Pay per user is ridiculous

Feature requests tend to work best formulated into something actionable!

As for the “all”, which I read much like this is easy, being asked for…

I’m not certain whether all trainers in fact have a unique ID, and how the math would work out or fit within the existing subscription (and revenue) models, nor how feasible it would be to actually implement the change — I’m sure you’ll have noticed that it took literal years to not have the app exit completely on quitting a ride, which leads me to believe that there might be significant challenges just to adapt the account and login system to support something like that. Then again, that might affect any changes that are not a single account - single profile. There’s also the question of user perception and adoption — would such a change make it more difficult to understand (even a little bit) than just offering a “family plan” (which is readily understood, as it is a standard), which could impact subscription revenue adversely. Etc.…

Few things are truly simple :slight_smile:

My reason for the ‘all’ in that sentence is that there’s been a string of accusations that the OP and others are demanding it be cheaper, which is an unfair oversimplification and doesn’t address the actual complaint about the existing subscription model. Your suggestion is ‘all’ people are looking for, a logical way to address the fact that a single trainer cannot be used by more than one person at once yet Zwift expect us to pay as though it can. And yes, I know they don’t make us pay anything.

It wouldn’t be simple in that I wouldn’t know how to program it, that’s true. But then it’s not my area of expertise. Zwift is a software company approaching seven years old, recently valued at a billion dollars. If there’s anything that the users should be able to demand, it’s that a software company be able to design and implement a software system. There are far too many excuses.

Someone’s probably going to reply to this now and say it’s already really cheap and that if I don’t like it I should take my money elsewhere or build my own game etc… and we’re back to square one. :joy:


I don’t think their ability do program it has anything to do with it (although I do appreciate that the capabilities of Zwift software designers has been up for debate in the past given obvious omissions and/or glitches).

The reality is that people can request other subscription models but Zwift isn’t under any obligation to offer this (nor is it reasonable to expect them to automatically take such suggestions on board). Ultimately the market (consumer appetite and competition) will influence how decisions like this are made.

Zwift will leverage its position in the market to the extent that it feels it is able to do so (and this will promote competition which will ultimately, and eventually, improve the user experience and/or drive down cost of services.

■■■ bless capitalism!

Where is this thread going.


I actually think it could be pretty simple.

As trainers are the “bottleneck”, you could offer a “Shared Trainer” account, where people who never Zwift at the same time pay something like an extra 50%, and get the ability to have a second adult account.

All you’d need to monitor is whether 2 people are trying to use the same shared account simultaneously.

If people are so keen that they buy two trainers to use simultaneously, they should have the money and enthusiasm to pay for two separate accounts.

You don’t need to worry about people in different households “playing the system” - as the number of people who would do this would be tiny.

Zwift would only need to worry about revenue lost from people who currently share a trainer but have two accounts. And last year’s survey should have given them the hard data on the most sensible financial option.

1 Like

Tend to agree, unfortunately. They even admitted themselves around this time last year (Steve Beckett, Chief Marketing Officer) that it ‘didn’t feel right’ that households in lockdown needed multiple accounts. And they’ve done literally nothing about it, so that was obviously insincere.


The reality is that there needs to be a sound business case for offering changes to the subscription model (either in terms of increased revenue per existing user, increased user base, or a combination thereof) - offering something that results in decreases in overall revenues is never going to fly (goodwill of the user base can only take one so far).

Now I am not saying that a family or multiple user model cant work for both the company and the users, but rather suggesting that blanket statements that Zwift’s failure to implement such are “ridiculous” is somewhat narrowminded.


Hard to say whether it’d make them more money or not. I do think the thread title is likely to be the overwhelming response of the casual users they hope to attract in future though. All the folks who are just massively thankful they don’t have to stare at the garage wall when training any more are already tied up, and Zwift continue to lean heavily on that goodwill.

1 Like

It is worth noting agin that at least under-16s are free.

It’s not perfect, but it does open the way to a lot of free access and perhaps undermines the “Zwift are money-grabbing capitalist pigs” sentiment.

(For the sake of clarity, that is not a direct quotation of anyone despite my use of speech marks.)


May very well be the case, and I would expect (hope) Zwift to have a pretty good idea of where this new potential user base is and what is going to be required to get them to “buy in” to the platform (as this, along with the retention of the existing users, will ultimately dictate decision making when it comes to service offerings and subscription models).

1 Like

It changed already (I believe shortly before you started). Do you really believe it never will? Everything, everyone does (for many reasons), I bet Zwift will change, too.

Money grabbing capitalists or not - it is not the only company with this tactic. Free until 16, use it, like it, most of them will continue - and start to pay.

Must be coming zoon. Whereas some apps decided to make everything free for everyone during the first lockdown.

Of course not

Of course it will change over time with money being worth more or less (inflation) or some other stuff happens.
I meant the overall principal of “pay a reasonable amount of money for one adult account for our service”

Well, people who don’t have to share their trainer don’t ride twice as much just because they’re not sharing, right? Service utilization isn’t the metric here anyway, but even if it was…