Also, the electric bike spinout from EV maker Rivian, has issued a public apology to customers over significant delays in shipping its TM-B e-bike, according to The Verge. The company, which unveiled the futuristic bicycle to widespread enthusiasm, is now grappling with a backlog of frustrated early buyers waiting on a product that captured imaginations well before it was ready to ship.
To understand why this moment matters, it helps to know something about how Also arrived here. Rivian carved out the micromobility venture as a separate entity, an acknowledgment that the product category — lighter, cheaper, software-driven personal transport — demanded a different culture and pace than the truck and van business that defines the parent company. The TM-B generated genuine excitement when it was announced, and that excitement was not manufactured. The bicycle's design proposed something genuinely different: USB-C charging rather than proprietary connectors, a removable seat post architecture, and software controls layered over what is traditionally a purely mechanical experience. For an industry where most innovation amounts to incremental motor improvements or slightly sleeker frames, the TM-B read as a conceptual leap.
That leap came with a cost that anyone who follows hardware startups will recognize immediately. The distance between a compelling announcement and a delivered, reliable physical product is where the credibility of young companies lives or dies. Also is now standing squarely in that gap.
The e-bike market has matured considerably over the past several years. Brands like Rad Power Bikes, Specialized, and a long tail of direct-to-consumer competitors have normalized the category and, critically, normalized consumer expectations around delivery timelines and after-sale support. Buyers who pre-order a product in this space today are not passive enthusiasts willing to wait indefinitely; they are customers with reference points, people who know what it looks like when a company manages a launch well. An apology email or statement, however sincerely worded, lands differently in that environment than it might have five years ago when the novelty of the category bought goodwill.
There is also a broader Rivian dimension to consider. The parent company has spent years managing its own narrative around production timelines and the pressures of scaling EV manufacturing. Rivian has made genuine progress, but it has also been a recurring subject of stories about the difficulty of translating visionary hardware into consistent output. Whether fair or not, Also inherits some of that reputational texture. When a Rivian spinout apologizes for shipping delays, the story fits an existing template in many readers' minds, and that framing is difficult to escape regardless of the specific operational reasons behind any given slowdown.
The consequences of this delay will ripple in a few directions. For Also's existing customer base, the immediate damage is trust. Pre-order customers tend to be a company's most forgiving constituency at the beginning and its most vocal critics if they feel strung along. The way Also communicates through this period, the specificity of the new timeline it offers, the transparency about what caused the delay, and the concrete compensation or accommodation it provides will determine whether it retains the goodwill its original announcement generated. Vague reassurances will not hold. This audience expects software-era communication standards applied to a supply chain problem.
For the broader e-bike industry, the episode is a useful data point in an ongoing debate about whether the next wave of cycling innovation will come from technology-adjacent startups or from established bicycle manufacturers who understand production realities. The TM-B's announcement positioned Also firmly in the former camp. A significant delay without a crisp recovery story shifts the argument, at least temporarily, toward the incumbents.
The likely reading for Rivian itself is more nuanced. The parent company structured Also as a separate entity precisely to insulate the core EV business from the volatility of a startup's early life. That structural decision looks prescient right now. But investor and analyst attention will be watching for any sign that Also's stumble reflects something systemic about how Rivian manages complex hardware development across its portfolio, rather than a discrete operational problem at a young spinout.
The questions worth tracking going forward are specific and observable. Also will need to publish a credible revised shipping schedule and then actually meet it. If the company hits its next stated deadline, even a delayed one, the narrative resets considerably. If it misses again, the conversation shifts from "promising startup navigating early challenges" to something more structural and damaging. Also, the reception the TM-B receives from the first wave of actual owners will matter enormously. A product that earns strong real-world reviews can recover from a slow start. A product that disappoints on delivery after disappointing on timing has very little margin left.
