Launch HN: Aviron (YC W21) – High-Intensity Peloton for Rowing
I feel like sometimes this pisses the hardcore rowers off but I’m not a rower, I’m a tech guy. I also think fitness is important and have been working out all of my adult life. Before Aviron, I worked full time and long hours so I did a lot of my thinking during late night gym sessions. Like many people I avoided the rower because not only did I not enjoy cardio but damn that machine was hard and boring. There was a moment at some point in 2016 when I realized I could do something with this. The connected fitness market in the US at that time was small but growing rapidly.
Aviron is a rowing machine because it’s the most efficient and effective workout you can have in a short amount of time on one machine. The rowing motion is low impact, engages 85% of muscles, is very difficult and as a result can also be boring. This makes the rowing machine an ideal ‘candidate’ to pair with the gaming-inspired, competitive content I began thinking about in 2016.
The research was telling me there was a definite potential market niche I could fill but what I didn't know was that no manufacturer would speak to me. I probably called and emailed 50 manufacturers. I eventually kickstarted a few conversations and finally a relationship, by flying to Taiwan, connecting with a local who could translate, and knocking on doors in person. It sounds reasonable in hindsight but the process to finalizing a production contract start to finish took me a full year. A year of trying to understand the manufacturing landscape, developing relationships and convincing potential suppliers that I would eventually be worth their time.
Ultimately my key takeaway is that Taiwanese manufacturing relationships are just that - relationships. Manufacturers are looking for long-term trusting partnerships and they are much less motivated by money than my initial assumption. I’m reminded of this constantly - this month alone I have received emails re: product delays twice - and I stupidly tried to throw money at the problem, in the process offending the Taiwan team by implying they would work harder if money was on the table.
Finding and building a solid relationship with a production partner was challenging but I would give it a 7/10 relative to the hurdles that came later. The manufacturer had no experience or interest in getting the machine to work along with our custom android touchscreen. As much as I see myself as a “tech guy”, I don’t have an engineering degree. My dad does and so does my brother but I went the business degree route. Long story short, figuring out the details of making these two pieces work together was a nightmare. Again, in hindsight, it’s kind of cool - I understand my machine inside and out; I’m confident I could take it apart down to the screws and put it back together. I can also work comfortably with an oscilloscope and understand how most of the components work on a typical fitness equipment circuit board - there was a lot of circuit board soldering trial and error at one point.
I knew that I was taking on a lot with a software and hardware venture but what nobody tells you is how many miles you’re going to drive and fly when you’re taking on hardware. During our slow tip-toe pivot from B2B to B2C sales, we discovered home customers would find 10x the problems a gym would. There was a week in 2019 I drove to a customer’s home 6 hours away multiple times a week for nearly a month. Each trip I thought we had found the solution; the ride back was crushing. This was one of many problems we faced.
I’m happy to be able to say the bugs are mostly worked out! Our customers navigate a 22” touchscreen to browse 250ish...
267 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 272 ms ] threadBetter to compete on software/integration instead of hardware as it makes your offering a niche player in an already niche market.
While it's out of my budget , this looks like a great high margin business to be in .
Is their any fear of getting undercut in this space
Honestly, I would consider trying to get your own, more independent look+feel, even if you by coincidence ended up with your landing page looking like Peloton.
For those not in the know, rowing machines all have different calibrations. C2 is the standard because they're very consistent across machines and are by far the best made allowing for many thousands of hours of use without failures. Most experienced rowers won't touch anything other than a C2.
Edit: reading further, the 'moat' here appears to be electrically controlled 100lb high resistance settings. Be VERY careful with this. It's well established that most non-trained athletes will hurt themselves with this feature as it's a common trope on C2 machines. The rowing posture can be rather dangerous for high weight if misused.
Add to that, I recall us racing the ergs on a virtual lake on a tv as far back as 2000 or so - made doing 2ks way more interesting, as you could compete with the rest of the crew directly.
Add to this that I could recreate this business using the C2 API in a couple weeks and suddenly have a market of everyone who owns a C2 (all the people in this thread complaining that it doesn't support their machine) along with a literal potential customer list available through C2.
