Whoop angers users over reneged free upgrade promises
Whoop just announced its new Whoop 5.0 fitness tracker yesterday, but some existing users are already calling foul. Previously, Whoop said people who had been members for at least six months would get free upgrades to next-generation hardware. Now, the company says that members hoping to upgrade from a Whoop 4.0 to 5.0 will have to pay up.
Whoop is a bit different from other fitness trackers in that it runs entirely on a subscription membership model. Most wearable makers that have subscriptions will charge you for the hardware, and then customers have the option of subscribing to get extra data or features. A good example is the Oura Ring, where you buy the ring and then have the option of paying a monthly $6 subscription. Whoop, however, has until now said that you get the hardware for 'free' while paying a heftier annual subscription.
Previously, Whoop promised users that whenever new hardware was released, existing members would be able to upgrade free of charge so long as they'd been a member for at least six months. However, that has since been scrubbed from Whoop's site — though it was there as recently as March 28th this year, according to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.
Screenshot: Whoop, Internet Archive
On Whoop's current official 'How to upgrade' site, the company states that existing members have one of two options. They can either extend their membership by another 12 months and receive new Whoop 5.0 hardware 'at no extra cost,' or if they'd rather not extend, they can pay a one-time upgrade fee of either $49 for the regular Whoop 5.0 or $79 for the Whoop 5.0 MG, which includes EKG sensors. An official Reddit thread also notes that people who either joined or extended their membership in the past 30 days are eligible for a free upgrade.
Understandably, Whoop fans are none too pleased. The r/Whoop subreddit is full of angry users who are accusing the company of misleading them.
'One of the main reasons I chose a Whoop over an Apple Watch was due to the free hardware upgrades,' writes one Redditor. 'Conveniently my 12 month subscription is up around the same time the Apple Watch is released. The cost isn't the issue, it's them changing what was promised.'
'I'm definitely cancelling mine now, over the Whoop hype. Was excited to see they had a nice update and deflated after I saw they went back on their word about not charging for future hardware,' writes another.
The Verge reached out to Whoop for comment about why its changed its hardware upgrade policy, but didn't immediately receive a response. We'll update when we hear back.
It's another example of how changes to subscriptions often results in customer backlash. Garmin recently angered its customer base by introducing a paid tier to the Garmin Connect app after years of touting its lack of a paywall. Oura also received hefty backlash when it introduced a subscription with its third-gen smart ring.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
4 ChatGPT Prompts Emerging Leaders Should Be Using In 2025
Using ChatGPT to help develop as an effective leader Whether you're a teen entrepreneur building your first business team or an educator stepping into department leadership, the desire to lead effectively is often stronger than the knowledge of how to do it well. The challenge? Most leadership development happens through expensive coaching, lengthy programs, or trial-and-error experiences that can be costly and time-consuming. Artificial intelligence offers a practical solution. When used strategically, ChatGPT becomes more than a chatbot—it transforms into a personal development coach that helps clarify thinking and strengthen decision-making skills. These four ChatGPT prompts help emerging leaders build self-awareness, navigate real-world challenges, and lead with greater confidence. Self-awareness distinguishes effective leaders from those who are not, yet most people lack training in productive self-reflection. This prompt positions ChatGPT as an executive coach, generating questions that dig beneath surface-level concerns. Rather than vague journaling, this approach creates structured reflection. The AI identifies patterns, such as perfectionism, fear of visibility, or unclear priorities, that may be limiting progress. How to maximize results: After answering the five questions, follow up with: "Can you summarize the mindset I seem to be operating from? What belief is driving my hesitation?" This moves the conversation from symptoms to root causes. A teen entrepreneur might discover they're avoiding reaching out to potential customers not because they lack time, but because they fear adults won't take them seriously. A teacher might realize they're hesitating to implement new classroom management strategies not because of workload, but because they're worried about appearing inexperienced to their colleagues. This awareness alone can shift behavior and open new opportunities. New leaders typically either over-function by attempting to control every detail or under-function by failing to establish clear expectations. This prompt provides a preview of common challenges and practical prevention strategies. Anticipating leadership challenges enables proactive decision-making rather than reactive crisis management. Understanding potential pitfalls helps new leaders develop strategies before problems emerge. Make it specific: Add context for better results. For example: "I'm a teen founder leading my first team of three classmates on our social media marketing business. What traps should I watch out for when my team members are also my friends?" Or: "I'm a first-year teacher managing parent volunteers for our school fundraiser. How do I maintain authority while staying collaborative?" Advanced application: Request scenarios: "Give me an example of what micromanaging versus clear leadership looks like in a group chat with teen team members." This transforms abstract concepts