salzrat

Hi, I took the plunge and updated from 1.3 due to some non-syncing files. Now I'm looking for a view where I see the devices connected to the shared folders. The devices view just shows the local device, not the others that are connected. I understand that managing devices using an account is a pro feature, but I just want to see the devices that are linked via shared secrets. The new interface seems to be less functional for me...

It seems I was mistaken, I still have 1.3.109 installed. How much worse is the new GUI than the 1.3 GUI? I remember reports back then that people were not happy... thanks!

Are there any possible reasons now not to upgrade from 1.4.x to 2.2? I remember one issue with 2.x was that the GUI was changed. Is the 2.2 GUI the slow, web-only version or is the original GUI available again for key-only shares?

And are you planning to implement something like this?

Photosync uses geofence, for example. You can define locations where it gets activated. That would be a start. Can't you set a wake-up timer so it happens regularly? Actually, Flickr uses the "significant-change location service", and doesn't require push notifications. This is very low on battery and would make sure the app is awoken from time to time... This is probably the easiest to implement... See here: https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/iPhone/Conceptual/iPhoneOSProgrammingGuide/BackgroundExecution/BackgroundExecution.html

Hi, thanks for the reply. But since I hardly open Sync day-to-day, it's not really much of an "automatic" backup then... I know ios kills background apps, however, since iOS 7 you can do real background processes which can be woken up from time to time. Several photo backup apps use this nowadays (dropbox, google+, flickr, photosync), so this can definitely work. Without that, the feature is relatively useless...

Hi, but what does "automatic backup" then mean??? what is automatic if I have to start the app? Is this still the case with the newest ios client? When is this going to be addressed? Without background update, this feature is pretty useless!!!

Hmmm, to me it seems selective sync should be much easier than nested share - actually it's already the way how it's implemented on mobile devices. On my phone, I can select for a folder to download all the files in it, it never downloads the whole share. So I don't see how this couldn't be easily implemented. On the other hand, nested share probably need to be aware of each other. So if I change something in a nested share, it doesn't get synced twice - I assume that is now taken care of?

But what is the difference to a real nested share?

So what is the situation? Did nested shares finally get implemented or is some stable workaround possible?

Hi, as already said, the app is very slow on big shares. I have a 150GB photo folder which I want to access using the iphone. It works, but response time are very slow when changing directories. Feature request: - add an option to sync a whole subdirectory. If I want to look at the pictures from a specific event, I don't want to download each individual picture - allow a photo-viewer type usage, where you can click on a photo, it downloads _and_ opens, and when you swipe, it will download the next photo (best in background). Basically it would be nice to have a picasa-like experience for photos stored in a bittorrent folder.

Hi, since upgrading to 1.1.27/.33, when I add a number of files to a synced folder, synchronization happens very very slowly. For example, I have a few hundred jpeg files from my camera which I add to a synced folder, but there are pauses of up to a minute between transferring the individual files. Each individual file transfer is quite quick. Anybody has seen a similar behavior? OS is Win7x64.

Indeed it now works great with Picasa! Thanks a lot for fixing this! I'll monitor the last-modified dates for the next few photo syncs to see whether that has been resolved as well...

I don't think that's an uncommon use case. And it's unlikely that it's Google's fault - Cubby and Aerofs were doing just fine on this...

So I wonder why there's no statement by the devs regarding this. It's really easy to reproduce, and very annoying!