What To Expect Next From Sync

[N4TE_B]

A year and a half ago, BitTorrent Sync started with a simple idea: give people the ability to sync large files fast by skipping the cloud. We’ve been humbled by the enthusiastic reception during the Alpha and Beta phases, and we’re now getting ready to take the Beta tag off and introduce a premium edition of Sync to the market. Before that happens, we want to keep you informed on what to expect next.

 

To read more, visit our blog post: http://blog.bittorrent.com/2014/11/19/what-to-expect-next-from-sync/

[sbhouchen]

The $39.99/year price... is that per peer?

[Moe]

The $39.99/year price... is that per peer?

 

I guess every peer that wants to have access to the pro features, yes. -.-

[jdrch]

Can we get a Free vs. Pro version feature list? I didn't get a clear idea of which features would be in which version(s) from the blog post.

[N4TE_B]

Great questions guys.

 

The $39.99 is per individual. We are still working out the exact mechanics on how this works across multiple computers owned by the single person. Calling it 'per peer' pricing isn't quite right. More to come on this.

 

Feature list will be distributed as we get closer to launch.

[richinmusic]

Can we get a Free vs. Pro version feature list? I didn't get a clear idea of which features would be in which version(s) from the blog post.

Along with this question, I am curious what paid-for plan will be most like the beta that I have been using for so long for free....And isn't is possible for those of us who already have the beta running to just keep it as-is indefinitely? I do alot of testing for many software developers, and this would be the first time that I was expected to pay anything for a product that I tested. I usually offer to pay something anyway to show support and faith in a product, but this has always been voluntary.

[GreatMarko]

I have been using for so long for free....

There will be a Free version of Sync 2.0 as well

 

And isn't is possible for those of us who already have the beta running to just keep it as-is indefinitely?

There's nothing stopping you from using earlier versions of Sync now (1.2, 1.3, etc) ...but as I say, there will be a free version of Sync 2.0 as well.

 

I do alot of testing for many software developers, and this would be the first time that I was expected to pay anything for a product that I tested.

To the best of my understanding no current functionality will be "removed" from the Free version of Sync 2.0. So in paying for Sync 2.0 "Pro", you're not paying to keep existing functionality that you've already been enjoying previously for free, you'd be paying for new additional features/functionality not already found in the current "free" offering of Sync.

 

I usually offer to pay something anyway to show support and faith in a product, but this has always been voluntary.

...and in a way, it still will be! If you're happy with the current functionality that Sync offers, you can continue using 1.4, 1.3, or the forthcoming free edition of 2.0! If however you want the additional features/functionality that the "Pro" version will offer... or perhaps don't necessarily need these features, but still want to support the project, then you'll be able to purchase a "Pro" version.

Bottom line is you're not being forced for fork out to retain the same functionality you've been enjoying previously with Sync 1.4, 1.3, 1.2, etc.

[jdrch]

Along with this question, I am curious what paid-for plan will be most like the beta that I have been using for so long for free....And isn't is possible for those of us who already have the beta running to just keep it as-is indefinitely? I do alot of testing for many software developers, and this would be the first time that I was expected to pay anything for a product that I tested. I usually offer to pay something anyway to show support and faith in a product, but this has always been voluntary.

Optimistically, I'd assume (note the italics) that the existing feature set and limits (10^6 files total/BTS instance) would continue to be free. However, users who need Enterprise IT file replication and more granular folder access control would need the Pro version.

 

If they start charging for the existing free feature set I'd have to move to SyncThing, as I've moved from Windows Live Mesh (deprecated/shut down) -> Cubby ($90/year for previously free features) -> BitTorrent Sync (???) in the past.

 

EDIT: It appears GreatMarko has answered our questions http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/32601-what-to-expect-next-from-sync/#entry95035

[GreatMarko]

Optimistically, I'd assume (note the italics) that the existing feature set and limits (10^6 files total/BTS instance) would continue to be free. However, users who need Enterprise IT file replication and more granular folder access control would need the Pro version.

 

If they start charging for the existing free feature set I'd have to move to SyncThing, as I've moved from Windows Live Mesh (deprecated/shut down) -> Cubby ($90/year for previously free features) -> BitTorrent Sync (???) in the past.

 

EDIT: It appears GreatMarko has answered our questions http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/32601-what-to-expect-next-from-sync/#entry95035

 

@jdrch, I hear you!! I'm also a previous Windows Live Mesh user myself, then I moved to Cubby - which as you say, was initially free until they started charging for the same functionality that was previously free! - which is why I then moved to Sync!