The people who do that normally only row for a few minutes at a time, and aren't really at any significant risk of injury. The only class of people who seem to consistently develop back problems from rowing machines are people who train on them for hours a day in high school and never lift weights.
All the other back injuries in rowing are usually from either sweep rowing or from lifting.
There are two major rowing postures you'll find people tend to use, hips rotated forward and hips back (spine slightly arched forward/convex). Neither is really wrong but for high resistance you need to be in the hips forward position (back slightly concave) as is the technique for weight lifting in the seated row. IME most people don't actually comprehend which position they're in but using the wrong one can be catastrophic. You typically have to spend a few hours with someone ensuring they stay in the correct orientation before they really get it.
I don't have any stake in C2, I just want to make clear that they are the standard that this will be measured against and that they are said standard for a reason. Anything advertised lesser should be viewed with suspicion, particularly for safety critical products.
All that said, there are opportunities to improve, but those opportunities mainly exist in the software space. Focusing on hardware solely to create a moat isn't innovation, it's making landfill fodder.
Finally, I have significant experience in this area, both as an athlete and a coach. Enough that I would unmask myself very quickly if I mentioned any details. I don't coach anymore and don't have any financial interest in that either. Teaching people to use these devices safely isn't an "instructional videos" and "warm up" ordeal. This will sound silly but people generally don't know what their body is doing without tight feedback loops and their perception breaks down under stress/over the duration of a workout. We frequently had people row in front of mirrors to get things to click (another business opportunity in the computer vision space). It's painfully obvious when you go anywhere that has mixed classically trained and self trained rowers who is who.
I only raise questions because the move-fast-break-things approach is dangerous when you're breaking people. I couldn't care less about the VCs getting fleeced by this.
That breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you to (1) assume good faith, and (2) not to post insinuations of astroturfing or shilling but rather to email hn@ycombinator.com if you're worried about abuse. You can easily make your substantive points while sticking to these rules.
Most new users are legit and it's the wrong cultural tradeoff for this place to allow established users to harass them. I certainly appreciate your wish to protect the integrity of the threads but it needs to be done while remaining an open, welcoming community. That last thing we want is to incentivize legit new users to leave just as soon as they arrive here, and we put up with a lot of downside in order not to punish the innocent.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it's also pretty nasty to say that VCs are "getting fleeced by this" in a launch thread where you're personally interacting with the founder. It's clear that you're an expert on rowing—that's fabulous! It's fine that you have a safety critique to make about this product—you've repeated it half a dozen times now. But it's not in keeping with the spirit of this site to accuse someone of outright corruption.
If you had strong evidence of ill intent or something, it would maybe be different, but all you've got is a difference of opinion. Your opinion is an informed one, but not the only one, and please let's not do the internet slide-down where differences of opinion turn into accusations of malfeasance. That leads to the hell we're trying to avoid on this site. Users who are posting here owe the community better than that, no matter how well informed they are.
I know of no one who has injured themselves rowing (on a machine or outside).
I'm not saying these things are death machines or anything, but the concept of adding essentially seated row to a rowing machine is fairly dangerous. Throwing an air damper up to 10 and ripping on it for a couple minutes will leave you quite sore the next morning but adding high weight can start pulling muscles or slipping discs.
E.g. almost all high-level swimmers have shoulder problems, but no one who just goes for a swim a few times a week is going to injure their shoulders. Almost all baseball players have ankle problems, but no one who plays baseball with friends after work is at risk of this.
The reason rowers get back problems is basically a combination of overuse, the asymmetric load-bearing motion of sweep, and underdeveloped antagonistic muscles. Given the device and the target market, none of these issues are really at play here.
In contrast or my cycling friends (which I took up after) have back problems, in particular the ones who started when young.
Mind you this was more than 20 years ago so maybe the training regime has changed.
