171415/https://support.onepeloton.com/hc/en-us/articles/36005867 7091-A-Note-from-Peloton-CEO-John-Foley-about-Tread-
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Link round two
Nope. Still nothing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Link round two
See my comment above - for some reason the link that's generated doesn't work, but if you go to archive.org and paste the link I copied (the link, don't copy the text due to the added space) it takes you to the archived letter. It's not rrally worth the effort though.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Raise your hand if you think a child cannot discover the password to your Peloton/Gun Safe/Cookie Jar if they want to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You’ve missed a key point. A company can’t prevent accidents. What it can do is make incidents harder to occur.
A padlock is never going to be perfect. The point is to add enough friction that a thief hopefully gives up or chooses not to attempt access in the first place.
Similarly, while we don’t know the details of the accident that started this mess, it can be assumed that the machine was turned on, by accident or on purpose, by a child messing around. A password lock can’t prevent the child from doing so. But it can prevent virtually all accidental attempts to turn it on, and hopefully make it harder for a 6 year old to intentionally start it up not understanding the risk. Hard enough that a 6 year old would go do something else.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At risk of blaming the victim, you're probably doing it wrong if they do. That is, you picked an obviously guessable PIN (I'm assuming it's numeric) or wrote it down. The exception is if they see you entering it (while technically a security lapse to let someone watch you enter a code, I wouldn't blame someone for that). The likelihood of that happening is inversely proportional to the chance of injury or death using it. A 2 year is not likely to remember the passcode, and a 10 year is probably not going to get sucked under. Security is never perfect, but this doesn't sound too bad, especially in the absence of a hardware update.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There are some simple rules that people are unaware of.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, I have a chance to do something about it every time I shop. By not buying any of this stuff.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See #9.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"You'll hate me for having formulated the rules and will feel obligated to reject and deny them. But secretly you'll be miserable about the fallacies you've used to shout me down."
Your "rules" are nothing of the sort. They're your assertions and may or may not be based on the available evidence. But they're not the absolutes you're claiming, and you are acting likely they're truths so solid it's not up for debate.
And if you're going to try and claim that someone actively NOT purchasing web connected appliances or items, as a deliberate market choice to avoid these issues, is just a fallacy it is incumbent upon you to explain why. Feigning superiority with smug, insubstantial replies doesn't strengthen your initial assertions.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They're baaaaaaaaack.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
$4,295??!! Geez!! For that price, when I got off that thing, I'd want to be somewhere else miles away.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [miles away]
Sure, we can do that. We have the technology, at least around the City. We call this sort of tech ``sidewalks'',.
How it works: I get on them in the morning and start a walking motion. I continue for a little less than a half-hour. When I get off the sidewalks, I am at the office. For two-a-days, I can start up in the evening, with similar body motions,and wind up at the house.
And believe me, it is expensive. You should see my quarterly property tax bills if you have any doubts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That’s not eve that expensive in the grand playing field of gym equipment.
The one my father bought back in the mid 2000s was $6000 back then, and was an “entry level” model.
Going to an actual exercise store, not a sports store, you’ll find five digits is normal for treadmills.
I get your point, though. It’s a motor, a belt, and a mount. $300 tops. So everything else is extra padding.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not make a $0 subscription tier that only enables Just Run. Maybe just put the warranty registration info into that subscription tier and mail them a letter with their temp username and password and incentivize them to sign in? Maybe 3 months of free full subscription as a trial.
There are much better ways to do this.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Why not make a $0 subscription tier that only enables Just Run"
My suspected answer is that they're hurting financially and this is a desperate move to claw back the subs they've been losing. Allowing people to use the treadmill without paying them monthly is probably the last thing they want to allow, PR be damned.
"There are much better ways to do this."
Depends on what your aim is. If the aim is to generate customer support and increase future sales, this is a terrible way to go about it. If the aim is to quickly and artificially boost subscriber numbers so that investors win't flee in the face of lawsuits, it's probably they only way they can do that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The world is full of better treadmills that are cheaper, work without subscriptions, don't need software updates and don't kill your kids or pets.