into concrete behaviors you can recognize and adjust. Many first-time teen leaders discover that setting clear expectations with friends-turned-teammates strengthens their business relationships. Teachers often find that being direct about volunteer responsibilities yields better outcomes than relying on people to figure things out on their own. Effective leaders adjust their approach to suit the situation. This prompt helps explore different leadership styles and consider how each might affect team dynamics and project outcomes. When a teen entrepreneur faces team members who aren't meeting deadlines for their custom sticker business, or when a teacher deals with students who seem disengaged during group projects, ChatGPT might suggest: Directive approach: Implement stricter deadlines with clear consequences. A teen might create formal check-in schedules with team members, while a teacher might establish daily progress reports for project groups. Coaching approach: Meet individually with team members to identify obstacles and realign on goals. This builds relationships and addresses root issues, but requires a more significant time investment. Visionary approach: Reconnect the team to the larger purpose behind their work. A teen entrepreneur might remind their team about the impact their business will have on their college applications, while a teacher might help students see how their project connects to real-world applications. Follow-up question: "Which of these approaches aligns most with my leadership style, and how can I combine elements of all three without confusing the team?" This framework helps young leaders move beyond their default style to consider what the specific situation requires. Teen entrepreneurs often discover they've been trying to be everyone's friend instead of a clear leader, while new teachers realize they've been defaulting to the coaching approach when some situations require more direct guidance. This prompt shifts perspective from uncertainty to clarity by using your existing leadership knowledge. Instead of asking, "What should I do?" it asks, "What would the best version of me already know to do?" Advanced variation: "Act like my future self three years from now—someone who has grown as a leader. What advice would they give me about this situation?" This temporal shift helps make decisions based on long-term principles rather than short-term fears. For deeper insight: Ask ChatGPT to explain why that version of you would act that way. This reveals the values and principles you're developing as a leader. A teen entrepreneur might use this prompt when deciding whether to fire a team member who is consistently late to virtual meetings, while a teacher might apply it when considering how to address a parent who is undermining classroom policies. The "future self" approach often reveals that effective leadership requires having difficult conversations rather than avoiding them. These ChatGPT prompts are most effective when used consistently rather than sporadically. Schedule weekly 15-minute sessions to work through one prompt, focusing on current leadership challenges. Save responses that provide valuable insights and track patterns over time. The goal isn't to replace experience or mentorship but to accelerate learning through structured reflection. Leadership develops through practice, feedback, and iteration—ChatGPT creates more opportunities for productive self-examination. While AI can provide valuable frameworks and perspectives, real leadership development happens through application. Use these prompts to clarify thinking, then test insights through actual leadership situations. Document what works and what doesn't. Share learnings with mentors or peer groups. The combination of AI-powered reflection and real-world practice creates a powerful development cycle that enables emerging leaders to build capabilities more quickly than traditional methods alone. Leadership isn't about having all the answers—it's about asking better questions and acting on the insights. These ChatGPT prompts help accelerate that process, transforming everyday challenges into leadership development opportunities.
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
How the Cybertruck Came to Embody Tesla's Problems
The bromance between Elon Musk and President Trump is ending at a difficult time for Tesla TSLA 3.67%increase; green up pointing triangle. The electric-vehicle maker lost roughly $150 billion of market value Thursday—its biggest ever drop—after the Tesla CEO and Trump traded insults. Sales of Teslas have slumped this year. Tariffs could disrupt the supply of key components. The sprawling Republican tax-and-spending bill would end tax credits for EV buyers. And Tesla's Cybertruck has been a disappointment. Musk set high expectations for the Cybertruck, telling investors it would be Tesla's 'best product ever.' The angular, stainless steel pickup was supposed to generate buzz for Tesla by showcasing new technology and unlocking the lucrative truck market. Instead, it has become synonymous with Musk's polarizing stint in politics, exposing some owners to graffiti or middle fingers from other drivers. And its reputation has been tarnished among Tesla fans because of a spate of recalls and manufacturing issues that have resulted in cycles of repairs. In the U.S., the company sold fewer than 40,000 Cybertrucks in 2024—well below Musk's ultimate goal of 250,000 a year. In the first quarter of 2025, Tesla sold around 7,100 Cybertrucks in the U.S., according to registration data from S&P Global Mobility. Ford's F-150 Lightning pickup outsold it. In an effort to boost sales, Tesla has rolled out lower-price versions of the truck and started offering buyers incentives such as 0% financing and free upgrades. Almost as soon as the $100,000 Cybertruck hit the road, quality problems began to multiply. Reports on social media cited cracked windshields and spotting from so-called rail dust, orange discoloration similar to rust. In its first year, Tesla recalled the truck seven times to fix dangerous defects. In March, with large metal panels falling off the trucks, the tally rose to eight. Some of the quality problems were known and documented internally before the truck went on sale, including issues with the accelerator pad and windshield wiper that later triggered recalls, said former employees who worked on the Cybertruck. But there was pressure inside Tesla to get the truck to market quickly, according to these employees. Tesla didn't respond to requests for comment. 