Having tried several of the third party apps for C2, they've all suffered from 2 problems: pretty sub-par development/bugginess & wrong (or bad) content for the mass market. So much training oriented content and little on the fun/gamification side. I would pay $ for the right app, but not for a new rower. Ergatta is cool but again I wouldn't go out and buy one. When you think about the hundreds of thousands of C2s, it is a nice opportunity.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/asensei/id1335539383
You can try a free trial with Eric Murray (one half of the famous KiwiPair) before committing to a purchase.
If anyone wants to purchase an annual membership, the code HN20 is good for 20% off until the end of the weekend.
And when you're ready to get coaching on your form/technique, or mix in strength, TRX and mobility training alongside your rowing, our new smart (app)arel coaching will give you real-time feedback on your technique and form as you're guided through structured training programs.
Our personal coaching program opened last week here: https://asensei.com/products/personal-coaching-apparel
And you can see what the coaching experience will be in the video at the foot of this page here: https://coaching.asensei.com/
Good luck to the team at Aviron with the launch. When you're ready to bring form and technique coaching to the product to ensure people are rowing safely and correctly, feel free to reach out to me to understand how you can incorporate asensei Connected Coaching in your product for your customers!
Best,
Steven CEO, asensei
Most colleges also have a few Gamuts around. I actually think it would be really fun to do quarter mile sprints against real people on a Gamut-type erg with these kind of screens.
I don't think varying the weight is good for your form and it could be dangerous for your back if your form is bad. After all, you can't vary the resistance of water in a real boat (I suppose you could pour gelatin in a lake). Intensity could be varied just by changing the stroke rate.
Your marketing material suggests that one of the strengths of the platform is that it allows one to compete against professional athletes and Olympians.
Which is it?
In addition, I've seen at least one New York Times article (each) wringing their hands about Biden riding a Peleton and wearing a Rolex, like it's surprising that US Presidents are inordinately rich.
Anyway, I'm gonna get my fat ass back on the hydraulic rowing machine I have stored in my basement before I buy anything else from anyone.
I found an example project some time ago of a web site using Chrome's Bluetooth JavaScript API to recreate a rowing monitor and filed it away in case I would ever get to that side project :-)
In case someone's interested to collab: I would build a 3D world through which you row. I know apps/games like these exist but an open version would be great (also the ones I found seemed to have so-so 3d graphics). And compatibility with VR headsets too..!
Just to add to this: an Apple TV-compatible, 3D rowing app would be supremely interesting to consider...
Building a web-based C2 monitor via Bluetooth: https://bandarra.me/2017/02/20/Fitness-Tracking-with-Web-Blu...
Interacting with Bluetooth over JS: https://web.dev/bluetooth/
The Bluetooth communications spec from C2! https://www.concept2.co.uk/files/pdf/us/monitors/PM5_Bluetoo...
I totally agree with you, rowing while even just watching TV is a lot more enjoyable. Having anything interactive (games/immersive) would be really great.
Re: subscription, I agree that it'd be interesting to build something for free that everyone can use, and maybe try to sustain this with subscriptions for extra features (competitions, etc.)
Finally, maybe the trick to building this out rapidly is to start with a web version. You'd connect your C2 to your computer via bluetooth, and then you could stream your computer to the Apple TV. A native Apple TV app would be better though, but it's more work. A web/three.js prototype is faster to put together (for me, at least -- a Unity developer might want to do this natively)
Should I try to make a launch page and if I get 1000 emails, go off and do it hah? :-)
---
Actually, an iOS app that would run on iPads (the perfect-ish format for a C2 immersive monitor) is really interesting... Maybe iOS/AppleTV is the way to go after all...
If I were seriously looking at something like this as a business, I'd probably want to do a non-subscription offering that let you row down the Charles and other such rivers in an immersive and somewhat randomized environment but tried to get people to pay for real P2P interactions--which a lot would.
Not an actual interest of mine to do but I think someone could retrofit a much better virtual experience on a C2 than currently exists that people would pay good money for.
The source for the PM5 / Bluetooth integration is here: https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/rowing-monitor/
Also super cool that you can upgrade the display/head unit w/o having to get a new rower.
It's also significantly cheaper than this machine and has exceptionally high re-sale value.
Locking people into the real revenue machine, the content, is critical.
