I would be surprised if they are working on a from-scratch platform - the usual approach is a feature freeze on the old platform so you have a stable feature set ro reimplement. This isn’t happening. I think the reason is that they believe that new features drive new users, so they are stuck on a treadmill as success at this stage is measured by user growth.
It’s not impossible to re-engineer a new implementation against a moving target, but it is much harder. Given the current evidence of the software engineering and architeture skills that are evident in the current product I think there is a significant skills gap here and it isn’t the sort of gap that can be filled quickly with money either.
The other reason I think it is less likely is that their eyes have turned to the hardware market as they are looking at Peleton and wanting some of that pie. So prime product focus isn’t the current software platform but the new hardware.
I guess they are aiming for some bike/computer combo that is Zwift OOTB, just plug in the power cord and give the WiFi password
Yes, at some point new stuff gets incrementally difficult to implement without breaking stuff if the foundation isn’t solid. Having said that, I don’t think Zwift has that many bugs that would render it totally unusable
You mention “the usual approach”. What do you think about the fact that, several years in, Zwift hasn’t created a platform update it considers big enough to be labelled “version 1.1” - let alone “2.0” - while the Companion app is already up to v3?
I think they are just producing more technical debt which will either get painfully paid off or the product will stagnate. Or they may just launch a new platform entirely (probably tied in to their hardware) that has allows users to move across - compatible enough, but new. But as I said this is really hard. However trying to launch a new (and likely expensive) hardware device that runs on a platform which is creaking is not going to take the fight to Peleton. I’m pretty sure the hardware will be tied to Zwift (experiments with the steering thing showed that it handshook with the Zwift program and couldn’t be used elsewhere shows their thinking).
I’m not sure the CA merits the big version jumps, but to be honest I didn’t pay that much attention to it - main use was it was easier to give ride-ons. The CA - if you are not doing the integration with hardware - is easier (it is primarily listening to the app/Zwift core - I think everything comes via the local app but not 100%). So a much simpler app.
It (the PC platform) did seem to be moving backward last time I used it - drop outs from the Tacx and the HRM definitely got more common (and I used other platforms - Rouvey, RGT - which didn’t have these issues so unlikely to be environmental).
I also have concerns about the PC platform - I felt the experience for last week’s Focus rides wasn’t as good as the Haute Route Watopia earlier in the year - I could see less riders ahead of me at the start and it all felt jerkier.
One day, someone will build a platform which does everything Zwift 1.0 does, but which gives a better customer experience in many ways. For me the question is will that be Zwift, or will someone else beat them to it?
I wouldn’t trust a smart bike from a software company that seems to have trouble writing software, unless it’s like 1/3 the price. Even the smart bikes from hardware companies that have been around for years have their own share of problems.
This is really a situation where if Zwift actually wanted results, they’d just buy Saris or something.
That a good point actually - why not just buy Saris (or anyone else)?
I’ve noticed that Zwift do a lot of things in-house - for example why write your own multiplatform graphics engine? I presume the “Not Invented Here” syndrome or possibly micromanagement is rife in the company. NIH is not always a bad thing, but based on the outcome I think it was not the best long-term call (which doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right call at the time - not all good tactical decisions are good strategic decisions but you need to make the decision and you go with what gets you to next week).
As for whether the bike will be any good. I suspect they are an Agile company, and while you can certainly use Agile processes to deliver good engineering it is harder and requires more discipline than for software. Based on their current outputs I’m not optimistic.
I agree, if wahoo and tacx struggle with their bikes I’m not sure how zwift will fare tbh. The concern is if they release a bike then only allow access to certain parts of the game if you buy it.
Personally I don’t care about version numbers that much, there is software that evolves nicely in .1 increments and others that are essentially the same between major versions.
Zwift might be the market leader but the latest investment in it and the increase in trainer sales will surely attract competitors to the market. And if something better comes along for the same price, people will switch. Zwift will have to to evolve or go under sooner or later
It seems ironic to me that the community is Zwift’s biggest moat (the main cost for the user is the hardware and it is not tied to any specific platform like e.g. the Peloton bike so going somewhere else is very easy technically) yet the community-specific features like group rides and community racing are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to development.
Many MMORPG companies have the existing know-how and platform for creating a Zwift-like game. Compared to CSGO etc, the maximum concurrent players of Zwift is peanuts
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic. This would basically fragment all the users into different worlds and make all of them near-empty. It’s one of the reasons why there are only a limited number of worlds to choose from every day.
It feels really busy now, but a year ago you could go for a ride in the off hours and do a loop in Watopia without seeing a single person.
Not true … simply NOT.
I’m a member of Zwift for 3 years, I’m retired, so I can ride in a different ToD (time of day) , and I have never experienced … as you mentioned it … “Watopia without a single person”. Nonsense. Sorry …
Zwift, in my personal experience, has always been some nasty, crowded world(s) …
If you visit the worlds that are “CLOSED” (LOL) on a given day, using the sanctioned Meet-up Hack, you might be surprised how many cyclists are present in ALL the “worlds”…
I would hate zwift to start limiting features to their own smart bike only. I train on zwift for outdoor. And definitely want to use my own bike (got a second road bike so I could use my old one exclusively for zwift). And I love the competition between the trainer companies. Would be pretty unhappy if zwift started limiting competing trainers.
I love zwift. I do read all about the bugs. But for what I do, the bugs don’t really bother me so much. Though the sandbagging does drive me nuts. And I would prefer zwift to spend their effort on new roads rather than pro athletes and burrito gimmics etc.
That said I’d love to have healthy competition. What’s out there don’t excite me too much. Maybe Veloton might be something. Have been on the beta priority list a long time. But it seems to move oh so slowly.
I never get surprised to not come across anyone in New York using any of the world hacks. Yes I can see some numbers and dots, but never see the riders.
The support stories people are talking about here apply to the Zwift hardware side too - who the hell would trust Zwift to supply hardware as well as the mess they serve up to us virtually. The thought that Zwift will reserve features for their own kit will be, well, not smart. But Sterzo is a test bed for more than just steering.
