The future trajectory of Apple Fitness+ is currently under scrutiny as the company explores restructuring plans aimed at boosting its growth potential. But here's where it gets controversial—this strategic review signifies more than just an internal shuffle; it could fundamentally alter how the service fits into Apple's broader ecosystem. Recent reports from Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman have shed light on this development, highlighting that Apple is re-evaluating the division to energize its performance.
Since its debut in September 2020, Apple Fitness+ has seen minimal changes. It remains one of Apple's relatively stable subscription services, retaining its price point at $9.99 monthly or $79.99 annually—for over three years, it has held steady without major upgrades or price hikes. Over time, the platform has only introduced a few notable features—such as integration with Strava and the ability to use Fitness+ without necessarily needing an Apple Watch. Despite these small updates, many industry observers consider Fitness+ to be one of Apple’s less dynamic offerings, especially when compared to its other services.
According to Gurman's report, one of the core issues plaguing Fitness+ is high customer churn—meaning users frequently cancel their subscriptions—and the limited revenue growth it offers. Interestingly, Apple doesn’t seem intent on abandoning the service, largely because it has cultivated a loyal user base that would likely oppose such a move. Discontinuing Fitness+ could also harm Apple's carefully crafted health and wellness image, which has been a central part of its branding strategy.
Additionally, Gurman points out that operating Fitness+ is relatively inexpensive for Apple because most content is produced in-house. This cost efficiency makes the potential loss or reorganization less daunting financially, even if the platform's revenue remains modest.
To address these ongoing challenges, Apple is actively reviewing the future of Fitness+ and has initiated a division-wide reorganization. Part of this restructuring involves assigning Sumbul Desai, Apple’s Vice President of Health, to oversee Fitness+ alongside other health initiatives. Furthermore, as previously reported in October, health-related services—including Apple Health—will now report directly to Eddy Cue, the Senior Vice President of Services, following the upcoming retirement of COO Jeff Williams. This organizational shift is designed to inject new momentum into Fitness+ and inspire it to achieve better results.
Looking beyond Fitness+, Apple has been making strides in enhancing its overall fitness and health offerings. For instance, the company introduced Workout support on the iPhone itself, removing the necessity of owning an Apple Watch. Recent models like the AirPods Pro 3 and Powerbeats Pro 2 have integrated heart rate monitoring, which directly links with Fitness+ to offer a richer workout experience. Plus, the latest watchOS update introduced 'Workout Buddy,' an AI-powered feature that delivers personalized insights and motivational prompts during exercises, trained on Fitness+ trainers’ voices. The hope is that Fitness+ will soon benefit from similar enhancements and new functionalities.
Pricing for Apple Fitness+ remains consistent—$9.99 per month, $79.99 per year, or as part of the Apple One Premier bundle. New users can also enjoy a three-month free trial when purchasing select Apple devices, such as an iPhone, AirPods Pro 3, or Apple Watch.
In summary, Apple’s ongoing plans for Fitness+ appear to focus on revitalization amid a landscape of evolving health and fitness tech. As Apple revisits its strategy and considers structural adjustments, the future of this service could take many forms. Will it become a more integral part of Apple’s health ecosystem, or will it struggle to find its footing in a competitive market? And perhaps most intriguingly—what innovations could turn Fitness+ into one of Apple’s must-have subscriptions? Share your thoughts below—do you believe Apple’s renewed focus will truly make a difference, or is this just another attempt to tweak an underperforming product?
