So, Strava has scrapped its Premium/Summit packages in favour of making the majority of its features a paid-for service. There are also API changes that look set to wreak havoc with third-party app access. But how will these changes affect the average Strava user? And should you be coughing up the £4 per month?
First things first, Strava remains free if you want it to be. A free user will still have the ability to upload rides, see past rides and communicate with friends. But segment leaderboards will now be limited to the top 10, and the gap between free and paid services is the biggest that we’ve seen from Strava.
Getting people to pay for previously free features isn’t easy. Especially when they’re good.
This isn’t a problem that is exclusive to Strava. We’re seeing it across many other sites and also across other industries like gaming. When you create a feature that is very good and allow people to use it for free for years, making it profitable without selling your users to ad companies means asking the users to contribute.
Strava is taking the decision to monetise its product by asking users to pay for the majority of it, rather than selling the eyes of those users to advertisers. It’s also a move that sees it step away from the Premium/Summit memberships that offered some pretty minor performance-based features on top of the fully-featured basic site.
So why has Strava suddenly changed its business model? In the past, Strava has looked to use its giant dataset as a way to generate revenue, and one theory is that new privacy laws such as GDPR and California's Consumer Privacy Act may have impacted its ability to collect and sell data. On the advertising revenue question, Strava has pointed out that it has a relatively small staff of 180 people. Simply, it says, "implementing ads would take away from the time we could spend making Strava better for athletes."
A big update to routes is on the way
The ability to create routes has become one of the paid-for features, though free users can still download and view their previously created routes and routes from others. The changes that are coming transfer many of the features that were recently launched on the mobile version.
These include personalised route recommendations and the ability to see the type of surface that you'll be riding on, based on data from user's bike choices across segments on your route.
There is also the ability to send a route straight to a Wahoo device and improved, if still not perfect integration with Garmin devices.
Segments are getting a refresh
Arguably, Strava would be nothing without its segments. The popularity of chasing KoMs, virtually racing your mates, and comparing your times to those of the pros is a major feature that allowed Strava to grow.
This is where Strava is bound to have upset the biggest number of people, as free users will now only get access to the top 10 of each segment. That’s fine if you can regularly break into the top 10, but for the majority of riders, one of the core features that makes Strava so popular is now mostly useless unless you upgrade.
Some may see this as an annoyance, but we’re all happy to pay for digital services like Spotify, Netflix and Amazon Prime etc. Should Strava be any different? Especially when you consider that the segments and leaderboards are processor-intensive and therefore expensive features to run. Others will be hoping that segments becoming a premium feature will lead to some much-needed rationalisation of the system: any half-popular route now has hundreds of intersecting and conflicting segments. Perhaps the subs money will pay for some much-needed pruning and moderation.
The hidden API issues
Lurking beneath the shiny Strava homepage are some pretty significant API changes that could pose serious problems for apps that use your Strava data to do cool things. A huge number of third-party apps won’t be working this morning and few will have received any sort of warning.
If you're not sure what API is, it's a set of functions allowing the creation of applications that access the features or data of an operating system, application, or website. Strava's API used to allow third-party apps to access leaderboard, segment, user and other data with the third-party app displaying this data in a different way.
We’ve seen Strava move the goalposts in the past. Relive.cc suffered massively when Strava shut down Relive’s access to ride data. You can still create Relive videos if you have a Garmin or a Wahoo computer, but the lack of integration with Strava has added a barrier that many won’t even attempt to get through.
One of the main users of Strava data, Veloviewer, will now be reliant on its users also being paid-up Strava users for some headline features to continue to function. While Veloviewer says that many of its users pay for Strava already, it’s an extra cost if you've already paid Veloviewer your tenner but had no interest in paying for Strava.
Try before you buy
Thankfully, Strava is allowing us 60-days to try the new changes for free before making a choice.
If Strava can ensure that the system runs smoothly, and truly improve the service for its users, without some of the annoying features (we like our feeds chronological, thanks) and bugs, then £4 per month isn't a bad price to pay for a service free from ads. It's certainly something that we've considered.
Or, you know, you could just go old skool and just ride your bike…
Strava got in touch to strongly deny that GDPR had any effect on their business model. A spokesperson for Strava said; "Subscription has always been the heart of Strava making up the vast majority of our revenue, and recent privacy regulations haven’t influenced our model. We did not sell personal information before, and we do not sell it now.”
Add new comment
60 comments
They say you don't value something that's free, but at the same time if you're paying for something, you expect value for money.
The key thing that would drive me to get it is segments. Previously I have overlooked the fact that the average speed on a local segment that I am second on was done by someone who averaged 92 mph, or the fact that all of the times that I compare myself to on embankment on a commute are against Zwift cyclists/closed event cyclsits so not a fair comparison.
If they want people to pay, they need to improve their product.
If someone averaged 92mph then Strava has a function whereby you can flag their result and Strava will remove it.
How can a Zwift cyclist beat you on your commute? Do you commute in a virtual world to a virtual job?
Zwift rides normally get uploaded as 'Virtual Ride' activities, which have their own separate segments. If they're showing up in 'real London' it's likely because the rider has deliberately changed them to 'Ride'. Not sure it's fair to expect Strava to prevent that any more than they could someone uploading an ebike ride and pretending it was done on a standard bike.
