Discussion
loudlashadjuster said:
I've always found it surprising that the kind of folk who drop £3k+ on a bike and have no problem paying Rapha £200 for a pair of shorts would grumble at paying Strava for something which they obviously value, given how much debate and discussion there usually is about average speeds, segment times etc. at the coffee shop.
At the other end of the scale, folk like my wife who maybe cycle 10-20 times per year and who appreciate trying to improve their relative position in the leaderboard as a motivator, but would never think of themselves as 'athletes', are simply never going to pony up for a Strava sub, regardless of what feature it unlocks. I guess if she can still see her historical performances then she'll probably be happy enough.
They should go for a genuine tired sub model. A Veloviewer-type cheap option, maybe £20/yr to get access to basic leaderboards and routes, and a full-fat one at the current prices which is needed to see age/weight splits, as well as hrm, zones, power etc. data.
This is my gripe with their approach. To take away basically all interesting/useful features from the free version and put them behind a single-tier subscription platform is a crap move. At the other end of the scale, folk like my wife who maybe cycle 10-20 times per year and who appreciate trying to improve their relative position in the leaderboard as a motivator, but would never think of themselves as 'athletes', are simply never going to pony up for a Strava sub, regardless of what feature it unlocks. I guess if she can still see her historical performances then she'll probably be happy enough.
They should go for a genuine tired sub model. A Veloviewer-type cheap option, maybe £20/yr to get access to basic leaderboards and routes, and a full-fat one at the current prices which is needed to see age/weight splits, as well as hrm, zones, power etc. data.
There must be tens or even hundreds of thousands of people who want nothing more than to map out a little run or ride and then do it. They're not athletes, they just want to record a little workout. A £50/year pricing model for these people makes no sense at all when there's hundreds of competitor apps that will let them continue to do it for free.
If Strava have industry leading interface, maps, or whatever, and they can demonstrate that these features are worth paying for, people will pay for them. Profit comes as a result of having a great product, you shouldn't be chasing losses by putting all useful features behind a paywall.
In my opinion, as a relatively new cyclist, there seems to be a ton of really basic stuff that Strava can't, or won't do, as well as a pretty crap/clunky interface on the app itself. I'd be much more keen to pay for Summit (I'm currently on a 60 day free trial to decide) if they first focussed on making the app itself truly pleasurable to use and solving some of these shortcomings.
An example of that would be when following a planned route on my phone, there's no option to have the map orient itself in the direction of travel. Even a basic sat nav from 15 years ago does that. Such a basic and obvious thing, yet Strava would seemingly rather try and pioneer something new and clever that appeals to the 1%.
It's all well and good coming up with these nuanced, clever, 'athlete' features but:
a) get the basics right first, and
b) realise that you have multiple different user types who want different things
Take this into context with the raft of competitor products out there at the basic end of the spectrum and I think for every one person that's convinced to shell out for premium, they'll lose a handful of casuals who can't see the value in a £50/year subscription when they go out running twice a month...surely some middle ground would be best - they'd keep the overwhelming numbers of users and keep different types of user happy whilst offering something for everyone.
Edited by OriginalFDM on Tuesday 19th May 14:38
Edited by OriginalFDM on Tuesday 19th May 14:39
OriginalFDM said:
There must be tens or even hundreds of thousands of people who want nothing more than to map out a little run or ride and then do it. They're not athletes, they just want to record a little workout. A £50/year pricing model for these people makes no sense at all when there's hundreds of competitor apps that will let them continue to do it for free.
If Strava have industry leading interface, maps, or whatever, and they can demonstrate that these features are worth paying for, people will pay for them. Profit comes as a result of having a great product, you shouldn't be chasing losses by putting all useful features behind a paywall.
