Im not sure if it started out as a game, but it certainly is moving towards that now and perhaps whilst the software has had very little change, the type of people using it has changed the way the platform is seen & used.
Back in 2015-16-17 maybe longer, it was cyclists on the platform & probably only doing it to supplement outdoor riding for the most part - Now, post pandemic the user basis has completely changed and with that, how the software is seen.
For me, I struggle to see how you can have a UCI sanctioned platform and that same platform be a game at the same time.
The hardware has been a shambles and I never quite understood the need to get into that market. Rather than throwing $100m or whatever it was at a project where there was no need to try and compete with the existing suppliers.
When Zwift hits the market does anyone expect them to revolutionise the market or do something different to what is already in existence?
If you dont enter the market your customer base doesnât think any less of you, Plus you would still have $100m in your pocket. It seems there are very few successes in that project (as I said I dont get it, so perhaps I am missing something)
The hardware route is strange one. Can only assume somebody looked at the Peloton model and thought it was a good way to lock customer into a platform. Then again if it was a question of locking in customers Zwift should think about doing a yearly subscription with a small discount.
Plus being a hardware supplier forces the other hardware manufactures to look closer to home if all that is doing it pushing them out of the Zwift market. If i were to guess probably a big reason why Wahoo went for RGT to try future proof themselves so it cost Zwift a lot of money to date but also now increased competition. Seems like a lose lose situation for Zwift but weâll have to see what comes.
But on the plus side for the consumer competition is good so fingers crossed itâs the kick zwift need to start prioritising things we have been requesting for years.
I can only speculate that zwift hq know there is a finite number of people who will want to use the service so they have gotten into the hardware game as another source of income for when saturation point occurs
This seems a rather strange statement. So whether something is âtrainingâ or not is based on the quality of the graphics? And Zwift would be better at training if all you saw was a graph of your workout?
I have no idea of manufacturing & R&D costs, but how long do they need to be in the market before they break even on it.
I presume its there to beef up the buy out as all that money is already sunk and the new owners get a manufacturer and software provider, but that seems a huge risk now when you look at Peleton and you are no closer to a buy out.
My gut feel is if Zwift could rewind the clock they wouldnât bother with the hardware project. I think they got overexcited with Covid and the Peloton journey, and the idea that they can manage the whole ecosystem. Especially doing it all themselves, rather than just buying up someone like Elite. Either that or they just had too much money burning a hole in their pocket - the bottlenecks to improving the software canât just be sorted with cash, so they spent it on creating a separate business function instead.
The trainer/smart bike part of the hardware is the most confusing part, as it is difficult to improve the existing propositions, which are managed by companies with far more experience and know-how. If they produced a controller or handlebar steering device, for example, that would make much more sense.
It makes sense if theyâre going after the non-cyclist market. Most non-cyclists think spending $1k on a bicycle is absurd, and putting together a simple Zwift setup sounds like a major engineering project. If Zwift can offer one piece of hardware that does everything (like Peloton), I can see that being attractive to lots of people.
Devilâs advocate question - why would a non-cyclist decide to buy a Zwift package? What does that customer journey look like, and why do they chose Zwift over other propositions?
Zwift is attractive to cyclists. Peloton (and many others) are attractive to people looking for a home fitness solution. I think if Zwift target non-cyclists to win out in that crowd the proposition has to look VERY different.
Somebody categorized RGT as being in the uncanny valley, but I think there is an argument to be made that it is Zwift that is there instead. RGT is a fairly pure cycling simulator (and close enough as such for my tastes at least), whereas Zwift has a hard time deciding if it wants to be a game or a simulator.
On the one hand Zwift sort of resembles cycling but makes significant departures from realism, on the other hand the gamification does not go all that far to make something like sweetspot intervzzzzzz (sorry, dozed off there) interesting.
i recommend you look at my favourite TR forum thread where the guy collects and examines thousands of pros training files on strava and after 3 or 4 years eventually arrives at the conclusion that the average professional riderâs training session is basically âa lot of whatever the â â â â they feel like doingâ
My relationship with the levels has changed just recently. It was quite a motivating factor in the beginning, but I donât have the time to ride enough to burn through 20,000 XP points quickly, so it now takes quite a long time to level up, which doesnât motivate me in the slightest.
Now that I can access pretty much any bike/wheels I might want, and have got the level 42 kit, I really donât care about them any more ⌠to the extent that I think I am currently L43, but donât know for sure without checking.
The fundamentals of how you avatar actually moves? Iâd say thatâs quite important. Anyway, I didnât specific a wishlist, I just said it would be nice to know what they are thinking.