It's great to see the traits I saw when I started racing as a kid in 1970 are still about today. The continuity of the sport is paramount and to see that cyclists are still bitching, 50 years later, about paying a relatively small amount of money, to support something they get great benefit from, makes me so proud. In the 1980's they'd pay £5 a week for squash courts and would resent the 50p a week cycling club fees. I've never worked out if cyclists are just a unique bunch of miserable tight arses or if this attitude prevails in most sports?
Am I the only one who uses Strava to log the mileage I've done with various components on my bikes?
Check out Pro-BikeGarage. 100x better than what Strava has to offer.
I like the idea (I do similar in Excel) - Pro Bike Garage requires Strava though
Most of my ride analysis I do on Garmin Connect and only really use Strava for its social aspects. I am not likely to break into many top tens but it is nice to compare my personal segment performances so hopefully these will remain.
If only Garmin Connect hadn't tried to go social and ruin it's UI - in the last 8 years it's really gone downhill (no pun intended) and become such a mess, probably in an attempt to compete with Strava. Shame.
Perhaps they'll make an effort to get the route import working now - years in beta and still borked.
Does anyone care about their segment times when they are outside the top 10?
"Ooh, look, a bronze medal for 3rd fastest attempt by me ever, and all-time 104th fastest out of 2,827" - said nobody, ever.
Personally, I wouldn't pay for it because they don't seem to listen to their users. There are plenty of common sense feature requests that have never been implemented (undo accidental kudos, I'm looking at you)
Only real cyclists should use Strava. All those people just on there for fun and therefore not willing to pay for it good riddance! Us dedicated, real riders are fed up of carrying all you free riders, paying so you can brag for free about a 5 mile ride around your local reservoir.
The leaderboard is for serious commited riders so why would Sandra from The Hamptons care? If you'd rather spend you're £4 a month on your dog for it's food or your cat's treats then us real cyclists will be glad to see the back of you.
Strava is not a charity, and by introducing a charge they're making a step to put food on their table and also hopefully getting rid of all the chairty cases on there - If Dave from Torquay wants to do 11mph and brag about it then do it somewhere else - Think Like A Pro, Don't Go Slow!
Mic Drop.
Honestly, I can't tell if you are being serious or just trolling. Either way, whatever....
I think you're missing the point and also the number of 'real' cyclists out there. A lot of what strava is good for is getting people out and actually cycling (or running etc) because they've seen their friends/family/colleagues go out recently and it provides the nudge they need to ride some more.
The number of your 'real' cyclists out there that actually then use strava would need to be pushing 90% if everyone else left, and a whole lot of your real cyclists probably already have training plans that they'll track their riding on and won't need strava either.
You dropped something but it wasn't the mic. Maybe your IQ?
How can I drop my IQ? Am I carrying it around in a bag and accidentally let go?
Hopefully you've dropped the mic to never return. You sound like a fun person.....
are you a 'real cyclist' then? or just a turd muppet?
Turd muppet? Isn't that your Mom's role down the local fetish club?
Like it. Nice rant!
"All those people just on there for fun and therefore not willing to pay for it"
Yeah, screw all those people having fun while cycling! Who do they think they are?!
I'm not bothered about leaderboards or segments.
I'm not bothered about Strava navigation as I don't use it.
I'd be a little bit bothered about the API changes as some of the information from Veloviewer is useful - but that's mainly the infographic that gives me my totals for the year.
The only reason I have a Strava account is my club use it to publish the group rides to, which I then download as a GPX to put in my Garmin for navigation.
If having a free account becomes a barrier to that, then I'll just ask my club for the GPX directly.
I'm not a serious athlete, so I'm really not fussed.
Can they use ride With GPS instead? I think there's now a tie in with Garmin so should be an easy process to get your routes on your GPS.
Why shouldn't they be able to run a profitable company? If they can't become profitable (which they haven't yet) then everyone loses! At least they've been honest and upfront about it!
A basic Strava is still free (and they say always will be). It's also free of advertising which is a blessing and worth the equivalent of one decent tyre per year (or a couple of cups of coffee each month) to keep it focussed on the matter in hand.
How annoying is "Free" youtube with adverts interrupting all the time!? Not to mention how widely spread YOUR data gets to make advertising revenue work - kudos to Strava for taking the more honourable route.
I can understand why some people might be a bit disappointed if they've enjoyed the features for free until now but, think of it this way - how many other services like Netflix, Prime, or Sky do you enjoy free for a while, then start paying to keep using it if you like it. You've just had it longer with Strava.
I'm sure some people will leave but I suspect that's more their loss than Strava's. Imagine a bunch of people living free in your house for a couple of years; eating your food, using your electricity and Wifi but not doing any chores. Then you say they can stay but need to contribute towards the food, electric and wifi. They leave in a huff - are you better or worse off??
No we're not. Granted some people are, but most of us are not.
I used the free version of Strava, wishing I could access some of the premium features but not interested enough in all the premium features to justify paying the thick end of £50 for them. Then they introduced Summit and I was able to get most of the features I wanted to use for about £18, so I did. Strava already had the people who would pay £50(ish) and they'll probably keep them. I think thay'll lose many customers like me who were paying £18.
And if the free version is crap they might lose me altogether.
That should get their attention!
They could switch to intrusive ads like Road.CC.
Or there could be no road.cc..
I get that they have to make money somehow, but the only thing that I'm bothered about is the route creator and heat maps which just isn't worth £50 a year. It's easy for someone with lots of spare cash to say it's only £4 a month, but that thinking results in death by subscription whereby all your money gets syphoned off without you realising how it happens. For my particular case it's just not worth the money.
Pages