No one is suggesting you or anyone else did it for financial gain.
But your subscription DID go towards app development, just like mine has for nearly 10 years and 10s of thousands of others. The app is where it is today for those to pay 189 because of those 10s of thousands of users supporting the company for the past decade. The subsidizing argument is invalid. ESPECIALLY from someone paying a discounted rated of 189.
Donāt forget that you have had over 10 years benefit from the app. That was your return on your subscription for that period. The app has been significantly improved over that time. What TR does with your subscription is up to them.
You are continuing to enjoy ADDITIONAL benefits beyond your ongoing 10 year subscription because you benefit MORE than recent and new users because you pay HALF the current price for the SAME features.
For me, that is where the inequality lies.
It seems to be the crux of the argument. Until Nate announced legacy pricing, there was never an implied ongoing benefit that long term users would receive. Now we are debating the merits of the explicit long term benefits that legacy users enjoy over new/recent subscribers.
I donāt pay half the current annual fee.
I do pay less than half the current month to month, as do 10s of thousands of users and TR has made no indication that people doing so is impacting their current operations just potentially limiting some growth.
But again if the actual issue is inequality then not one user paying 189 right now has any right to comment about fairness as there are users paying more then them at 240 a year. Where is your complaint about people paying 189? What is the magic number for a discount that you deem acceptable?
Legacy pricing has existed for a decade, itās been there since the first price increase, it isnāt new.
Because that is a choice that users can make. They can choose to pay $240 a year by subscribing monthly or they can pay $189 a year by subscribing annually. Sorry but your point makes no sense.
Neither of those users can choose to pay legacy pricing and neither of those users enjoy the significant additional financial benefits that legacy users currently enjoy.
Discount and inequality are different things. Iām not suggesting a discount. Iām suggesting equality.
I understand that, but in the context of the comment I was replying to I was over simplifying it in return.
Wow Chadā¦we are a biased group but I like our perspective. 
LOL, me tooā¦ some days 
Like I said, equliaty not discount is what most of the comments are suggesting. If all users have the opportunity to acess the same discount (even after X number of years) then it is equal. It can take many other forms but it is up to TR to address that if they want to convince those users.
Not cool to say/imply things like that.
Absolutely agreed.
That borders on a personal attack (even if it is ānamelessā) and is also quite insensitive in other ways. Neither is acceptable IMO and itās outside the guidelines we have here.
I flagged it for review and want Ivy to handle it.
And again I replied specifically to someone who took issue with people paying less than himā¦ They were annoyed by this. While ignoring that there are users paying more than they are. It is still an inequality no matter how many times you deny it. Not everyone can pay 189 up front and may have to do the month to month. Why is this particular privilege acceptable to you but not the one that is given to loyal customers?
People having the reactions they are to price disparity is not healthy. This includes those who are on legacy pricing and quit simply due to the idea that their price might go up. It highlights OTHER underlying issues, that have nothing to do with this thread, other users or TR. Iām saying this as someone who has been to therapy.
I kindly ask that you dial it back a bit and refrain from confrontation like that.
This thread should be closed. @Nate_Pearson clearly stated nothing was changing now. The feedback has been heard and will factor into future decisions.
Agreed, Iāve read all 993 posts and this is just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
Doubling down is rarely the best decisionā¦.
My monthly gym membership cost me almost as much as a whole year subscription of TR. I use TR twice more than the gym per week. Iāve been a regular user since 2014. $99 a year grandfathered in. I would give ZERO hesitation to pay double.
This thread boils down to two things.
Users on legacy pricing donāt want an increase - quite a correct and natural response.
Users paying the maximum donāt like other customers paying less. Quite a correct and natural response.
Companyās use pricing all the time to"reward" loyal users or maybe to"entice" new users.
Question to those users not on the lower grandfathered rates complaining about this benefit and feeling they are subsidising legacy customersā¦ If you went to any company offering you an āintroductory dealā think insurance companies, phone companies, energy etcā¦ Which was lower than many existing customersā¦ Do you ask them to put you on a higher tariff to make it fair? Of course you donāt. In fact I bet you shop around for deals. I bet none of you have ever asked for any kind of subscription you may get a benefit from to increase your cost! And why would/should you?
Whether you are legacy priced or not, the question should not be about what others have got it should be about the value it holds for you. If you are happy with the terms payā¦ If you arenāt leave.
FWIW and after thinking about this for a while, I think grandfathering should continue at all pricing levels but once you are"locked" in at what ever level, it increases by a rate of inflation every year. I donāt think anyone could argue with that.
Sƶren Kirkegaard once said: the death of hapiness is the comparison.
What became out of this thread shows that he couldnāt be more right. 
I saw the other day the pricing of TRIQ, who offer a lifetime subscription for $999. In view of this thread, that offer is maybe a bit short sighted.
Nothing to add. Just wanted to see this thread make 1000 posts before being locked.
I havenāt been on the bike for two years due to arthritis in knees, mental burnout from too many cycling podcasts( TR and many others)ā¦ unsubscribed to everything, except my grandfathered TR subscription in the hope that Adaptive training would happen.
I have finally taken the advice, back on the bike, low volume, havenāt missed a session for three weeks, yay!