I think Zwift is cheap (as in inexpensive)…If I raced or did sponsored rides…Zwift is borderline nil cost. I know of no gym in my area that is this cost effective: $30/mth for two and unlimited use. Personally I cannot fathom why Peloton is doing so well.
The OP needs to quit being a cheapskate.
Of course, Chris, this is In Your Humble Opinion.
Remember this: Every person you meet either IRL or in the virtual world is fight battles of which you know nothing. For the OP, 15 bucks/month may be a big deal. While we’re not in that boat, that doesn’t mean others are not. Take a moment and think about it.
Nigel, that is just totally completely insane. I have never once met a family that has more than one stationary bike…or treadmill for that matter. That statement is just crazy.
You don’t have to buy and maintain your own equipment at a gym, that’s kind of why they exist. It’s a completely false comparison.
And if you think it’s really cheap, why would you care what others pay anyway?
Chris, please stop being rude. If you find it to be a deal, great! I find it to be ridiculous. I am not cheap, I have plenty of money, but I don’t like companies that charge ridiculous charges. Stop giving away your money and demand reasonable expectations of the companies you work with.
Hey Mark, it really isn’t about it being a big deal, ie can I afford it. it is about a ridiculous charge, that has no reason for existing. It is just a bad setup, and a bad deal. It has nothing to do with what I can afford, or am willing to spend. It is simply about the market and what I feel should or should not be supported. Charges for things with little to no cost for the company is not a good deal. I won’t support them because I find that ridiculous. It has nothing to do with it being affordable. I mean I could afford a $10 banana but I wouldn’t buy it, and would say that the price is ridiculous. This is a $15 non concurrent second user charge…that is just silly.
The reality is that every user’s situation is different. Some may consider Zwift cheap/inexpensive, and for others it may seem very costly. However, just because the user thinks it is one or the other doesn’t mean Zwift has to do anything. Who would go to a restaurant that charges $15 for a burger and say “I want that burger, but I think you should only charge me $10”? It doesn’t happen. (Well, it probably does every so often, but not generally.) What happens, instead, is that person goes somewhere else, where the burger is only $10. And if enough people start going to the $10 burger place, perhaps the $15 burger place will lower their prices to bring people back. But as long as the benefit of charging $15 outweighs the cost, they are going to keep charging that rate.
If you want to choose a less costly service than Zwift, or one that offers a household discount, go for it. (And be sure to send a note to Zwift to let them know you did, and why.) But don’t just tell them it’s ridiculous, because it clearly is not, even if some people may find it that way. Personally, I think the prices that Ferrari charges for cars are ridiculous, but I also don’t have to buy one. And Ferrari doesn’t have to care, as there seem to be enough people out there who think their prices are ‘fair’.
Sorry Nigel, but your ideas make no sense to me.
You misunderstand what I mean by compete on all fronts. I mean all fronts you are on. This product is on the front of every user that uses an indoor cycle. Not competing for all of those users is a mistake. So not competing on the front of multiple users on one bike is bad business practice. They of course are not going for every user, they are not in fact on those fronts.
I wrote it a bit oddly so I can see what you mean, but that is not what I mean. In short you never want to have something that a competitor beats you on hands down. For example, I completely ditched the idea of using Zwift for Rouvy simply because I don’t need to pay for my wife and I to share the subscription. Subscription pricing and multiple users should be closer to competition.
Hey Neil, if the market they were in were doing that, then it would be a competitive issue and would make sense. Right now nobody does that so really just allowing at least one extra user would make them competitive for nearly zero cost.
…but nobody is calling for the price of the burger to go down! 
What they’re saying is every other restaurant sells the burger, fries and drink together for less than the individual cost of those items on the menu.
You go into McDonald’s and your friend buys a Big Mac meal. You’re not hungry so you just buy a drink. Do you sit there fuming at the fact your mate paid a bit less than you for their Coke?! 
In fact don’t answer that, I’m out. 
Fun discussion again, sums up precisely why they don’t have to offer a family/household/trainer discount; even their own paying customers will fight against it.
Utterly baffling.
Dave, I think you’ve sort of missed the point. We aren’t saying that WE are against it (who wouldn’t love to pay less for the same product?); we are saying that there isn’t really any incentive for Zwift to change their pricing. (Well. At least that’s what I’m saying.)
I didn’t offer any ideas, just commentary.
I think a house hold discount would be fine.
The issue is how to prove whose in the house hold.
Room mates?
Family, ok. Define family.
It is hard.
They could lower the price so spouses don’t mind paying for 2.
Spouses with their own bike and trainer probably don’t mind full price.
We all can think of ways this fits our senerio but when applied broadly, it seems to get harder.
Dave says others do it.
I don’t see how but I guess they worked it out.
I was suggesting that perhaps the reason we have not seen this is because of issues that are in the details.
Would it be easier to cheat in racing if accounts had more profiles?
What about the people who already used to change sex and race in men’s and women’s races?
I think people may use this as a way to cheat.
A way to get more people riding , great but unintended consequences may lurk.
I guess that’s a bad word.
I meant gender.
Here’s how to work the “family” discount: Only one user on the account can ride Zwift at a time. That will certainly limit friends who are not in the same household from taking advantage. The one trainer/account thing wouldn’t always work because some couples have separate trainers.
But how does that benefit zwift?
They have to balance the users who would use the family plan or quit zwift entirely vs people who would inevitably try and use the family plan to cheat the system.
One user per account is likely just a feature to prevent password sharing
I’m in the U.S. We have two bikes in the household. We also have two desktop PCs, two laptops, two phones, and two TVs that could be used for Zwifting. Though, to be fair, I’m not sure if the TVs could run Zwift all on their own rather than simply using them as larger monitors for the computers. Either way, we have at least six devices that are Zwift ready.
I think they should do like Spotify even if different prices
14.99 per user
20.99 or so family subscription (up to 5 members)
There’s no call for this sort of personal comment. “Cheap” is relative, and what’s very affordable for one person might be more of a stretch for someone else. A person living in a family household with 4 adults who all want to use Zwift would be facing $60 or so per month. If you factor in that maybe they only have one shared trainer, they can’t even necessarily use the platform concurrently.
Additionally factor in time asleep, time out at work or school, time eating etc. etc. and it’s easy to see that maybe some or none of them can actually get as much time on a shared installation as they would like. So paying full price each seems even worse value for money to me.