Fear Na Boinne

The worst (by far) for me is that they don't even bother to seriously address our concerns! I am in the process of removing BTsync everywhere, including at all friends and family. I'll make certain they know how unreliable Bittorrent is as an entity, and to not trust them. Sure, they may say our data is safe, but how *do* I know they don't store a copy of everything (or at the least any traffic that passes their servers, including keys, etc.) we share for any (government) entity that asks for it? In the past I would have been willing to take their word for it, but since they've shown their word to be worthless, I am not taking any chances with them, and will advise anyone I know to heed that warning and spread the word: "Do not use BTsync!"

"assumptions are the mother of all f**k-ups" I would assume that you can NOT add more than 10 under any circumstance on the free version, that would be a safer (and less disappointing) bet than your assumption!...

3x 2 1x 4 3x 16 1x 27 That's my tally... (And that excludes any directories from friends I got on to BTS, b/c I obviously don't know what all they're doing, but I know of one disgruntled friend already, so I assume he is above 10 on at least 1 device too...)

They are misleading mobile users using the truth... And that in my book equates to intentional misleading... (Which is very close to criminal intent in many cases, but I digress...) Yes, the number of directories remains unlimited on mobile devices, but the majority of people use those mobile tools to sync to desktop/server computers, where the limitation still applies! And it would have been so easy: grandfather the early adopters in to an unlimited directory version of the system, even if only for the 'old style' key based sync (which I prefer anyway!) which is in 1.4, and provide an upgrade subscription (without mandatory automatic renewal) to the rest... It works for many others, including Stardock, whose annual 'subscription' I used for many years until I stopped using every single tool that was in their desktop package. Even when I was only using a single tool (Fences), and it'd been cheaper just to buy the new version once in a while, I retained the 'upgrade subscription'...

Yes, you're a fan, I am critical, that much is pretty obvious by now... Oh, but I *am* putting effort in a solution... And it looks like that will be a combination of BTS on my iDevices and a single 'server' (for as long as there is no SyncThing iOS client) with SyncThing on the rest... I'm a veteran (in more than one way <G>) of computer, network and Internet usage, tools, design, programming and security, and know very well what I am doing, and what is decent and what isn't. Simple truth is that what BTS is doing is NOT decent at all... And it will cost them... because... ... customers DO have to endorse a product like this for it to be successful! Esp. when they want ridiculously high prices on an ongoing basis for a rather minimal ongoing effort (minimal is only relative, and applies to the effort going forward to keep the tracker running) which is not even guaranteed, but supposedly the only thing we should be able to count on. Nothing compells them to do further development for that money! A tracker service (which is all what most people will be interested in) should not cost $40/p/yr! It is great for you that you feel it is worth $40/p/yr to be able to use their tracker and continue to sync more than 10 directories, but that does not make you the only person that is right. Many people feel that this is overprized, certainly since they implied (I'll not use the word promised, since that seems to hit a bad nerve with you) that all the features they have in 1.4 would be carried forward in to 2.0 free, and limiting the number of directories is definitely a reduction of functionality! So yes, that is all that matters here, when you're dealing with a community like this. And there are no other ideas to contribute than "put it back the way it was", because that is the only thing that will undo the (real or perceived) slight by BTS towards their community by restricting the number of directories. Oh, and I *am* discontinuing use of BTS at my earliest chance! I will very likely even forego iOS syncing for now, just to be rid of BTS! But I want to be reasonable, and give BTS the chance to correct this huge mistake, and THAT is why I am posting here! Once I am gone, they can take BTS to Hell or wherever they want, but I care about this product, so if they're willing to make concessions (Even Whatsapp is giving 'grandfathered lifetime users' an exception to their payment scheme!), I'd love to stay! I don't think BTS really has any direct competitors... At least none that require payment and make a profit off of it, but a fair point none the less! PS: I would definitely like to see more feedback from people that are happy with the 2.0 change to the directory count, and the Pro pricetag. So far I have seen very few (not counting, but I think two or three in all?) that agree with this move. And it is only the 10 directory limitation people are protesting! PPS: I'd 'like' GreatMarko's post, but I can't, for a lack of a like button!

And yet you yourself keep doing so here by claiming that they did not break their promise since - according to you - a "reduced scope" is not a reduction of "core functionality"... Let me summarize the core functionality of each version: The core functionality of 1.4 is unlimited directory sharing/syncing. (everything else is gravy, it's sharing/syncing what it is about!) The core functionality of 2.0 Pro is unlimited directory sharing/syncing. (everything else is still gravy, it's still sharing/syncing what it is about!) The core functionality of 2.0 Free is severely limited directory sharing/syncing. (everything else - though limted compared to the above - is still gravy, it's still sharing/syncing what it is about!) So yes, they did break their promise! If it wasn't a core functionality, then why do they feel the need to limit it? The answer is: it *is* a core functionality, they know that, and they think they can force people to pay by limiting this core functionality! I do not want to move away from BTS, but I will stay on 1.4 for as long as I can, and in the mean time keep an eye on alternatives like SyncThing. I will definitely actively discourage anyone from now on to start with BTS, and that is sad, since I've been a BTS fan since the very first 'you can download sync now' email dropped in my inbox! And the most important bit is not whether you or BTS think they lied, it is about us users, and what we think, since there is no future for the product unless the users endorse and support it. If users are unhappy and actually voice that to others, the product will suffer. Just look up "net promoter score" to see what many big companies now use to measure success and sustainability! Nobody cares about what a company thinks about themselves, it is what the users/customers think of the company that matters! hear hear! I would have liked many posts here, but according to the system I reached my "quota of positive votes for the day", which - apparently - is 0... [EDIT: I could vote now, so I just did!] I'm fine with paying for software that does a great job, but TBH, BTS doesn't always do as great a job as it should, esp. not for a $40/yr subscription! I have a family of 4, which makes $160/yr, just to have them be able to sync their systems, because we do not sync the entire user directories, just some sections. And even though it is in theory possible to create sync-directories under which we can put everything we need to share, in practice it is NOT... Just a simple example: my wife has a program which stores it's user data and the content database in 2 separate directories under c:\programdata. This is hardcoded and therefore I would already need at least 3 (!) directories syncable, just for my wife and that one program. And that would be manageable, if that was the only program that did that, but obviously many programs have similar behavior. So back to the question of why that 10 directory (<RANT>These are directories, not folders! I cannot fold them, can I? They hold nothing but a listing of names and addresses, so they are directories!</RANT> ) limitation? Well it is obvious: they are well aware that the pro features are insufficient to warrant $40/p/yr for the vast majority! So they try to force us by putting in this additional limitation.

Use location services to log the location from where you saved the files... That way you actually use the location services, and can run indefinitely... But I 'get' the challenge...

As per the topic title (and I tried to search for it, but it either wouldn't let me - I cannot help iOS is shorter than 4 characters - or found too much to be useful), I wonder WHY the backup stops on iOS as soon as the app closes/is backgrounded? There are multiple apps (media players, GPS routes, etc.) that keep working in the background?... I don't want to have to remember to start the app to backup my photo's... A sync tool like this should always be in the background, synchronizing photos as soon as they are made and a connection is available...