I believe companies should make money. I have spent most of my career building them, and I know what software costs. Engineers need to be paid, infrastructure needs maintenance, and security is never cheap. I also believe integrity shows up most clearly when doing the right thing costs something.
That is why a recent decision by Withings caught my attention.
Accounts created on or after October 13, 2026 now need a Withings+ subscription, about $100 a year in the United States, to automatically sync measurements to Apple Health and other third-party apps (MacRumors). Accounts created on or before October 12 keep syncing for free, as they have for years.
Think about what that means. You buy a device that measures your own body. If you are a new customer, you now pay an annual fee to send those measurements to another app you already use. Not for analytics, coaching, or AI. For the transfer.
The Problem Is Not the Money
I have no objection to subscriptions. Recurring revenue works well when customers keep receiving value for it. An AI health coach, analytics that surface meaningful changes, access to clinicians who interpret the numbers: charge for those, and make them extraordinary. For example, I happily pay for Macrofactor and Capacities. (Hell, I 2x pay the price for Capacities because so much of my life is stored in it, it is that great of a product, and I love supporting the team.)
Moving an existing measurement from one app to another is a different thing. There is a difference between charging for something valuable you built and charging customers to lift a restriction you introduced. One creates value. The other monetizes friction.
What Withings Says It Stands For
I went to the Withings website. The mission is “We create technology that people love, to make better health part of daily life.” The vision is “We believe in a world where everyone can see their path to better health, and feels supported to pursue it.”
I have lived with multiple sclerosis for twelve years, so I may read those words different than most. I read those words personally. One measurement tells you very little. It is a data point. A thousand, collected consistently over years, tell you a great deal. That value grows when weight, heart rate, sleep, medications, and symptoms can sit together. That is information, and no single company owns that whole picture. Health technology should help people understand their health, not make that understanding depend on staying inside one ecosystem.
Everyone can see their path to better health. Unless, apparently, they want their data in another app without paying.
The Technology Does Not Explain It
I started writing software when I was eight, and I still enjoy it so I looked for the technical justification. Withings points to its new AI Connector, which required API changes and additional privacy measures. Fair enough. That may be real engineering cost.
But Apple Health sync is not an AI service. Apple’s HealthKit lets an authorized app write a measurement directly into the user’s health database on their device. The app obtains a value, builds a data object, and saves it. Maintaining that costs something (testing, OS updates, bug fixes), but the marginal cost of writing a number the app already has appears negligible. And Withings built this integration years ago.
So what changed? Not the customer’s need. Not Apple Health. Not the nature of a weight measurement. The commercial model changed. Perhaps there is a technical reason the company has not disclosed, and I would welcome hearing it. Until then, this looks like a monetization decision, and companies should say so plainly.
Health Data Is Different
If a streaming service raises its prices, I can decide whether the music is worth it. Health data is not entertainment. It describes our bodies.
Withings points out that customers can still download their data manually. That matters, and I acknowledge it. But manual access and continuous interoperability are not the same thing. A downloadable report is useful. A longitudinal record that maintains itself is something else. Someone managing a chronic disease should not have to export and import measurements by hand to keep their history intact. Technology should remove that burden, not charge for removing it.
Values on the Lobby Wall
I wrote in January about framing core values on the lobby walls at Contegix and then wondering why our behavior did not match them (What Culture Taught Us About AI Governance). Mission statements are easy. They get tested when there is revenue on the other side.
When a company can monetize something it once included, does leadership ask whether it can charge for it, or whether it should? I do not know what conversations took place inside Withings, and I cannot speak to anyone’s intentions. I can evaluate the decision. It appears inconsistent with the stated purpose.
There Is Also a Business Problem
Withings does not sell disposable gadgets. Customers use these devices daily for years. They buy the scale, then the blood pressure monitor, then the watch, and they tell their families. That relationship is worth far more than $100.
Grandfathering existing customers is good, but it raises an obvious question. If basic interoperability can become a paid feature for new customers, what follows? I am not suggesting Withings plans to remove anything. I am saying the decision created a question that did not exist before, and uncertainty is expensive when a business depends on long-term trust. In connected health, interoperability is also a competitive advantage. Removing friction encourages adoption. Adding it does the opposite.
What I Would Do Differently
Include basic interoperability with the hardware. Then make Withings+ so good that people want it: better analytics, useful AI, tools that help people spot important changes and talk with their doctors. The customer pays more because the company provides more, not because the company decided to provide less unless the customer pays.
An Opportunity
I have made decisions I would approach differently today. Every executive has. Withings can reverse this for basic sync, explain its technical and economic reasoning, and keep monetizing real innovation. I would ask leadership three questions. Does this help customers make better health part of daily life? Does it empower them or add a barrier? And if the decision rested only on the company’s own mission and vision, would it reach the same conclusion?
I hope Withings reconsiders. Not because $100 is a lot of money, but because the principle matters. People should be empowered by the health technology they buy, not charged to use the measurements it collects.
Until then, people should consider options like the Wyze Scale Ultrabody Plus at $149 USD with Apple Health integration and no subscription fee.