Strava literally only exists because of Garmin [and Apple, others] data. They offer no value, contribute nothing, and pretty much just monetize the fact that Apple and Garmin haven't shared data directly between their platforms. They only exist, because they exist, and their userbase has "chosen" them as the social standard.
And lets be honest, they suck for anything that isn't cycling. Garmin and Apple recognize that the vast majority the users are casual hybrid athletes.
As such, doing anything to jeopardize their position as the "neutral ground" in the non-data-sharing war between Garmin and Apple is pretty stupid. And besides, vibe-coding a Strava replacement would take like all of 7 days.
The funniest bit is Strava suing Garmin for breaking its patent for heat-maps when, as Ray points out, Garmin had heat-maps 6 months before Strava filed for their patent.
> Strava literally only exists because of Garmin [and Apple, others] data.
Largely true.
> They offer no value, contribute nothing, and pretty much just monetize the fact that Apple and Garmin haven't shared data directly between their platforms.
Massively overstated. Strava adds a ton of value for serious users.
Strava is a social network, and its user base is its added value.
If I want training data, I'd be better off with TrainingPeak or Intervals.icu.
Strava has been stagnating in terms of features for athletes for years. They are just starting to roll out a report on hours spent per week in different power or heart rate zones, for example.
The latest features are either designed for posting stories on Instagram or are gimmicks like AI that interprets the results of a workout in natural language and gets it wrong half the time without ever saying anything interesting.
Strava's second function is to serve as a data hub when using multiple devices from different brands.This point is also relatively overlooked, and duplicate synchronisations and incorrect reports are quite common.
Meanwhile, Strava focuses solely on segments and rankings. They are extremely aggressive with anything that could resemble a ranking or one of their paid features. Even when it's a small personal project that doesn't generate a penny.
I don’t care much for social features but they were more compelling when I first used the app and the user base was smaller.
The user base now is using Strava as the standard platform for data. Someone else pointed this out too. It is the place I look/visit to see nearly all of my physical activities in one spot. Works across different brands/devices/etc.
Garmin’s platform isn’t much more appealing as an end user. Apple’s makes me insane. Strava just kind of works even though I can’t stand the constant mobile push/CTA to pay.
I really hate Strava. Strava (and anything that replaces it in the same function) exists as a pointless social media layer on top of what Garmin/Suunto/Polar provide.
There is really no reason to use it, and I've seen so many new runners come and go, because they treat Strava the same way people treat social media in general. They see others doing high mileage, and hard intervals, they try to emulate it (from many people) and they end up with stress injuries or burn out.
There's no guidance, and it shows you a display of performances from people of all sorts of ability (I see two literal Olympians on my regular run route) who took time to get where they are. Newcomers can see that and try to emulate it too quickly and injure themselves. There's no warning for somebody going from 10k a week straight to 30k the next week, 40 the week after, 50, so on. But any runner would tell you to follow a 10% rule. Strava doesn't even give a warning.
My local running route is plagued with cyclists causing disturbances and near-misses for the sake of Strava segments (small parts of routes with leaderboards), despite being pedestrian priority.
I just can't think of anything Strava offers besides the utility to like somebody's bike ride or run, which is probably something you could already do elsewhere. It trims tons of the data that Garmin provides, puts up leaderboards (apps with leaderboards almost always incentivise the wrong method of doing something), and they promote competition to people brand new to running, usually in the guise of runners who have built up properly over a longer timespan.
> But what I can tell you is that if I were someone on Wall Street looking at this situation, I’d be doing a solid double-take of Strava’s leadership right now. You’ve just poked a bear that virtually never loses patent disputes, and done so by picking a patent that’s likely to get nullified, while concurrently being upset about something that happened 10 years ago. All while running the risk of Garmin simply saying “No problem, let’s turn off the API from Garmin to Strava”. Instantly, you’re hemorrhaging paid Strava users. For what reason? Just because you don’t want to put tiny source/attribution text on a display page somewhere?
This seems right to me - why, when moving to your IPO, would you do this?
I won't comment on the validity of patents or legal stuff because I don't know. But Strava is playing a very dangerous game here with their user base. I would hazard that a very large segment of their users are far more enthusiastic about Garmin than they are about Strava itself. Do you really want to anger your own users?
