Strava's New Strategy Is Not Crazy
New API restrictions make sense to Strava the business, but cause a serious dent in the fitness data ecosystem.
The Teardown
Tuesday :: November 26th, 2024 :: Approx. 11 min read
👋 Hi, this is Chris with another issue of The Teardown. In every issue, I cover how we interact with technology that powers our day-to-day lives.
Subsidized Life
You use, touch, or consume many free or cheap things because of subsidies.
Subsidies come in lots of forms:
You search Google for free. You exchange valuable personal data that informs ads. Those ads pay for your use.
You post pictures to Instagram for free. You exchange valuable personal data including pictures (etc.) that inform ads. Those ads pay for your use.
You pay lower prices for foods made with corn. The federal government subsidies corn and corn-derived products.
The first two examples demonstrate explicit give-to-get pathways. Google works better with more personal data. Instagram’s uncanny targeting seems to anticipate your thoughts because it ingests tons of personal data.
Many people don’t care about these pathways. They use Google every day without thinking much or at all about what they’re giving away in return for use. Others care a lot, going to great lengths to shield the web's crawlers and collectors from data.
That latter group is often willing to pay to avoid data harvesting and its consequences. They'll pay to scrub ads from apps or platforms, for example. Monthly subscriptions? Sure! Annual Black-Friday discounts? Yes, please. Just don’t take my data.
But you can't help thinking something like this: give me robust products without collecting tons of data or extracting rental fees.
I agree, in general, by the way. I seek that utopia too.
But, most everything is commercial. It's hard to sustain something good that's free or cheap and focused first on the consumer or user. There’s often some trade-off.
And with that framing, let me dive into Strava’s recent strategy shift.
An Unpopular Business Decision
The popular triathlete and fitness ecosystem writer DC Rainmaker crafted a less-than-thrilled analysis about the shift:
Yesterday Strava sent out an email to users, outlining a change that’s occurring almost immediately, regarding 3rd party apps and the way apps are allowed to access and process data from Strava. All of these changes impact what is known as the Strava API (Application Programming Interface). That’s the piece that lets your Garmin watch push your workout to Strava, and then lets an app like VeloViewer or others access your data.
There are countless apps that use Strava’s API, literally tens of thousands according to Strava. Some of these are tiny, some of them are massive. Virtually every company in the space uses Strava’s API, including Garmin, Wahoo, TrainerRoad, VeloViewer, Xert, and plenty more. It’s become the de facto data hub for millions of athletes, some 100m+ according to Strava’s press release.
And (light editing):
#1: Apps can’t show your data beyond yourself
#2: Apps can’t use any “AI” whatsoever in their processing of your data
#3: Apps can’t do any analytics or data processing of your data
Strava, the popular fitness activity aggregator and social network, is restricting how other apps use Strava data exchanged via its API. Just in case I’m speaking gibberish, an API (Application Programming Interface) gives one app the pathway to communicate with another app via code.
Strava owes part of its success to its API. Hundreds of device and fitness app makers use the API as a fitness data intermediary. A common pathway looks like this:
A cyclist sweats to near-death during an indoor cycling workout using a trainer device (e.g. Elite Suito)
Their workout generates gobs of data - part from the trainer itself, part from a heart-rate monitor, etc.
The cyclist uploads that data to Strava for further analysis, likes from friends, and to socialize quads popping out of bike shorts to their friends and followers.
They then sign into and transfer all of that valuable data to TrainerRoad. The API does all the work.
TrainerRoad adds coaching, analytics, etc. on top of the data.
Some of TrainerRoad’s functionality now won’t work. The cyclist that once allowed non-Strava users to follow their activity can't do so. Strava’s new policies wipe that use-case from TrainerRoad’s offering.
DC Rainmaker posted Strava’s rationale from his email exchange with the company:
Nonetheless, I went back to Strava and asked them questions about many of these topics, trying to get clarification to see if this was a misunderstanding, they completely ignored the questions I had, and responded with:
“These changes were implemented to provide additional safeguards around our community’s data and to help ensure that a user’s Strava data can only be viewed by others on third-party apps in limited scenarios where sharing is both transparent and central to the functionality of the app. We recognize this is a change and are committed to working closely with partners during this transition.”
Point being, I gave them an opportunity to clarify things or set the record straight, and they said ‘nah’.
Strava illustrated legitimate points in its rather bland response. You wouldn’t be happy if you learned that one of your trusted fitness tools leaked your data outside of its walls, right? An unauthorized breach of trust is a non-starter for lots of people - tool-savvy or not.
But Strava is soon breaking many apps, tools, and utilities used by thousands of athletes. It is risking its status as the go-to data API and intermediary for fitness activities.
Is that the right strategy? Is it a bad strategy?
Pros and Cons of Commercial Decisions
I’m reminded that, again, most everything is commercial. Folks at Strava may care about user privacy.
But the most important priority is a profitable business. They care about making money.
So, I sympathize with the company viewed through that strict business lens. I’ll use my fitness tool portfolio to explain.
I used to pay for Strava. I don’t today.
My wallet stays closed because another tool gives me what I want for free: Intervals.ICU. Intervals provides Fitness, Fatigue, and Form data that illuminates my activity progress and exhaustion.
Intervals displays this valuable information without forcing social features.. The platform focuses on analysis rather than social connections. Strava's platform highlights activities from friends over anything else.
Data is the critical input for Intervals. To get that data, Intervals offers to connect to a user's Strava account, exchanging activity data via the API.
And here, it’s important to ask: why should Strava allow that sort of exchange if I’m not paying them?
