Strava changes - great analysis by DC Rainmaker: "Today, Strava sold its segmented soul."

You didn't distinguish between the two groups; it was impossible to tell who you were angry at, and about what. I heard a subtext that at the end of the day, it is about having your name at the top of the list.

To your point about cheaters - there's good news about this update. Strava actually rolled out improved algorithms to detect "impossible" performances for a runner based on Strava's assessment of their fitness.

(Just my experience, but) when I look at an anomalously fast performance on a segment, it's mostly someone's GPS glitching, and they skip from one point to another, following the path of a segment by accident. Maybe I just live in an area where obvious cheats have been called out, because I don't see it happening much.

YeahDude420 wrote:

Further, it scares me a bit they need the cash.

According to this, they've never been profitable, and are trying to change that.

Interesting, given (as others have noted), they've focused on well-masked sponsorships and ads to bring in a lot of money lately.

Okay, bro... wrote:

YeahDude420 wrote:

Further, it scares me a bit they need the cash.

https://www.strava.com/subscription/from-our-founders

According to this, they've never been profitable, and are trying to change that.

Interesting, given (as others have noted), they've focused on well-masked sponsorships and ads to bring in a lot of money lately.

Ah, good info there, thanks. All these software-as-a-service businesses focus on growth for a long time but everything eventually comes home to roost. You have to make money eventually.

Okay, bro... wrote:

NERunner053 wrote:

I hope they looked at other ways to make revenue -- ads & such.

The advances they've made here are why I'm so surprised they've made this decision now of all times. In the last year, they've transitioned well into running/cycling-based advertisements through challenges, trophies, clubs, and specialized gear. Although they're not yet profitable, they're bringing more dough than ever.

Despite that, they decided now is the right time to squeeze their userbase.

Again, they do need to make money at some point, not just lose money more efficiently. They may be looking at survival at this point, a decade into their existence with no profits ever AFAIK and venture capital drying up.

Ho Hum wrote:

Again, they do need to make money at some point, not just lose money more efficiently. They may be looking at survival at this point, a decade into their existence with no profits ever AFAIK and venture capital drying up.

To put this in running terms, it sounds like Strava is trying to design a training plan for a very aggressive goal race (trying to become profitable within a year). They've been training for 10 years and nothing they've done has gotten them close to achieving it. So they're throwing out every half-assed strategy they've tried before, and will try some aggressive techniques so they're just as likely to destroy their body or become better than they ever have. Kind of a sink-or-swim situation, because the goal race is soon - there's no time for gradualness or tinkering.

Basically yanking a ton of features from the free domain into the paid domain is surely one way to become profitable, but it could also cause a userbase rebellion when a competitor emerges.

Ho Hum wrote:

Again, they do need to make money at some point, not just lose money more efficiently. They may be looking at survival at this point, a decade into their existence with no profits ever AFAIK and venture capital drying up.

Not to be flippant, but that's not my problem. They've been providing a "free" service for years now. (I say "free" because obviously they're selling our data, so while we're not giving them money, we're giving them something of value for using the service.)

It's not like they only provided the free features for three months as a trial. While I get that people should not feel entitled to all of these features, it's Strava's fault that they've been giving away the cow for years. Some people will switch over, but a lot of people are just going to be peeved because something they got used to is being taken away. $5/mo is nothing in the grand scheme of things, but for a lot of people it's the principle.

That's the beauty of the free market. If you don't like it, don't pay. Even better, hire a developer and compete.

Yup, I use Strava for the same thing. All of that other stuff seems superfluous. Do I care that someone I know or don't know ran fast on a certain street and should I them compete with them on the echo chamber that is a runkeeping app? Seems pointless to me.

Strava should just allow it's users to create challenges. That's the one thing the people want.

What seems to be missing in Strava, compared to other sites, are system-wide comparisons of weekly and total mileage, as well as pace. Am I just unable to find those things? The only comparisons, aside from segments, which I don't do, that I can see are comparisons within and between clubs. I'd much rather see, say, a top 100 list of weekly mileage for the whole site, and then the pros would come up as well, another bonus.

This category of things moving over from free to subscription seems pretty clear and will also clear Strava of most of its users (known to the company as the people who provide their data and connections free to Strava):

"Training Log on Android and strava.com"

Lots of melodramatic attitudes here.

How entitled are people that they expect every single internet app to be free?!?! What ever happened to "There's no such thing as a free lunch?" Strava has operating costs, clearly, like any business.

It's a good product/service and they can charge a price if it fits their business model.

Rhodium Nights wrote:

Lots of melodramatic attitudes here.

How entitled are people that they expect every single internet app to be free?!?! What ever happened to "There's no such thing as a free lunch?" Strava has operating costs, clearly, like any business.

It's a good product/service and they can charge a price if it fits their business model.

Karen Syndrome

I've been paying for Strava for 2 or 3 years now. I've been using it for around 3 or 4 years and I realized I was getting a lot for free, so I might as well support them. An annual membership is $60. The extra features haven't been that great, but who the hell cares? Buying annually, it's $5 a month for an excellent platform that most of us use every single day.

Runner10287 wrote:

Rhodium Nights wrote:

Lots of melodramatic attitudes here.

How entitled are people that they expect every single internet app to be free?!?! What ever happened to "There's no such thing as a free lunch?" Strava has operating costs, clearly, like any business.

It's a good product/service and they can charge a price if it fits their business model.

Karen Syndrome

Amen. It's really a shame.

I love Strava and I was a paid subscriber before these small changes were rolled out. It costs literally $7 per month and people are hysterically whining about it. It's appalling.

Runner10287 wrote:

Whines about someone wearing better shoes and beating his CR. I lold.

Me too. I lol'd hard.

As I said, spending hundreds of dollars to run a Strava Segment and beat some dude's time by a couple of seconds years later.

It's hilarious.

Anyone who is fast enough to actually have a notable ranking on the leaderboard should be dedicated enough to their fitness to invest in a premium subscription.

Je suis Francais wrote:

To your point about cheaters - there's good news about this update. Strava actually rolled out improved algorithms to detect "impossible" performances for a runner based on Strava's assessment of their fitness.

(Just my experience, but) when I look at an anomalously fast performance on a segment, it's mostly someone's GPS glitching, and they skip from one point to another, following the path of a segment by accident. Maybe I just live in an area where obvious cheats have been called out, because I don't see it happening much.

I was wondering where my best effort times went, and that's probably why. Their "impossible" times are not impossible.

lcl2006 wrote:

I don't get it. Strava is a great product and is getting better. Training log, segments, the new route feature - no other service is comparable. So if you love it, why not pay for it?

Also, pretty much all the features that will be subscription-only are "really nice to have" but not essential features. You can still see your and your friends' runs. You will still appear in segments if you run fast (you will just be able to see the top 10 only).

I'd much rather pay for a great service that have ads all over or have Strava sell my data to goverments for $$.

I think it's the bait and switch tactic. Lure them in and then change the terms and require payment. There is bound to be backlash.