[etjossem]

Instead of $1,995 up front, it's $3,783 over 39 months due to a subscription contract bundled with the financing. This is a very clever way to claim "no interest" but actually charge 27% APR. There are absolutely customers who buy this but can't afford it.

[tempsy]

If you didn’t buy the bike on financing you’d still have to pay the subscription if you wanted to use it as intended. Not sure why you’d consider the subscription an interest-like fee. The only criticism is if you stopped using the bike before you paid it off then yes you would be paying subscription fees for all the remaining months you never used.

For what it’s worth, according to the S-1 they stopped bundling the subscription as part of the bike financing in 2018, so people are just financing the bike alone now.

[scarface74]

And this is no different than the typical phone financing plan.

You pay for the phone over 24 months but they “bundle” the cost of an additional line. You would pay for the cost of the line over 24 months but no one would call that “interest”. You could buy the phone outright and just use it over WiFi just like you can use a Peleton without the subscription. But, in both cases, it reduces the functionality of the product.

[etjossem]

In both the case of the phone and the Peloton, it allows someone who can't afford the item to pay for it on an installment basis. On an individual level that access to credit might be useful, but it's another form of leverage which is not always a great indicator.

In fact, if people are making use of that option unusually often, economists get worried. Prior to a recession, consumers often feel more confident (and take on more financial obligations) than they have the resources to keep up with.

[dillonmckay]

That is some interesting SaaS+hardware financial wizardry.

As you said, very clever.