I am a Zwifter.
Zwift is an online platform that connects with remotely controllable cycling simulators to provide a virtual, social experience when riding alone indoors. Through integration with “smart” trainers that allow you to ride on your own bike, Zwift can match the visuals you see with the difficulty of riding.
But what makes Zwift interesting is the consistent changing of the scenery. You can ride pre-determined routes, or “explore” the worlds on your own. The sets of routes change depending on the day – ride through London, a fictional Volcanic island called “Watopia,” a futuristic Central park with a glass high-line, or a portion of the 2018 UCI Worlds course in Innsbruck, Austria. In addition, there’s a training option that allows for customizing your difficulty, social activities and group rides to join, and integration with Strava which performs ride tracking services in the world.
However, it was a change in this route structure that took my breath away, and made this the product I chose to focus on. In the most recent update, Zwift changed the route structure from changing every day to keeping Watopia constant and changing a “guest” world that rotates among the other worlds.
I’ll be honest, and say I don’t particularly enjoy riding the Central Park world. As this was the most recent world released, they’ve been using it a lot recently. Many comments in the forums were how to “hack” the system (by logging in through a specific subfolder) to access different worlds, and to choose where to ride. But this negates the social aspects – what's the point of riding with your friends if you’re opting out of the default world?
In keeping Watopia a constant world, with a rotating guest world for flavor, I think Zwift did a masterful job in balancing the novelty and reliability of its service. I know I’ll always have my favorite Watopia route available, and am simultaneously am more excited to use the product and see what the other option is that day.
And then, I started riding and it literally took my breath away.
Zwift as a model for products points to more interesting developments in the field of social virtual worlds. Online worlds have been evolving from AOL chatrooms to platforms like Second Life, or even MMOGs. Combining this type of platform with its ability to change in the real world – a “smart” bike trainer – allows for greater blending of the real and virtual spaces.
This integration points to ongoing developments in the product spaces of virtual reality, as new technologies evolve and co-technologies develop to gear their affordances to specific purposes. Zwifting with a headset that would allow me to turn my head and see other riders behind me, go off trail and bump over rocks, I can imagine as a feasible opportunity in 10 years.
However, I can also imagine my hair getting really sweaty, a mild nausea, and the headset smelling less than great after several uses. This amalgamation of virtual experiences and the physical connection to them is a product area I am very excited about, both on the experience side and understanding how products support or devalue Virtual or Augmented Reality.
How might we, moving forward, design products to bridge this space, incorporate the relative permanence of physical world and the instantaneous transformative properties of online spaces? I’m excited to figure it out.
Comments