Agreed. People who just want to use something to track their progress have all manner of options now, Stravas USP is bringing it together form different devices. I use a Garmin and sync Garmin connect to Strava. I can see distance/time/heart rate/cadence etc on Garmin Connect if I want to, but I rarely look at it because Strava gives me that and also shows me what friends who are using Suunto/Polar/Apple watches or various phone apps have done, and if I ever replace my Garmin with another brand I'll still have all my old data. That social media-ish aspect of it is why a huge number of people use it. If Strava have industry leading interface, maps, or whatever, and they can demonstrate that these features are worth paying for, people will pay for them. Profit comes as a result of having a great product, you shouldn't be chasing losses by putting all useful features behind a paywall.
People that still want to record runs and bike rides can still do that on the free version.
I guess Strava have decided their USP is the segment library. Rather than try to be all things to all men by spending lots developing things that already exist (they realise that other people do the guidance thing better, and a lot of people will be using a dedicated head unit rather than a phone) they're just focusing on the bits they have but others don't.
The other thing it is quite good at is aggregating all different forms of activity in one place. I use Polar equipment and the Polar Flow website is actually pretty good, but you can't import activities that were not recorded on a Polar device, such as indoor Trainerroad rides, which makes all the fitness/freshness calcs it provides meaningless as it's only seeing half the picture. The Trainerroad calendar can record runs and swims etc. in a basic way but doesn't offer any analysis on non-bike activites.
I guess Strava have decided their USP is the segment library. Rather than try to be all things to all men by spending lots developing things that already exist (they realise that other people do the guidance thing better, and a lot of people will be using a dedicated head unit rather than a phone) they're just focusing on the bits they have but others don't.
The other thing it is quite good at is aggregating all different forms of activity in one place. I use Polar equipment and the Polar Flow website is actually pretty good, but you can't import activities that were not recorded on a Polar device, such as indoor Trainerroad rides, which makes all the fitness/freshness calcs it provides meaningless as it's only seeing half the picture. The Trainerroad calendar can record runs and swims etc. in a basic way but doesn't offer any analysis on non-bike activites.
Edited by lufbramatt on Tuesday 19th May 15:15
lufbramatt said:
People that still want to record runs and bike rides can still do that on the free version.
I guess Strava have decided their USP is the segment library. Rather than try to be all things to all men by spending lots developing things that already exist (they realise that other people do the guidance thing better, and a lot of people will be using a dedicated head unit rather than a phone) they're just focusing on the bits they have but others don't.
But those users have now had all access to ANY form of route planning taken away, which would make it an absolute non-starter for me if I was not open to the idea of a paid app for my activity. That's the bit I take issue with. I have no issue with segments/leaderboards being a premium feature, for me that is not functionality aimed at the causal user.I guess Strava have decided their USP is the segment library. Rather than try to be all things to all men by spending lots developing things that already exist (they realise that other people do the guidance thing better, and a lot of people will be using a dedicated head unit rather than a phone) they're just focusing on the bits they have but others don't.
But IMO clicking a few waypoints on a map to plan out a run or ride is not a premium feature, they've taken a very basic feature that they know is very useful and appealing to a large portion of their free version customers, and hidden it behind a paywall. Is that feature worth £50/year to the average person who uses it? Probably not, but that's now the only choice they have. There should at least be a couple of tiers of paid membership IMO.
MapMyRide will let you do all that for free, and I imagine that's now where a lot of Strava's casual user base will end up.
The average user doesn't care that they've racked up losses developing uber-niche functionality that probably only appeals to 1% of the customer base, but they're now being asked to pay for it all when they only want fairly basic stuff.
I can see why Strava have done it. The leaderboards are pretty much thier biggest USP, everything else they offer is available else where.
They do seem to have gone about it very clumsily, if at the same time they'd offered some great new features including they maybe people wouldn't feel as hard done by.
They do seem to have gone about it very clumsily, if at the same time they'd offered some great new features including they maybe people wouldn't feel as hard done by.
RizzoTheRat said:
Anyone know what the split is between running and cycling on Strava? I don't know anyone who uses it for route planning for running.
Heavily weighted towards cycling in my area. Round here if you can do a run under 7 minute/mile pace (decent but not particularly quick) you'll get a bunch of top 10s on most runs. I know one guy that uses it for running route planning. but runs tend to be shorter and more local so it's easy enough to just invent routes on local knowledge, would be a pain to be looking at a screen while you're trying to run.. lufbramatt said:
Heavily weighted towards cycling in my area. Round here if you can do a run under 7 minute/mile pace (decent but not particularly quick) you'll get a bunch of top 10s on most runs. I know one guy that uses it for running route planning. but runs tend to be shorter and more local so it's easy enough to just invent routes on local knowledge, would be a pain to be looking at a screen while you're trying to run..
Yes, I have a few local top 10s in running segments. Most people are quite slow, with a few similar to me, who can do a reasonable mile or two, and then a small handful of fast whippet like people (who do big miles) -a bit like a Park Run.
lufbramatt said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Anyone know what the split is between running and cycling on Strava? I don't know anyone who uses it for route planning for running.
Heavily weighted towards cycling in my area. Round here if you can do a run under 7 minute/mile pace (decent but not particularly quick) you'll get a bunch of top 10s on most runs. I know one guy that uses it for running route planning. but runs tend to be shorter and more local so it's easy enough to just invent routes on local knowledge, would be a pain to be looking at a screen while you're trying to run.. As for Strava? The price, for me, is too great. At maybe £2 per month I'd have bought into it already. I recently bought into VeloViewer at £10 for a year and I'm getting more out of that than I do out of Strava. The issue being, though, that VV depends on Strava data to work at all. So I might now sign up to Strava, even at £4 per month, just to make sure they don't pull a fast one and hide the VV data sharing behind that bloody paywall too! I do enjoy the filter feature on the Strava segment leaderboards, just to see how I stack up against people in the same clubs as me, or who I'm following. I could probably live without that side of things, but I suppose I should consider myself fortunate to have had the service for free for 7 years now. But I'm also in agreement with others who've said they'd like to see tiered membership levels. I don't have an indoor trainer, nor a power meter, and cadence only on one bike. So don't really need the in depth analysis of all of the data. If there were a "half way house" option, I'd definitely be signing up to it...
kwits were logging their runs from their secret bases in Afghanistan...Kermit power said:
millen said:
Another thought would be to charge £20 pa per sport - there must be similar cost to maintaining leader boards for running and cycling - why should those who do one activity subsidise those who do two (or three)?
I can't see why it would be any more expensive to maintain? All it's really doing is picking up a field you complete for them in the database to tell them which sport you've done today, and then applied it to the relevant leader board.It seems odd that they will allow a non-subscriber to set up a new segment, but then view just their latest time against their historic PR - I'm not that bothered how I compare with others but it's helpful to know that this was my worst time in my last 50 attempts, for example!
Co-incidentally, I tried Strava route builder (beta) just yesterday for the first time in 3 years (preferring RWGPS). Unimpressed - particularly when set to 'riding' it would merrily follow non-tarmac roads unless you watched it like a hawk (difficult to see whether it's a proper road or a track once it's filled in the broad route line). I hope the paid-for version is better.
Yes, I'd favour a tiered/menu pricing option. However they've tried that in the past and presumably concluded it doesn't work for them. Wouldn't be too surprised if they come back in 6-12 months with a different pricing system.
Most clubs operate a weekly Strava Leaderboard, of distance, elevation etc. I assume this will continue even for non-subscribers, as it doesn't involve segments.
Here's Veloviewer saying how the changes affect them
https://blog.veloviewer.com/strava_subscriber_vs_n...
I don't think the route planning or navigation is a key strava feature. To me their usp is the bringing together of data from different devices to one platform independent place, and the segments feature. The huge cycling user base and ability to compare your results to theirs is the killer usp.
Question is how many people will stop using that when they put it behind the paywall. It will either kill the company if too may ditch it, or make it if enough people (like me!) stay and now sign up for the paid version. The previous summit option didnt give anything I wanted really.... but full segments analysis with a little bit of power and fitness tracking will be worth £4 a month.
Question is how many people will stop using that when they put it behind the paywall. It will either kill the company if too may ditch it, or make it if enough people (like me!) stay and now sign up for the paid version. The previous summit option didnt give anything I wanted really.... but full segments analysis with a little bit of power and fitness tracking will be worth £4 a month.
MC Bodge said:
lufbramatt said:
Heavily weighted towards cycling in my area. Round here if you can do a run under 7 minute/mile pace (decent but not particularly quick) you'll get a bunch of top 10s on most runs. I know one guy that uses it for running route planning. but runs tend to be shorter and more local so it's easy enough to just invent routes on local knowledge, would be a pain to be looking at a screen while you're trying to run..
Yes, I have a few local top 10s in running segments. Most people are quite slow, with a few similar to me, who can do a reasonable mile or two, and then a small handful of fast whippet like people (who do big miles) -a bit like a Park Run.
On an unrelated note, I just clicked on a segment of a Strava trace from the other day, and it has over 17.5k people on the leader board
. It's a 500m stretch with the word "climb" in it's name....it has an elevation gain of 5m 
hey don't really understand the concept of hills around here 
RizzoTheRat said:
On an unrelated note, I just clicked on a segment of a Strava trace from the other day, and it has over 17.5k people on the leader board . It's a 500m stretch with the word "climb" in it's name....it has an elevation gain of 5m hey don't really understand the concept of hills around here
It's all relative. Where I live is similarly flat. Climbs are usually over railway bridges. Some of them are ironically named too. . It's a 500m stretch with the word "climb" in it's name....it has an elevation gain of 5m hey don't really understand the concept of hills around here The Park Run "running with" doesn't tell you everybody using Strava in the race. Only those who ran close to you for the duration. I've done a Park Run with 750 people and it said that I only ran with a handful of people, because we were up at the front.
For anyone that cares, Strava have switched off Flybys (by default, anyway) this week. You will need to go into your privacy settings to deliberately re-enable if you like using it. Of course, 90% of users probably didnt use it anyway, so wont notice it gone, so wont re-enable, so my rides are going to look pretty solitary!
Always found it interesting if i got overtaken by someone crazy fast on the trails, so i could check out their stats/bike later on.
Always found it interesting if i got overtaken by someone crazy fast on the trails, so i could check out their stats/bike later on.
daddy cool said:
For anyone that cares, Strava have switched off Flybys (by default, anyway) this week. You will need to go into your privacy settings to deliberately re-enable if you like using it. Of course, 90% of users probably didnt use it anyway, so wont notice it gone, so wont re-enable, so my rides are going to look pretty solitary!
Always found it interesting if i got overtaken by someone crazy fast on the trails, so i could check out their stats/bike later on.
I noticed this the other day too. Always found it interesting if i got overtaken by someone crazy fast on the trails, so i could check out their stats/bike later on.
It's a shame as I sometimes found it interesting, even if it is a bit intrusive. I can't see many people enabling it even if they know about it.
daddy cool said:
For anyone that cares, Strava have switched off Flybys (by default, anyway) this week. You will need to go into your privacy settings to deliberately re-enable if you like using it. Of course, 90% of users probably didnt use it anyway, so wont notice it gone, so wont re-enable, so my rides are going to look pretty solitary!
Always found it interesting if i got overtaken by someone crazy fast on the trails, so i could check out their stats/bike later on.
That’s a shame, I liked flybys for when I do open water swimming and seeing everyone following the same course or in a race or event, sometimes it’s good for seeing new routes where others in your areas were running/swimming/cycling etc Always found it interesting if i got overtaken by someone crazy fast on the trails, so i could check out their stats/bike later on.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff