Again, I’m not sure I agree with this. You seem to have adopted a narrow definition of “cyclist” just so you can make your statement. What is a “cyclist?” If it’s someone who spends time pedaling a bike, Peleton users (and me) are “cyclists.” If it’s someone who races competitively for net-positive money, I’m not sure how many people on TR or Peleton are “cyclists.” By getting farther from the former and closer to the latter, we’re making the “club” more exclusive for the sake of making it more exclusive. My point was simply, the narrower the definition we adopt and then only cater to that narrow definition, the less money TR makes. Why wouldn’t we define “cyclist” more broadly, including more people, and making TR more profitable and more able to develop new features? The word certainly lends itself to a broad definition. And not to disagree for the sake of it, but narrowly defining the word beyond what is required is the very definition of attempting “exclusivity” (I’m trying to avoid the use of the word “snob”).
As to the people that think Zwift would be a better alternative, I (and a professional fitness trainer, a doctor, and an exercise scientist) disagree. TR’s use of structured training, with specific goals at specific thresholds, spaced out a specific amount between workouts, is more “physically helpful” for getting fit than just hopping on Zwift for group rides. Simple analogy would be for gym-goers. Going to the gym with a structured plan from a professional will yield better results than going to the gym and just lifting things you see that seem fun to lift.
As to the people that think TR and a trainer is somehow more “complicated” or a better fit for the “get fit” crowd than Peleton, I also disagree. Buying a road bike and trainer from a bike shop is not complicated. Downloading the TR app is not complicated. By doing those two things, you’re as ready to go as you are with Peleton. I’ll give you this, Peleton is one less step. As to complexity of technology, I just don’t think pairing a trainer to an app is too complicated for someone. I just think this argument is flawed when you’re talking about people interested enough in fitness to spend $2500 on a Peleton bike. This doesn’t even get to the extra benefits of TR vs Peleton that people may or may not choose to take advantage of. This is less of a question of complexity and more of a question of marketing.
Finally, I think the tone of some of the replies to my post sort of proves my point. Some of the TR crowd just want it to be different because their goals are different, they are only focused on their reasons for using TR, their mind needs it to be to justify it, etc. I think people need to take a step back and take a macro view of the situation. Stop looking at TR from your own perspective and look at it from the owners’ perspectives or even from a neutral third-party perspective.
Peleton has shown an immense interest and profit potential in cycling at home to get fit. TR is, at base, a cycling at home app. Should Peleton’s exploding subscription numbers and IPO inform how TR goes forward? Of course they should! TR already does much of what Peleton does but better. The question is can / does TR want to acquire some of that demographic and what would that take. From a business standpoint, I can’t see a good reason to say no. It should explore some of it.
And by the way, as referenced above, I took my decision-making process to three professionals before settling on TR above Peleton and Zwift (I excluded several other apps on my own). All three agreed, among those three, TR was the best choice for getting fit and getting feedback on getting fit (each independently). TR can be used to improve form. TR can be used to prepare for a road race. TR can be used to get faster. TR can also be used to get fit. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
That said, if TR thinks I made the wrong decision, it may be right. Maybe I am better served on Peleton or Zwift.