'Elon Musk will tell you the biggest professional mistake was the falcon doors on the Model X,' said David Fick, a longtime Tesla owner who got his Cybertruck in March. He referred to the complex door design that opens upward and hinges at the roof. 'I believe that the Cybertruck is going to go down as an even bigger corporate stumble.' The retired banker in Boynton Beach, Fla., chose to wait more than a year to buy his Cybertruck, hopeful that many of the biggest issues would be identified before he drove his off the lot. 'They do a lot of bleeding-edge stuff where they rush to the market and then you're a beta tester as an owner,' Fick said. He paid about $72,000 for the car, plus $7,300 for window tinting and a custom wrap for exterior trim panels known as cant rails, covering his new car in a metallic maroon color. Soon after, Tesla recalled cant rails because they could become unglued. 'I've had tons of recalls on my Teslas over the years,' said Fick, who added that the cars are worth the hassle. 'Eighty percent were fixed by [software] updates, but these are physical things we are dealing with now.' Musk unveiled the prototype for the Cybertruck in 2019. At the time, he said it would cost $39,900, with a battery range of up to 500 miles—an ambitious combination that would be a stretch for any EV maker. Work on the vehicle was delayed a couple of years, leaving engineering and manufacturing teams with only a few months to do final testing before the trucks went to customers, former employees said. Musk tried to temper expectations around how quickly Tesla could increase production, given its unique design. 'There is always some chance that Cybertruck will flop, because it is so unlike anything else,' he wrote on social media in July 2021. Still, he promoted some of its most unusual features, including his dream of making the car amphibious. Former employees said they took Musk's social posts as orders, but the engineering proved difficult. By 2022, it was clear internally that Cybertruck wouldn't be able to meet all Musk's criteria, so engineers scrapped an early design and started over—developing a smaller, landlocked version of the truck, the people said. After about a year and a half of testing, Tesla delivered the first Cybertrucks to a dozen or so customers in late November 2023. An early version of the truck started at $100,000 and had an estimated range of 318 miles. Two months later, Tesla issued its first recall on the vehicle: a software update that required the company to increase the size of the font on a warning system used across its fleet. It was the first of three recalls that Tesla addressed on the Cybertruck through over-the-air updates to its software. Cybertruck's problems couldn't be fixed by software updates alone. In April 2024, Tesla issued a recall for the accelerator pedal. The company had received a notice from a customer complaining that the accelerator had gotten stuck. Tesla found that the pad attached to the long pedal could dislodge and get stuck in the trim above the pedal, causing the car to accelerate. An internal investigation found the issue was the result of an 'unapproved change,' in which Tesla employees used soap as a lubricant to attach the pad, according to the recall notice. Inside Tesla, the accelerator pad had been a known issue starting with the prototype, according to an employee who worked on the part. The manufacturing team also identified the part as problematic, this person said. Tesla also had problems with the Cybertruck's expansive windshield, which measured nearly 6 square feet. Sometimes the heavy glass would break, two employees said. The glass either arrived cracked from the supplier in Mexico or from handling at the Austin, Texas, facility, they said. Some owners took to social media to describe the glass cracking as soon as they drove off the lot, or while they wiped the inside of their windshield. The windshield required a large windshield wiper measuring 50 inches long. In June 2024, Tesla issued a recall on the wipers, whose motors Tesla found had been overstressed by testing. The wiper had been flagged nearly a year before, two people who worked on the Cybertruck said. It was one of the first issues identified on the vehicles, at which point it was classified as a 'gating issue,' which meant that it needed to be resolved before production could move forward. Reid Tomasko, a 25-year-old YouTube creator, took his Cybertruck on a cross-country trip, during which it performed perfectly, he said. Then came winter in New Hampshire. He was driving near his home in Lebanon, N.H., in February when a metal panel flew off the side of his truck. In March, Tesla issued a recall affecting most of the Cybertrucks it had produced—more than 46,000. The problem involved adhesive that could become brittle in extreme weather, causing exterior trim panels called cant rails to dislodge. Inspecting his truck, Tomasko said he found loose connections on almost every panel that used the adhesive, including the large pieces of stainless steel over the rear wheels, the front fender and the front doors. 'I was wondering, why are they not recalling the other panels?' Tomasko said. After replacing several panels, Tesla offered to buy back Tomasko's truck for nearly all of the $102,000 that he paid, he said. He accepted. 'I am planning on getting a newer one for cheaper soon,' he said. Write to Becky Peterson at
