yidengchn
-
Posts
8 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by yidengchn
-
-
And that is what your subscription is paying for. The whole hosted/cloud based thing is just a red herring for those to providers to make the easier sell to justify being a subscription.
Here is the thing though - nobody goes to Dropbox because they want cloud-based storage (okay, maybe some do but honestly if that is your only reason then there are cheaper solutions). The reason you go to Dropbox is because you want to be able to sync and share your files across the Internet. The cloud storage angle is just a benefit of the method they have chose to provide that service. That is what you paying for - software that syncs your data across the Internet.
Paying for a subscription to Sync is the same thing. You are paying to sync your files (in excess of the free tier) without a 3rd party middleman. While they are not only game in town that does this, all the others (that I know of) do the same thing. So you are paying for a subscription somewhere or you are not going to sync your data.
Finally, the main thrust of your objection seems to be that you are paying something for nothing whereas a hosted service has a "tangible" cost associated to it. Except that isn't true. Your subscription is paying features, past development, support, and perhaps most importantly future development. Yes, I get that those are more intangible ideas but they have very real costs.
Anyway, asking for a lifetime option is fine and probably a good idea for them to do. However tying it to the mindset that only something with a physical ongoing cost is worth a subscription is disingenious. You are not paying for the hardware associated with a product, you are paying for the product.
Your logic seems to make sense. One pays for the "ability" to share over the internet and you need to pay to maintain that ability. Just like cell phone service, you pay a monthly fee to be able to talk over the phone. The same as the mailing service. One can subscribe to UPS or Fedex to have unlimited service. Or if one can subscribe to New York Times to read news, as long as he/she pays.
However following this logic, if Microsoft or Apple charges a subscription fee for the operation system or even the computer you are using, every year, and if you stop paying the fee, you can't get back to your desktop anymore, do you think it's fair?
The critical difference here is that for the subscription model, you either "rent" or "lease" the product like mailing or phone survice, because they *OWN* the infrastructure (trucks, planes, signal towers etc), or you subscribe to get *NEW* stuff in every period like a newspaper subscription. For Microsoft Windows, once it's written, and you buy it, you OWN it like a hammer you buy from a hardware store, and you can use it as long as you want.
Dropbox runs on subscription model because the users use Dropbox server to store and version their files. That's called "rental"! And people are will to pay for that *service*. If btsync wants to charge subscription fee, provide storage and versioning, and confront Dropbox!
Does btsync own any infranstructure over the internet, or does it provide new information to us that we need to know every year?
But that's not the thing. BT made a specific promise about the functionality, and then didn't follow through.
Well, no, we're only renting the product. Remember not so long ago when you paid $40-50 and got tech support for maybe a couple of years until the next major version released?
Software companies aren't moving to a subscription model for the benefit of users. The periodic subscription payments are just an ehanced revenue stream. Now they get paid more for providing that support whether people use ir or not. Then the added bonus of not having to come up with a major revision too soon (or at all.) Look at Adobe CC. They realized they couldn't think of much more in the way of new features to justify anyone upgrading on a regular basis anymore. So they went rental with everything in order to keep making money.
So no, it's not disingenuous. You can pay for Dropbox on a subscription and get off-site hosting of your files in addition to syncing them across your own hardware, in addition to support. Trying to get people to pay in that same sort of subscription model while actually providing less then even what was provided before is just being greedy.
I was a casual and occational user of Adobe software, and I will never buy a subscription to such an expensive software. I have switched to simpler and free alternatives, ie GIMP and inkscape.
-
I am running 1.4.111 on win7, syncing with two linux machines. The two linux machines can sync just fine, but the win7 constantly shows "out-of-sync".
I don't remember having this out-of-sync issue across platforms at all a while back for the earlier versions. Now, this makes me think:
- Early version: no "out-of-sync" issue at all;
- Recent updated free beta version: "O-O-S" issue made it essentially unusable;
- The for-fee 2.0 version claims to have a new core and completely fixed this problem;
- It is super annoying to downgrade from 2.0 to the beta version.
If I am a believer of conspiracy theory, I would think btsync intentially planted the OOS bug in the recent free version to push people to pay for the 2.0 version.
I hope I was wrong.
-
To be fair, it's a bit of a no-win argument either way! - plenty of users over the past two years have complained at various times about the perpetual ongoing "beta" tag attached to Sync 1.4,1.3,1.2... etc with calls for "when it this ever going to leave beta!?" ...now it's left "beta", the narrative appears to be "why has it left beta?!"
.....but going back to your question of "is it ready to leave beta?". The bottom line is that every software title out there - beta or otherwise - has the potential for bugs, but users are arguably more accepting of bugs in "beta" or free software than they are in commercial software they are paying for. So regardless of whether you feel Sync is ready to become a paid product or not, the fact that it now is, potentially means that any bugs that you do come across will be addressed quicker than they would otherwise be - which has got to be a good thing, right!?
People complained not because they saw the word "beta", but because of the bugs here and there. If the final release is this buggy, people will have much less tolerance to bugs and start spread bad words instead of asking for help here.
-
What happens if you shut down syncapp, move the folder, and start syncapp again? Will it find the moved folder, or will you have to readd?
Will this action on one client cause massive deletion on all other clients?
-
Hi,
I am using btsync 1.4.110 under ubuntu, syncing about 150G of work data between a few computers. I noticed (once again) that when I do a cut-paste on one computer, instead of repeating the action, btsync uploads all the moved data to other clients. This is a waste of network resource, and a potential hit on the HDDs, especially in my case where hundreds of thouthands of small data files are moved.
Is there a way to track actions such as cut-paste in btsync? I know dropbox can do that... Thanks
- y
-
Just last month I was still stuggling with the "out-of-sync" issue and almost abandonded btsync. Now it starts charging already? Subscription? Not a dime from me before btsync wins all my trust!
I never thought about backing-up my dropbox folder, because I trust dropbox, and never had any problem with it either. Love it's versioning. My bysync folders? They have been nuked several times because of syncing issue out of blue!
For a buggy but convenient software like btsync, people are willing to do the "beta testing" for free. But charging such steep price at this point is suicidal. The beta testing is far from over IMO. There are numerous syncing software in the past that just vanished, and btsync is just a bit better than many of them...
-
Just want to keep trcak of the changs. Thanks for yuor help.
..
On Sync 2.0's Pricing Model
in Sync General Discussion
Posted
A donation model might work better than subscription at the end of the day. You would be surprised. But now, it's obviously too late after the trust is all gone.