True, all options are on the table. By that logic you could say try will increase the price to $1000 a year. That is technically an option but still a strawman. It doesn’t advance the discussion to bring up something that is more disliked then originally proposed.
Once again, Nate wasn’t suggesting such a large increase in cost and he wasn’t suggesting elimination of the legacy prices. He was only suggesting a $60/year increase in legacy pricing. Those at $99 would only be paying 60% more
I think you are stretching your case well beyond where it makes any sense: simply removing the price lock would mean that everyone has to pay the current subscription rate, which is $189/year or $20/month. I think this is definitely an option that is and should be on the table.
This isn’t some strawman scenario, where the moon needs to be in phase with venus, where people not only lose their subscription price lock, but all subscription fees are raised from $189/year to $1,000/year. Rather, I have the impression that you insist that what Nate said is what you wanted to hear.
The problem is, once you break the concept of legacy pricing, you can do it again with the same justification. So it wouldn’t mean anything.
I might be in a unique camp, where the features / functionality that TR is investing in. And where presumably the increase I would pay would go, aren’t of any interest / value to me. And the features / functionality that would have value to me - a Mac M1 native app, a modern workout creator, a true mini player that is made to overlay well onto video, an all activity calendar, etc. - aren’t areas that TR has shown any interest in doing. If this changed, my opinion might change
For my use case, the Best Alternative to Using TR is TrainerDay, which is easier free or $3.99/month (and there is a yearly discount)
So far it’s about 20% cheaper for those grandfathered in at the beginning.
If we just had 2 tiers would you expect to be in the “standard” or “pro” tier?
I’m not saying they owe us something. But we are a foundational subgroup with a long history of data on the old plans. If they literally don’t make us faster with their next successive steps in Adaptive Training they don’t got squat… If we leave, their proof and data will become weaker. We are part of the “cast” and I think we are a subgroup that TR needs us to be retained. Netflix does not have a product that claims to make the viewer a better viewer by staying subscribed. TR’s claim to make their users faster with “Adaptive Training” uses subscribers data much different.
Oh and it’s not us that said Legacies would be Grandfathered.
This isn’t productive. Let’s refrain from being personal.
I never said I would increase the price for any legacy users.
I want to do ALL of these…we just don’t have enough dev teams. (The player over video is a Mac OS limitation though)
You sum it up well “TR doesn’t do enough features so I don’t want to pay them more”. Bit of a chicken and egg.
We actually got 60% way through a workout creator on the website where you could just click on any workout, tweak it, then it would be saved in your library ready to ride.
But we took the engineer off of it for AT, which has a larger impact on more people.
From what Nate was was proposing I have a couple thoughts. As far as being locked to to current features or paying full price for future upgrades, I’m pretty torn. At $99 a year currently it would be a bit of a tough pill to swallow to go to $189 a year, nearly doubling the price. The new features sound nice… but double the price nice? I would be willing to meet somewhere in the middle without pause, like I’ll go in for $139, and even sacrifice getting things first, i.e. no early access. that’s still a 40% increase. Also, I like the idea of tiered plans a lot. I have 2 kids 10 and 12 who race with RenoDevo and NICA MTB, if there was a low feature kids account that was like $5 a month, that just had access to the workout library, calendar, and ramp test, currently instead they use zwift free kids account, which is admittedly, free, and pretty kid accessible. Hell, why not even a lower tier subscription that only has access to the workout library and to be able to run a workout and make that $5 a month. I bet there would be a segment of people who sign up year round for a “I’m just going to pick out the workout that looks good and do it” plan. No calendar (or history only calendar), no AT, no plans, no plan builder, ect.
@Nate_Pearson you’re a legend.
Understood.
What I don’t understand is how freezing the product for legacy users materially changes the revenue in the short term. This conversation seems to be in the context of desiring the ability to spend more on faster development (which sounds like a good goal), but I don’t see how freezing legacy helps in this regard.
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting a price increase for any legacy athletes.
Thanks, everyone for the feedback! This is really cool. We were looking at doing a $150k pricing study but this gets us a lot of information for free and we are grateful for it.
To the comments about me being a loose cannon…imagine that I’ve got a larger plan and know what I’m doing. 
I’d also want to always talk to TR athletes and non-athletes and have an open conversation.
We will most likely NOT do tier pricing anytime soon because we don’t have enough devs 
.
But another idea I had was something like this:
Both versions get updates. Legacy goes into standard PLUS the features they have when we implement it. That might be 2 years from now, who knows.
I think some people might see this as unfair because they only stayed signed up because they wanted to be locked in. I understand that.
The other thing (which I’m sure legacy people would enjoy is)
Do ya’ll think if we split TR into standard/pro with AT being in Pro we would have more sign-ups? What features would you put in each category?
And for those saying it would be a nightmare to code, we already have a role-based system for all new features. This is how we do admin → friends of TR → early access → production and A/B testing on our site.
So in essence we’re doing it now. Just changing the billing system and marketing would be a big lift.
Yah, it would take years. The idea would be we would build such compelling features that the legacy people would say “Yah, it’s worth that price and I would upgrade”.
But over time you’d want to convince people based on value.
Another way to do this is to do a split at a pro more expensive version with a compelling feature in it. We were thinking about it for AT but I didn’t want to go higher than $20.
If we would have stayed at $15 then AT at $20 would have been a good choice. I’m trying to do this in reverse now but obviously, peeps don’t like it and I hear ya’ll 
.
I totally would. I want the new features. I want FTP estimation. It all sounds fantastic. I’m excited!
But I have to be honest, I would still feel some level of hurt and resentment because on my interpretation it’s a broken promise. I’ve read here that others don’t see it that way, and it seems you also don’t see it that way, and that’s OK. But I just can’t see it any differently. There was no concept of feature freezing or standard vs pro when you promised the legacy pricing. You also don’t reward loyal users by saying “you’re now a second class user unless you pay more”. I realise this is your way of trying to honour the promise, but I see that ‘cure’ as worse than the ‘ailment’. I’d prefer an apology and admission that it was never a good promise to make - inflation exists, we all know it exists, you knew it existed when you made these promises.
Yah, so in the above, you’d want to be on the “Pro” version.
Right?
Yes, definitely.
Not sure about you. Bu I’d feel less like it was a broken promise if I still got some kind of early adopter discount, that put me somewhere between paying what I am now and full price. I’d be nice to be rewarded for being a subscriber for several years now and not have to pay the same rate as someone who signed up yesterday, but still get to enjoy the new features.
You’re saying discount offer on the pro.
Like: You get pro for 2 years at your current price, then 1 year at 50% of the difference, then on the 4th year at the pro price.
Like that?
Anything like that would soften the blow, sure. But I’m a software developer who possibly (definitely!) sees things a bit too black-and-white: it’s still a broken promise.