Buying this hunk of junk in the first place was dumb. Not taking the refund is just plain nuts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
think back to when this started, ie, a cunt of a judge ghave Sony the right to stop supporting a system that most people wanted working and why they bought the equiopment in the first place! since that fucking dimwit (and i assume he was paid handsomely by Sony for arriving at the decision favoring them) things have gone totally out of hand! how the hell can there be even a hint of legallity in a company wanting and then taking a customers money in exchange for them purchasing a physical or other item? where was the 'you buy this but it will never belong to you' info when the item/service inquestion was sold? i cannot believe that this is the situation we're now in, all because of a single, corrupt judge!
i woinder what he'd say if someone came along now and kicked him out of his house because the builder didn't give permission for the extension to be built, or the new bathroom be installed! perhaps if that were to happen the friggin' dimwit would think again on yet another decision that has crippled the public!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Peloton: We don't give you a run for your money.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe customers should insert a clause in the service contract saying that they reserve the right to take back their money if the company changes the product in a way that they don't like. I've read that if someone makes changes to a contract and the other party doesn't object, and provides them the service/product, it means that they've agreed to the changes and will be legally bound by them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
My hot wife says it invigorated our marriage.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Peloton did it right
You can't be outraged at this action because they are offering a refund. When this shit happens and the company doesn't give you a choice is the time for outrage.
"Peloton announced that they will refund the machine, which costs $4,295"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a super easy and inexpensive way for a person to fix a treadmill problem. Buy a pair of $100 sneakers and go run outside.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is super easy and inexpensive, but some people want to run year round and don't like to run when it's snowing, or raining, or 100 degrees.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, what?
To start this appears to be one hell of an overreaction.
The linked story doesn’t give much detail, but how did the kid die? My first guess is faulty parenting: like leaving the key in the device.
Were people linking their machines to WiFi just for the hell of it? Supposedly you could previously use the unit without a subscription. If you aren’t streaming lessons why are you connected?
And if you didn’t do so how did a machine not connected to the internet get an over the net update that locked out the users?
There’s a LOT of missing info in the entire universe of this story.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, what?
The treadmill pulled the child under and crushed them. Which shouldn't even be possible. Most treadmills don't leave the back of the belt open like that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, what?
"To start this appears to be one hell of an overreaction."
What appears to be an overreaction? You think it's fine for you to be forced to pay a $40 monthly subscription to turn a feature off? That is what this story is about, even if it relates to a larger story.
"The linked story doesn’t give much detail, but how did the kid die?"
There's several linked articles, so I'm not sure which you're referring to. But, my understanding elsewhere is that while full details have not yet been released about the death specifically, there's numerous examples of accidents happening with these machines, including video of kids being dragged down under the treadmill while it's operating.
On top of that, my understanding from discussions elsewhere is that these types of treadmill usually come with a type of safety guard not present on the Peloton. If true, that harms the usual excuses, since not installing standard safety features implies wilful negligence.
"Were people linking their machines to WiFi just for the hell of it?"
No, but they also may not have been using the online features 100% of the time so they disconnected while they were using it for other purposes. Is this a problem for you?
"If you aren’t streaming lessons why are you connected?"
Alternatively, do you turn the wifi off on every product you own while you're not actively using it? Most people don't, they have a bunch of products that silent update in the background.
"There’s a LOT of missing info in the entire universe of this story."
Only to people who are not willing to apply some common sense and read around to catch up on the ongoing story's history. But, since you seem to be building this up as another case where death and injury is fine so long as they don't happen enough to directly affect a company's profit, I suspect you're not applying those deliberately.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, what?
“ What appears to be an overreaction?”
That the company would start forcing lockouts on equipment over an accident. This is a bizarre overreaction to a user caused error.
“ You think it's fine for you to be forced to pay a $40 monthly subscription to turn a feature off?”
Not at all. Not at any amount.
“ including video of kids being dragged down under the treadmill while it's operating.”
I got that from another user. Looks like parental stupidity to me again.
“…come with a type of safety guard not present on the Peloton…”
I’ve seen those back end cover on lower end equipment. It appears to be quite common, given I instantly know what the reference is, it definitely not universal.
“ Is this a problem for you?”
No. Trying to figure out how the hell an over the top upgrade host so many machines of users not using the service.
“ Alternatively, do you turn the wifi off on every product you own while you're not actively using it?”
Generally yes. But not universally. No that’s not normal. I’m a tech with a security background.
And that’s not my point. Again, just wondering how people are getting an update if they aren’t using the features in the first place.
Don’t jump so fast to ‘he’s against’ on things. This is obviously a case of a company overreacting to a situation.
A) if kids get injured using adult equipment the adult usually at fault.
B) bricking machines because your afraid of Americas ‘not my fault’ legal system is going too far.
Side question, point of my comment:
How the hell did this update make it onto so many machines?
Thoughts:
For those who aren’t familiar with exercise equipment beyond the local sporting store:
Nearly all but the lowest end of treadmills require at least two safety features to activate. A key to turn the machine on, and an emergency cutoff pin, attached to a cable and a strap worn by the user, much like a jet ski cutoff. Higher end ones go further as they have more (and more dangerous) features. Requiring passwords. Pin and usb. Multi step activation. Etc.
Those discussed rear belt guards are only found on flat or minimal grade machines. This, does, cover most machines.
High degree grade systems and active grade units rarely have rear belt covers.
I don’t know enough about the company or unit to know why there’s no rear cover. But they’re not universal.
Out of three I’ve owned, one inherited and two purchased, only one has a belt cover and it’s a 2• grade manual adjust.
How do you willingly let kids operate a high end machine without supervision and without proper safety equipment.
If not willingly allowing access; how do you not have enough thought in place to keep them off the equipment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait, what?
I'm curious how many children and pets would have to die for this to be an appropriate reaction.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
Such a situation requires human interaction.
For starters: most people young enough to be injured on such machines can’t reach the operational panel to turn the key, and are rarely tall enough to wear the safety strap. So was the machine left engaged? Was the safety strap left in.
Was the key left on a desk or in a drawer at reachable height.
And any competent handler keeps pets out of the room if an operating treadmill.
Assuming the machines didn’t have WiFi, how would such a ‘mandated’ update be offered? Likely on a memory card or usb device available to registered owners.
They offered a recall. Forcing a bricking without a $$ subscription that allows them to know who has and has not activated just run is beyond shade.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
Interesting that you didn't answer the question. Not surprising though.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
Children and pets wouldn’t die(based on the given information ) if machines were properly locked out.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
So you're OK with unlimited child and pet deaths, if it can be reasonably blamed on the owner?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
Way to twist that.
I’m not sure what you want. And again I have no familiarity with this company or model.
What I do know is that you can not put a back cover on an incline capable treadmill without drastically increasing it’s length.
To the point where it is no longer suitable for home use.
And yes, the owner (or person in charge of a pet or child) is the the sole one responsible for such circumstances.
These machines don’t jump to life like terminators or transformers. Not according to any report I’ve ever read. Every one I’ve seen is 100% owner preventable.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
What I am against is, is charging money and bricking multi-thousand-dollar equipment!
To do something the machine already did before.
Did you read the article?
This isn’t about the accident. It’s about charging money to do what the machines could do before an accident And legal fears caused the company to over react by blocking general use of a basic function and charging (currently waived) for a subscription.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
"This isn’t about the accident"
Yet, the comments we're replying to are you complaining about the accident.
"And legal fears caused the company to over react by blocking general use of a basic function and charging (currently waived) for a subscription."
Bullshit. The lawsuit does not mean that they can't offer the feature for free as it was before.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
“ Bullshit. The lawsuit does not mean that they can't offer the feature for free as it was before.”
My issue, as the article contends, is tying a sale time function, just run, to a paid subscription service.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
"My issue, as the article contends, is tying a sale time function, just run, to a paid subscription service."
Yes, and nobody here is saying that it's a good thing. We're just responding to your arguments about other things, since your tech knowledge is apparently so vast that you don't understand automatic connection and updates.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
The article doesn’t cover required connecting it to the WiFi in the first place for setup.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait, what?
"This is a bizarre overreaction to a user caused error."
I'll wait for the courts to decide whether that's true, but I see you've decided the facts of the case before they've been made public.
"Not at all. Not at any amount."
Yet, you seem to be vehemently disagree with an article that's criticising them doing that.
"Trying to figure out how the hell an over the top upgrade host so many machines of users not using the service."
I'm not sure what you mean by "host" in this context so I assume it's a typo, but it's not particularly hard to understand why devices that silently update their firmware when wifi is available would affect so many users.
"Again, just wondering how people are getting an update if they aren’t using the features in the first place"
Why do you think that devices have to be in use in order to update?
"A) if kids get injured using adult equipment the adult usually at fault."