Here’s my current brainstorm around that question:
Strategy Pros
[Data] I’m a free user. Strava gets my data anyways. And they do what they want with it according to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. They improve their product with that data. And, inform partner products. I’m not paying with dollars. I'm subsidizing my use with data.
[Privacy] Plain and simple, Strava exercises more control over sharing. Don’t forget that I can screenshot my activity and share it to millions on Threads, but gloss over that for now. Strava can claim (as they do) that this change reinforces user privacy.
[Lock-In] API restrictions keep me locked into Strava as a user. Most of my devices (including stubborn Apple devices) sync without effort. Few other platforms achieve that feat.
[Social] There’s no disruption to Strava’s first-party (i.e. in-app) social features. My friends and followers still see my incredible feats of athleticism.
[Resources] Strava refocuses internal talent on Strava-first problems. Some engineers that nurture the API might be better allocated elsewhere. Example: some of my personal running records (PRs) are wrong. 100% inaccurate. My 1-mile record is 4:08, based on my drive home following a run after which I forgot to stop my watch. Could I remove the erroneous data on my own? Yes. Could Strava also add some algorithmic magic to point out and correct the flaw? Yes. But they haven’t.
Strategy Cons
[Interoperability] Strava is the de-facto data operating platform for fitness. This strategy shift breaks that status, though to an unclear extent. There are many smaller hardware and software companies built on top of Strava’s platform. Those with resources will retool or choose another path, but others may run out of steam (and money).
[Social] Platforms can no longer share user data beyond the scope and visibility of the user. I’m see conflicting evidence that coaches will have access to data with permission. But any app offering social-following features needs to rework or kill those features.
[Resources] I’ll take the opposite side of my above resource point here. Does the Strava API consume vast resources? Unclear. If not, the new strategy does not free up otherwise busy talent.
[User ROI] What are paying users getting in return? Nothing, so far as I understand. Strava's paying users won't see any more value added to their accounts.
Diving into Strava’s strategy shift sparks the analog-seeker in me. Have other businesses experienced and resolved API restriction conundrums?
Yes. Twitter.
The Possible Path Forward
The more recent Twitter (or X) under Elon Musk pulled a similar if not more comprehensive move, cutting API access in one fell swoop. Ben Thompson again wrote about Twitter, describing what he thought Elon should do with his new toy:
This is all build-up to my proposal for what Musk — or any other bidder for Twitter, for that matter — ought to do with a newly private Twitter.
First, Twitter’s current fully integrated model is a financial failure.
Second, Twitter’s social graph is extremely valuable.
Third, Twitter’s cultural impact is very large, and very controversial.
Given this, Musk (who I will use as a stand-in for any future CEO of Twitter) should start by splitting Twitter into two companies.
One company would be the core Twitter service, including the social graph.
The other company would be all of the Twitter apps and the advertising business.
TwitterAppCo would contract with TwitterServiceCo to continue to receive access to the Twitter service and social graph; currently Twitter earns around $13/user/year in advertising, so you could imagine a price of say $7.50/user/year, or perhaps $0.75/user/month. TwitterAppCo would be free to pursue the same business model and moderation policies that Twitter is pursuing today (I can imagine Musk sticking with TwitterServiceCo, and the employees upset about said control being a part of TwitterAppCo).
However, that relationship would not be exclusive: TwitterServiceCo would open up its API to any other company that might be interested in building their own client experience; each company would:
Pay for the right to get access to the Twitter service and social graph.
Monetize in whatever way they see fit (i.e. they could pursue a subscription model).
Implement their own moderation policy.
Strava could embark on a similar two-prong strategy:
One company would operate the Strava service - including the social graph and API.
One company would operate the Strava app.
The service company could, like Ben Thompson suggests, charge for API access. Such a change would give Strava as a holding company the power to build a business from its app and from its API. Ben Thompson closed his post with a suggestion for Twitter:
Step back a moment and think about the fundamental infrastructure of the Internet: we have a media protocol in HTTP/web, and a communications protocol in SMTP/email; what is missing is a notifications protocol. And yet, at the same time, if there is one lesson from mobile, it is just how important notifications are; a secondary consideration is how important identity is. If you can know how to reach someone, and have the means to do so, you are set, whether you be a critical service, an advertiser, or anything in-between. Twitter has the potential to fill that role: the ability to route short messages to a knowable endpoint accessible via a centralized directory has far more utility than political signaling and infighting. And yet, thanks to Twitter’s early decisions and lack of leadership, the latter is all the service is good for; no wonder user growth and financial results have stagnated!
A truly open TwitterServiceCo has the potential to be a new protocol for the Internet — the notifications and identity protocol; unlike every other protocol, though, this one would be owned by a private company. That would be insanely valuable, but it is a value that will never be realized as long as Twitter is a public company led by a weak CEO and ineffective board driving an integrated business predicated on a business model that doesn’t work.
Could Strava further enable the global fitness ecosystem as the internet's fitness data protocol? I vote yes. Today it routes and stores fitness data from every other platform and device. Now it is time to commercialize that part of its business.
But, for the moment, Strava wants its app to be the experience hub for fitness, rather than the protocol.
So, I’m conflicted. I understand Strava’s decision. I don’t think they are crazy to pick this more restrictive API path.
I spent the weekend with a group of friends from my local running club. We met each other because of Strava. One friend within the group made an interesting point::
Strava is the most underpriced app out there. $80 a year for all of your data? Cmon. And you pay $200 a month for the gym?
Spot on, friend. Strava is worth far more to the community than what it charges. And, more than zero, what it still charges for expansive API use.
Everything is commercial.