As a very avid runner. The only reason I have Strava is because others have Strava. It is totally interchangeable with whatever someone comes up with next.
But my Garmin? that's a very expensive hardware choice that you have zero ability to change. And I wouldn't be the only one here.
Suunto, Coros and Polar just don't compare. Garmin has really tried pushing a few features into its Fenix line that long distance runners like myself don't care about.. and Coros have been very aggressive with trying to lure us to them.
But once again... It's a very expensive hardware choice that I make once every 5-10 years.
It would be if a social media app decided to stop making an app on either iPhone or Android.
People won't just swap hardware to use software. We would swap software.
13 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 39.9 ms ] threadStrava literally only exists because of Garmin [and Apple, others] data. They offer no value, contribute nothing, and pretty much just monetize the fact that Apple and Garmin haven't shared data directly between their platforms. They only exist, because they exist, and their userbase has "chosen" them as the social standard.
And lets be honest, they suck for anything that isn't cycling. Garmin and Apple recognize that the vast majority the users are casual hybrid athletes.
As such, doing anything to jeopardize their position as the "neutral ground" in the non-data-sharing war between Garmin and Apple is pretty stupid. And besides, vibe-coding a Strava replacement would take like all of 7 days.
Largely true.
> They offer no value, contribute nothing, and pretty much just monetize the fact that Apple and Garmin haven't shared data directly between their platforms.
Massively overstated. Strava adds a ton of value for serious users.
If I want training data, I'd be better off with TrainingPeak or Intervals.icu.
Strava has been stagnating in terms of features for athletes for years. They are just starting to roll out a report on hours spent per week in different power or heart rate zones, for example.
The latest features are either designed for posting stories on Instagram or are gimmicks like AI that interprets the results of a workout in natural language and gets it wrong half the time without ever saying anything interesting.
Strava's second function is to serve as a data hub when using multiple devices from different brands.This point is also relatively overlooked, and duplicate synchronisations and incorrect reports are quite common.
Meanwhile, Strava focuses solely on segments and rankings. They are extremely aggressive with anything that could resemble a ranking or one of their paid features. Even when it's a small personal project that doesn't generate a penny.
The user base now is using Strava as the standard platform for data. Someone else pointed this out too. It is the place I look/visit to see nearly all of my physical activities in one spot. Works across different brands/devices/etc.
Garmin’s platform isn’t much more appealing as an end user. Apple’s makes me insane. Strava just kind of works even though I can’t stand the constant mobile push/CTA to pay.
I don’t and won’t.
There is really no reason to use it, and I've seen so many new runners come and go, because they treat Strava the same way people treat social media in general. They see others doing high mileage, and hard intervals, they try to emulate it (from many people) and they end up with stress injuries or burn out.
There's no guidance, and it shows you a display of performances from people of all sorts of ability (I see two literal Olympians on my regular run route) who took time to get where they are. Newcomers can see that and try to emulate it too quickly and injure themselves. There's no warning for somebody going from 10k a week straight to 30k the next week, 40 the week after, 50, so on. But any runner would tell you to follow a 10% rule. Strava doesn't even give a warning.
My local running route is plagued with cyclists causing disturbances and near-misses for the sake of Strava segments (small parts of routes with leaderboards), despite being pedestrian priority.
I just can't think of anything Strava offers besides the utility to like somebody's bike ride or run, which is probably something you could already do elsewhere. It trims tons of the data that Garmin provides, puts up leaderboards (apps with leaderboards almost always incentivise the wrong method of doing something), and they promote competition to people brand new to running, usually in the guise of runners who have built up properly over a longer timespan.
This seems right to me - why, when moving to your IPO, would you do this?
Even if Strava wins, they lose.
Innovative product --> popular, profitable --> greed prevails --> product declines --> alternatives emerge --> community fractures
But my Garmin? that's a very expensive hardware choice that you have zero ability to change. And I wouldn't be the only one here.
Suunto, Coros and Polar just don't compare. Garmin has really tried pushing a few features into its Fenix line that long distance runners like myself don't care about.. and Coros have been very aggressive with trying to lure us to them.
But once again... It's a very expensive hardware choice that I make once every 5-10 years.
It would be if a social media app decided to stop making an app on either iPhone or Android.
People won't just swap hardware to use software. We would swap software.