Safety features exist for a reason. We'll wait for the outcome of the lawsuits before we know all the facts, but yet again you seem to fail at the concept of shared liability. If Peloton were aware of a higher than normal risk of accidents and refused to address them, or deliberately failed to provide industry standard safety features to increase their profit margins, they could indeed be liable to some degree. But, again, we won't really know until it's seen the inside of a court, and the full facts are made public.
"How the hell did this update make it onto so many machines?"
How the hell does someone who claims to work in tech get to be surprised by the idea of automatic updates?
"How do you willingly let kids operate a high end machine without supervision and without proper safety equipment."
Can you link to the article that shows that this happened in this case? It's strange, here I am making observations based on known factors, and you seem to be making concrete assertions based on a case where the factors are not known. Have I missed the article that you're basing your conclusions on?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
Because a shite Tard decides to pre-class my opinions?
I’m 100% against the situation the article describes is happening. Was that you, not sorry.
“ host“
Source of software. If you’re not a user of the online service, why is your treadmill online?
I blame the person most responsible. Because 9 times in ten they could have prevented the issue in the first place.
As for risk:profits?
Again if this is, and as I said more than once I don’t know, if this is a case of getting under the machine via the back side there industry standard is to not I close the back end of ANY treadmill that can change its incline level.
Given the general layout of a treadmill: a belt, a motor, 6 or more rollers:
It’s simple math. Every 1• of incline adds 10-16 inches of rear clearance depending on belt width.
“ How the hell does someone who claims to work in tech get to be surprised by the idea of automatic updates?”
Again, are this many people not using internet functions logging their equipment into the internet?
If you plug it in and rune it in just run, it shouldn’t get over the air updates.
UNLESS it has it’s own cellular or non-WiFi wide band pre configured access point built in.
As we all know from OnStar and MyBlue/MyConnect backlash connection to the internet without owner approval is very frowned spin.
“ Can you link to the article that shows that this happened in this case”
My premise is that there have been ZERO cases of self starting treadmills: ever!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
"If you’re not a user of the online service, why is your treadmill online?"
Because it's not been taken offline since you first connected it. Most devices try connecting to the configured wifi when they boot, and unless something has changed it will do that successfully every time.
"I blame the person most responsible"
So, Peloton for their money-grubbing action here, and we'll see who's actually at fault when the details come out about the death.
"Again, are this many people not using internet functions logging their equipment into the internet?"
Because they did that when they first connected it to wifi and haven't disconnected it since. Again, this is not hard unless you're really determined to make it so.
"If you plug it in and rune it in just run, it shouldn’t get over the air updates."
You connect it to the internet when you first set it up, then it's automatically connecting to the internet every time you turn it on unless you explicitly go in and disconnect it or the password has been changed. Which most people aren't going to bother doing. Once again, not hard to comprehend.
"My premise is that there have been ZERO cases of self starting treadmills: ever!"
So, your premise is based on a claim nobody's making. Gotcha.
I'll base my premise on facts when they're released, which will include the actual claims being made, not what you assume they need to be.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
“ Because they did that when they first connected it to wifi and haven't disconnected it since.”
Does it require being connected at some point?
“ You connect it to the internet when you first set it up,”
Now the whole thing makes sense!
Either the above article didn’t say that or I somehow missed It
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
"Does it require being connected at some point?"
I'd assume that most people purchasing such a device would connect it initially. Whether or not they opt to continue doing so is another matter, but I would say it's perfectly possible and reasonable to connect it and decide not to continue with a subscription, but then have an automatic update still appear that changes the operation of the device.
"Either the above article didn’t say that or I somehow missed It"
I've never owned one, but Occam's Razor suggests that it's the most likely reason behind the questions you have. People buying internet connected devices will usually connect them, and they won't usually go in and delete all their wifi settings if they decide not to use that functionality for whatever reason, be it because they decide they don't need those extra features or just can't afford the subscription for the moment. Since opting out of a subscription doesn't automatically remove all online functionality, such as that relating to software updates, it's really no mystery why people not actively using the subscription would still get those updates.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait, what?
I have a Precor. It’s an auto-grade. Meaning it inclines or declines slightly during preprogrammed routines.
Again I don’t know the discussed brand. Or it’s sales method.
Mine’s a few years old but it is WiFi capable. But it didn’t come with a subscription.
I could pay extra to download all sorts of reality-based programs like trails and paths from around the world.
I never did so I never connected it.
Didn’t cross my mind they may offer a free starter pack.
Makes sense now that you suggest it though.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply