I can’t see how this is “an issue”. This is how businesses conduct business. You incentivise people with a freebie and after a while, you charge people for it. Some fish bite and others don’t. As others already have said, Strava does not owe its users anything. They better provide some basic feature to not lose customers (but in the case of Strava: lose them to which platform exactly?).
To me Strava is the Instagram/Facebook of the cycling world and I’d like to see them implement more features in that vein. I don’t pay for it anymore as I don’t get anything out of it besides the social aspect and I can have that for free. Pay for the services you like and don’t for those you don’t like. Easy as that.
Maybe I’m just being slow because it’s early, but I can’t think of another business that has provided something free to end users for years and then suddenly started to charge for it, other than Netflix taking away sharing, and people are in an uproar over that. I’m sure people will now name others that have, but if I can only think of one, I would not say it’s how all businesses conduct business.
I think there is a distinction without a difference here. The distinction being time period (years). But this practice is no different than a free one week trial to Zwift or any streaming platform, or even the free samples they give out at my local Sams club.
A service is not a tangible thing like a bicycle. A service can be taken away or access to it gets restricted, if the owner providing the service feels like it. If you bring your bike to your LBS and they clean it after a service and next time you bring it and they don’t clean it, do you complain? I don’t feel entitled to any free service as long as I’m a non-paying user. It would be another thing if they started taking stuff away from paying users. If you get something for free, be happy. If you miss it, pay for the service, if not, then not. So simple. A business is a business, a charity is a charity.
Strava have an issue in that people feel entitled to continue receiving all the features that they’ve received for years for free, but that seems not to be a sustainable business practice for Strava.
My guess is that the free version of Strava in the future will be very basic, with just enough features to keep casual and new users happy, but for anyone more interested it will feel very limited. Maybe it’s there already?
The challenge then is to have enough in the premium version to keep people paying whilst the new and casual free users get involved to keep the network effect fresh. At the moment the main hook for premium I think is the leaderboards. Maybe that’s enough but I’m not convinced. I say this as a premium subscriber for many years, beginning when I thought I had a responsibility to support something that I feel provides a lot of value to me and my cycling community. I would hate it if Strava disappeared.
See what @Pbase said…there is a significant difference in those policies. Trial programs are started with the understanding that you will eventually be charged.
Strava created a model that was offered to users with certain features essentially in exchange for their data (and ostensibly, exposure to some advertising). Now Strava is changing that agreement. That isn’t a “free trial”, it is basically a “bait & switch”.
I’m not certain why it is so hard to understand why people are naturally disappointed by that decision.
No, the challenge is to come up with new features to incentivize current users to step up and pay for the Premium version, not take away existing features and start charging for them. So far, Strava is failing in that challenge.
I find it equally frustrating when people misrepresent what other people are saying.
The complaints are not about wanting a “service for free”, the complaints are about Strava taking away features previously provided and charging for them.
Whether it was free or not is almost immaterial…if they were charging $5 / month and then said “well, these select features are now going to charge you $10 / month”, the same issue would apply.
I have made my feelings re: paying for things like journalism very clear…people deserve to get paid for their work. To that end, I should also clarify that I am, in fact, a Strava Premium member…so while these issues don’t really affect me, I completely understand why others are frustrated.
At the most basic level, both Strava and RWGPS have a basic free option, and a paid version with more features. 3-4 years ago RWGPS also moved some of their formerly free route building features to the premium tier. So in this regard the products are similar.
From my perspective, the companies are very different, and that is why I am a paid member of RWGPS and not Strava. I’ve mentioned this before, but when RWGPS moved the features, I had ignored the email notifying me of that, and was quite bothered by this surprise as I was trying to make route and missed some features. I sent a hotly worded note the them explaining my dissatisfaction with this, and received a calm and thoughtful reply from one of the founders of the company, along with a free trial of the paid tier. I have been paying ever since. RWGPS is a self funded, bootstrapped private company, and as such has always had less money available than the VC backed Strava. Strava spent the first part of their existence burning through the VC money without really caring about customer satisfaction - we were not the customer, we were part of the product that was going to be sold as part of the VC exit. That never happened, and suddenly Strava cares about users, but not really that much. Also, the main advantage has over RWGPS is the vastly larger community of users, but that isn’t their product, that is us.
RWGPS is consistently adding new and interesting features - yes, things like heatmaps are not ‘orignal’, but still useful. Other simple things like auto handling of elevation fixes for bridges and tunnels - I have bridge near my that this makes a big difference for regarding predicted vs actual elevation.
Here’s a new feature they just launched - a way to look at community routes that are near a route you are creating. https://ridewithgps.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/11240328301723
It is not bait and switch. It really isn’t that different than a free trial. You agreed up front to give your data in exchange for services on their terms. You are entitled to be disappointed, but honestly seems like a super minor thing to raise a fuss over, but to each their own. It’s just at the 10,000 foot level you really don’t have a leg to stand on, unless you can show me in their agreement where you are entitled to a year end recap in exchange for your data.
Strava has this and has had it for ages - so that’s borderline IP theft you’re lauding.
The routing on rwgps is worse. You may want to be a hipster about funding models, and I know that as a user of a small service you have a vested interest in bringing people to rwgps to make your routing better, but from a practical viewpoint you pay for Strava to use heatmap data to get good rides.
I don’t understand the frustration. I can see where it’s coming from but I don’t think it is the right attitude to have towards free online services. As these companies mature they have to find a way to make money at some point. And apparently the current offerings of Strava are not enough to entice enough people to pay for it. What better point in time to make the end of year review a paid feature would you suggest?
People enjoy the platform. They get something out of it. They don’t want to lose that benefit and are now facing two options: either paying for said feature or missing out on it. Why not pay something you enjoy. That „it was free before“ is a non-argument in a free market. Nothing is guaranteed.
I paid for RWGPS in 2016 when I started cycling, to dual record the DeathRide. The offline maps are a premium feature, and if I would pay for that again if taking a long cycling trip. Back then the RWGPS turn-by-turn embedded in route was something anyone appreciated on a Garmin 520, but my 530 doesn’t need it. One of my clubs has a premium account and I still use RWGPS occasionally.
Nowadays I prefer Strava maps and routing. One example - I did a gravel event on the CA Central Coast and the Strava route correctly displayed the 2 gravel sections, while the RWGPS route only displayed 1 gravel section (6 miles) and missed the other 8 mile section of gravel road.
These aren’t some guys in a garage making software. It’s owned by Silicon Valley venture capitalists. If you feel the need to send them money for the hell of it, then by all means. Look where sending money to Cyclingtips (aka Outside) got people.
Grinds your gears? Not a single person has said this. Go back to the top and read.
Not a single person said they feel entitled. Go back and read the thread. Their business seems rather sustainable. Their revenue keeps increasing. What they don’t have is enough revenue for an IPO or a billion dollar exit for their venture capitalist investors.
It’s similar in that a business lets you try a service/product for a limited amount a time, and then, if you want to continue to use it, you must pay for it. Stated upfront or not, these are basic tenants of our society. Are you being deliberately obtuse here? How is this hard to comprehend? Is this whole thread really over some small recap for social media? If this really provided value for you, the way to get it is VERY simple. Pay for Strava.