This is not intended to be an affordable alternative to the Concept 2, it's a different market entirely.
If you're worried about interoperability and cost, they probably don't anticipate getting your business.
Peloton, which you compare yourself to, allows me to use my Life Fitness bike with their platform, and they even charge me about 70% less than they charge their own bike buyers.
Hopefully this will soon sink in, there is a huge market of people who already invested thousands in their workout gear, and all they need is your platform. Plus its always interesting to hear how usable the hardware is, if I stop paying or if your platform goes offline. Every company handles this a bit differently
Some other comments have mentioned the Concept 2 and how it's the standard. It sounds like you're actually targeting non-rowers who want a Peloton-like experience. (Sort of like how Peloton doesn't really target the cycling community). Is that how you're thinking about positioning?
I don't think the former rowers in this thread complaining about the machine are at all reflective of the public at large.
1. Each machine computes effective Watts differently, so pulling your guts out might be 1kW on one machine, and 400W on another. Whichever one everyone has the most experience with wins here.
2. There are a bunch of different designs across about three different resistance modes available A. air B. water and C. hydraulic piston. Air is generally regarded as the best as it doesn't change felt resistance with time, though it can be somewhat noisy, maybe 70dB. Water heats up as all the energy is dumped into it without anywhere else for it to go, so the viscosity changes very noticeably over a long workout. These also tend to have a nylon strap instead of a chain which stretches and can cause an odd sensation. Finally the worst, hydraulic piston, which has the smallest mass to dump energy into, will change resistance dramatically in a short time, and have been known to fail with experienced rowers, sometimes explosively.
There is room for an electrical resistance variant in this lineup, as has been shown with cycling, though it's important to note that thermodynamics specifies the energy has to go somewhere, and you may end up with a dangerously hot resistor bank somewhere on the machine.
It should also be noted that experienced rowers can output a considerable amount of power. Enough to cause piston rowers to overheat and explode/vent. Just because your resident mechanical engineer can't break the prototype doesn't mean you shouldn't find someone who can hit National Team numbers and have them go at it for an hour straight.
Another reason why Concept2 is the standard is they sell reasonably priced spare parts for all of their machines going back to the first one they released in 1981 [1]
[1] https://shop.concept2.com/55-model-a
Decidedly more than 70dB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yedBwDs7XH8
Water rowers peak at nearly 80.
The Concept 2 clears 100dB
edit: apparently some water rowers are louder than others. The last in their video hit approx 90dB
I ended up with a low-price water rower. I can watch TV while rowing and can still hear the TV at a mostly reasonable volume.
I just purchased an Ergatta 2 weeks ago, waiting for delivery. In what circumstances would I want your product instead of the Ergatta?
Background: I'm an avid peloton user for 3 years now, (also just picked up the tempo.fit for guided lifting) and am looking to mix in intense rowing sessions. The Ergatta looks compelling for gamified sessions with competition.
Change my mind?
I think the main challenge with rowing machines (and the reason why we didn't do rowing classes), is that for beginners there is essentially only hard or off, i.e. it is difficult to adjust to different exhaustion levels. That leads to high frustration levels and is the reason why one rarely sees someone at the gym using the machines more than 5mins (and those that do are often former rowers). So HIT is probably the right way to go.
The other challenge I is related to hardware. The reason why everyone is talking about the C2s is that pretty much every other machine is crap. The forces pulling on these machines are substantive and concept managed to make a machine that held up over time, unlike the others. So I hope you guys made those things sturdy enough.
All the best, I hope you succeed!
Robustness isn't the only reason C2s are considered the best. Unlike all the cheap brands, Concept2 have very accurately measured the moment of inertia of their flywheel and have an exacting manufacturing process that ensures it stays true.
As a result, the power data you see on the screen is an accurate measure of the work you're doing.
Most (not all) machines guesstimate it in comparison. You can just go with HR if you want, but don't pretend you can compare any other figures sensibly with a C2.
Point of note: the "distance" figure on a C2 is based on what a coxless four would have covered under the same power.
Note of interest, when I was a junior the concepts started to become popular. I was training mainly on the model B, which sounded like a jetplane, incredibly loud! It was such a change when they brought out the model C. I have never seen a model A in real life, but they sure look like made in a garage.
model B: https://www.concept2.com/service/indoor-rowers/model-b
model A: https://www.concept2.com/service/indoor-rowers/model-a
This support extends right across their lineup - at big regattas, they will be there doing for free oar repairs.
If you want, you can retrofit the latest PM5 monitor on every model, even including the A, and use it on Zwift and friends.
(I have a C2 from '96, and it still goes just like the new one in the gym)
1) The PM2 units (the old LCD ones, stock on Model C ergs) were particularly bad, suffering from some well known "issues". The sensors in them had not a high enough sample rate + high hysteresis in the sensors. That means that "pulling hard" at the catch (for non-on-the-water rowers: the beginning of a stroke cycle, when your hands are closest to the flywheel) and then backing off the handle force rewards you with higher measured power than actual.
2) This became a lot better with the PM4 generation (stock on Model D and up). However they still have another issue. The force exerted by the suspension cord that pulls the chain back into the housing is not subtracted from the measurement. The sensor only measures effective force/rpm on the flywheel. This is the reason why virtual regattas (serious competitions anyway) are always staged on brand new ergs where the suspension cords have not different levels of fatigue. The ergs are typically sold off after the events (which is of course a marketing/logistics trick just as well).
"Proper" testing on a C2 thus involves measuring handle force directly. This can be done by linking a strain gauge between handle and chain.
3) Speaking of racing events, it's pretty interesting how C2 has enabled virtual/digital racing long before "digitalising" things was a big trend. The interface that the PM4s use for regattas is based on RS485 over RJ45 (you can also use USB but that's not the recommended way for large scale > 16 seats races). The PM3 were wired using telephone/RJ11 and I think it was RS232 IIRC.
4) The single most important "calibration" on a Concept rower is the Drag Factor (the displays can show it in an advanced menu). The drag factor is essentially how fast the flywheel slows down, i.e. how much drag it has. Different ergs have different amounts of dust in them and wear on the bearings, which is why the "flap setting" really shouldn't be used as an absolute/comparable measure between machines.
Racing with a higher/lower drag factor is purely a matter of preference of the athlete and where their personal optimum for performing mechanical work lies. You can think of it like a gearing to increase resistance. In "on the water" rowing we can change gearing using inner/outer handle length of the oar on the gate to achieve a similar effect. This is very important since speed vs. the water varies a lot between boat classes from about ~4m/s in a single (1x) to ~6m/s in a 8+/4x. Our testing protocols recommended 125-140 (female-male).
5) While everyone obsesses over watts, that's not the whole picture. To move a boat (virtual or real) you need work, not power. Since ergs don't float, their mechanics are a lot simpler than a real rowing boat. Work on an erg is handle force x distance, i.e. you integrate the force-distance curve of the handle. That means long strokes are better - the most common beginner mistake is to waste stroke length.
6) Related to 1) and 5) there's a special "erg technique" of pulling the chord up the chest as you move angle your back backwards at the end. This gains you extra stroke length and "stealing" a bit more mechanical work due to sensor hysteresis. This works on a PM4 and up too. You can only get away with this on an erg. On the water pulling off this sort of trick at race speeds will most likely eject you from ...
In our testing protocols we had a metric from watt vs mass called p-index. I’m not sure exactly how it’s calculated anymore but there should be a published paper about this somewhere [0].
The lightweights usually had higher p-index values than the heavyweights, though values from the top heavyweights that also did well where usually close to the lightweights. That’s just anecdotal though.
There are tons more differences. The next important factor that comes to mind is technique, obviously. My guess is the next biggest contribution to performance difference is the catch, how quickly an athlete is able to burry the blade in the water and apply force without losing precious stroke length. This requires precise timing of vertical and horizontal movement. You do it right when you see a small v shaped splash as the blade enters the water. The measurement for that is called slip angle. The erg is much less picky about that.
I already mentioned some other points in my previous post, I bet there is tons more.
[0] Volker Nolte, Dieter Altenburg and Valery Kleshnev are great starting points when it comes to rowing research. Theres plenty more if you dig in.
One other point is that it's not just about technique but ability to maintain it. What impresses me about Olympic rowing is how perfect their technique continues to be at the end of the race. Having good technique is one thing, but keeping that technique as your muscles tire is very difficult.
One point of yours though:
While everyone obsesses over watts, that's not the whole picture. To move a boat (virtual or real) you need work, not power
You are correct, but just for one stroke. The thing slowing down a boat or spinning flywheel is drag, which is a power dissipator. => Generating more power means you overcome more drag == go faster.
cf. when you take the rate up by reducing the time on the recovery while keeping work/stroke the same. Your speed increases as your rate of (the same) work increases.
edit: Also, forgot to mention this
Concept sells "Sliders" for the C2 ergs that you can use for a single erg but also to link together multiple ergs to a crew. If you haven't tried this, I can highly recommend this as it makes it much more realistic and also a lot more challenging.
I made my own! https://youtu.be/0BvX8leh1_c
https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/tips-and-gen...
https://www.concept2.com/news/damper-and-drag-olympians
Fwiw I have the Oartec DX, and it's very solidly built.
On dynamic rowers like this, the seat stays pretty much in one place and it's mainly the footpad that moves. Supposedly it puts less stress on the lower back and knees, and more closely simulates rowing on the water, so some elite rowing teams use them.
I don't know about all that but I have a knee that gives me trouble sometimes, and with the Oartec I can put that foot on the ground and row with the other leg.
https://oartec.com/
https://www.rp3rowing.com/products/
Concept2 makes one now too:
https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/dynamic
(I guess a drawback is it doesn't really lend itself to a nice big screen like OP's project.)
I don't see why not. My RP3 uses any Android tablet. I have like a 7-8" tablet in there, but there is no reason I couldn't put a much larger tablet like an 18.4" Galaxy View.
I'm really quite happy with it and far prefer it to a C2. The software is pretty decent too and the force curve in particular is quite useful to help you figure out how to connect all three motions smoothly for mostly consistent even power.
Family and friends that have used it have struggled with getting started with it but mainly because they've learned such bad form from static machines like the C2. But near as I can tell that will happen with anyone used to a static rower that's never been on the water or coached on proper form.
Do you feel like the RP3 teaches proper form, for someone who hasn't had coaching or been on the water?
A drawback of the Oartec is that the display is rudimentary. It'll show you speed/distance, watts, or cal/hr, and that's it.
While I don't know how to make a machine that promote the following without putting telemetry in the handle, I also coach people using my machine to row with a D-shaped motion that mimics taking the blade out of the water and almost scraping the top of your knees on the return. The goal is to force people to mostly return the handles with their forearms and torso before collapsing their knees.
The RP3 display is definitely something worth trying out. It's not perfect, but I really like it. Contact the US distributor and he might be able to put you in contact with someone local to you that has one.
The C2 is popular because it's the best available at the ~$1k price point and can be purchased locally in most markets.
The Aviron Impact Series (an odd name for a low-impact exercise machine) rower is $2149, while a C2 Model D is $900.
The Model D has been in gyms for decades. Literally, your local gym may have one that's decades old and still in perfect shape. Olympic rowers train on them. A significant portion of people who row already have one and aren't going to need a replacement any time soon.
The video on Aviron's website focuses heavily on the software, but the rower itself does not look like it should cost twice what a C2 does. The belt is plastic. The rail's finish looks like it will wear off. The rear support looks less sturdy and stable than that of a C2. The ramrod straight handle looks blister-inducing. The whole thing looks very plastic. Note that I'm not saying the rower isn't worth the money. The build quality and ergonomics might be excellent. It just doesn't look like a rower that's worth 2.39 C2's.
The display is a big improvement over anything C2 sells, but $1249 can buy a pretty nice display and a basic computer to run it, or a big ol' tablet and a mount.
Peloton probably had an easier time entering the exercise bike market because there wasn't any one competitor as dominant as C2 is. However, they do now offer an app that lets people use their software and classes without buying a Peloton bike.
The question for Aviron is, can they sell their rower without their software being exclusive to it? They would undoubtedly find more users if they supported other rowers, C2 specifically, but would the extra monthly memberships bring in more than sales from their rower if the software remained exclusive to it?
And yes, the membership is $29/mo or $25/mo if a year is paid up front.
(Former competitive rower here, so YMMV.)
Alright, off to the gym. :)
That is much harder to reproduce than simply building a solid physical product.
You dont buy a peleton because you need economical exercise. You buy a peleton as a form of conspicuous consumption and "exclusive" group membership (I'm a spin _athelete_!) .
The marketing hyperbole gets eaten up in our IG/social media obsessed environment.
And a lot of people value the convenience of being able to have a fun and engaging workout any time, in the comfort of home.
Last I checked, nylon was still a thermoplastic.
I feel like a cool business model would be to make a replacement color screen for the C2s that can do more stuff. Their built-in games and programs are fun but very limited. I would love to have a Peloton experience on a 500 dollar screen I could add to my existing rower.
I think you are targeting the wrong market if you intend to build a machine.
As a cyclist, the market sweet spot to me is the ability to set a wattage on a rower and have the machine automatically adjust the resistance so that I can hit the correct wattage/hour.
On the bike, holding a steady cadence and having the machine adjust the resistance so I can hit whatever % of FTP I'm wanting is the killer feature the C2 is missing.
All the other comments referencing injuries/etc are reflective of the need to make an ERG that allows you to just say "do 25 strokes/min" and if you blow up or cant hold the pace, drop the target wattage. It's harder to hurt yourself if the machine is setting the difficulty based on your pace and putting some sane max limits in.
I think the smart bike and rower are very different in terms of what you'd do with them. In contrast to a smart bike a rower who constantly adjusts is much harder to use. In fact on low resistance rowers are almost impossible to use. It's also much easier than on the bike to row at a specific wattage without ever adjusting the resistance (mind you that requires some technique).
I don't understand why pelotons are popular when a tacx/wahoo/etc are lightyears ahead in feel and blunting the peaks of "pain" from beginner mistakes. The more advanced ERGs that adjust are super forgiving and the same would be for rowing, avoiding pulling too much lbf and having your arms hurt for weeks = avoiding the workouts.
People doing HIIT cardio usually blow up if they put out 10% more wattage for a minute or two than their FTP. If a machine makes it so you can workout "forever" and simplifies the interface of games/workouts so users only need to focus on a single metric for game while adjusting all the others, it would be a killer feature.
In particular they don't really look for the same things that someone who buys a smartbike is looking for. Also I would add that in terms of build quality, spinning bikes are much better IMO than tacx or wahoo.
A bit of a tangent, but it's a shame that Kettler bikes never became popular, their hardware is top-notch (proper cycling bar, campagnolo ergopower grips), but they never implemented ANT or bluetoothsmart so were not compatible with Zwift and instead tried to push their own platform.
Although a pain point kind of seems obvious, Peloton is successful because cycling by itself is "approachable". Anyone can hop on a bike and just start cycling, doesn't matter on your gender, weight, or conditioning.
While rowing, eh.. You said it yourself, people avoid it in gyms like the plague. Don't get me wrong, I love rowing for the same reasons you do, rowing is the activity I do the most during the week.
It's just that a lot of people do not like rowing, or/and are scared of it, and the biggest "problem", it is hard, way harder than anything else in the gym.
So it seems that you are naturally blocked with a certain ceiling as to how much you can grow and where. While you are establishing a moat yourself to keep competitors away, the bigger question is how is the customer going to cross the "rowing moat" to even try your product?
That said, be aware that true rowers hate some of this stuff because you can actually hurt people through various kinds of repetitive motion injuries if you don't teach, promote and highlight proper technique. The people you have on video yanking on the handle are a sure-bet formula for getting hurt. Which means you could be looking at one ore more lawsuits in the future.
It's the same with lifting.
Context: Rower for quite some time, currently own and have owned Concept 2 machines for years. Owned a range or rowing shells for years. Also strength training.