 

The folks at BitTorrent are very aware of the Cubby story, so with that in mind, it's very unlikely that they'll "remove" current functionality in the forthcoming "free" edition of Sync 2.0

[Moe]

Just for people as a clarification and avoiding more questions:

 

[...] it's very unlikely that they'll "remove" current functionality in the forthcoming "free" edition of Sync 2.0

 

The Blog posts, at current date, says:

 

Sync 2.0 – Sync and Share

We’re continuing to invest more and more into Sync and there’s a lot of great features coming in Sync 2.0. We’re improving the free edition over what’s available in version 1.4 and we’re introducing new functionality that will be a part of a new Pro edition.

 

As long as these "improvements" contain bug fixes when it comes to out of sync problems etc..

[Mostarac]

this will be awesome product will buy pro version

[scottjl]

$40/year? Sorry, but the Pro version had better come with some amazing features then to justify the subscription price considering you aren't really hosting the data for us. Your selling point comparing your service to Dropbox and others neglects one point, they all have an off-site (from my standpoint) service that also has a copy of my data. Should all my servers melt down, I can still retrieve a copy from their service. That justifies the yearly subscription model, housing a copy of my data.

 

I would gladly pay $40 once and be done with it for your software, like a traditional software package, and pay a nominal fee for upgrades if/when I need them.

 

I'll wait and see what the final products, and pricing, are, this is just by two bits for now.

[jdrch]

$40/year? Sorry, but the Pro version had better come with some amazing features then to justify the subscription price considering you aren't really hosting the data for us. Your selling point comparing your service to Dropbox and others neglects one point, they all have an off-site (from my standpoint) service that also has a copy of my data. Should all my servers melt down, I can still retrieve a copy from their service. That justifies the yearly subscription model, housing a copy of my data.

 

I would gladly pay $40 once and be done with it for your software, like a traditional software package, and pay a nominal fee for upgrades if/when I need them.

 

I'll wait and see what the final products, and pricing, are, this is just by two bits for now.

Good luck finding any competing enterprise products that offer unlimited storage and >1M file support for $40/year.

 

Also, you do realize you can roll your own offsite backup with BTS, right? All it takes is having a few peers located elsewhere.

[scottjl]

Good luck finding any competing enterprise products that offer unlimited storage and >1M file support for $40/year.

 

Also, you do realize you can roll your own offsite backup with BTS, right? All it takes is having a few peers located elsewhere.

 

This is misleading, it isn't "unlimited" storage, I am paying for all of the storage myself. My hard drives, in multiple locations, don't just magically appear, aren't magically powered, and aren't magically redundant.

 

My point is, for $40 a year I can get XXX (depending on service provider) of synced storage that also holds a copy outside of my systems in their data center. In my opinion, this justifies a yearly subscription fee, since I'm borrowing some of their disk space. BT Sync, other than basically hosting a tracker (which you can bypass entirely) hosts nothing. So where is the justification for the subscription fee? Are they going to provide $40 of new features to me yearly?

 

Again, I based my comment on the information available to me at this time. It sounds like BT itself is still trying to work things out.

 

PS. I can roll my own offsite backups with rsync too, that costs me nothing (other than my hardware, network, etc).

Edited November 19, 2014 by scottjl

[tommi]

$40/year? Sorry, but the Pro version had better come with some amazing features then to justify the subscription price considering you aren't really hosting the data for us. Your selling point comparing your service to Dropbox and others neglects one point, they all have an off-site (from my standpoint) service that also has a copy of my data. Should all my servers melt down, I can still retrieve a copy from their service. That justifies the yearly subscription model, housing a copy of my data.

 

I would gladly pay $40 once and be done with it for your software, like a traditional software package, and pay a nominal fee for upgrades if/when I need them.

 

I'll wait and see what the final products, and pricing, are, this is just by two bits for now.

I hear you. I had exactly the same thought. And you also have to take into consideration that you might need additional hardware to host your backup data, which will also cost money. Plus Dropbox offers a web-interface and it is easy to browse previous versions of the file, both which is not or less easy to do with Sync.

 

I really liked the service, so let's see how the pricing/features really work out in the end.

[hungarianhc]

I'm not really happy about the subscription pricing. I understand it's better from a company valuation perspective, but I would really love a "lifetime" option. I think it's fair to set the lifetime pricing at 3x that of the subscription price. I get a lot of value out of Bittorrent Sync, and I love supporting good software. I'd pay $120 for sure. However, part of the reason that I "roll my own cloud" is to avoid subscription fees. If there is going to be no way to avoid the subscription, I'll jump to Pulse.

[Mostarac]

so if i understand with new version no need to download sync files to watch it like in old version?

[GreatMarko]

However, part of the reason that I "roll my own cloud" is to avoid subscription fees. If there is going to be no way to avoid the subscription, I'll jump to Pulse.

As has already been stated, there will also be a free version of Sync 2.0 which will improve "over what's available in version 1.4". So if you're already "rolling your own cloud", I see no reason why you won't be able to continue to do this with the free version of Sync 2.0 moving forward.

so if i understand with new version no need to download sync files to watch it like in old version?

 

As N4TE_B has indicated, the "feature list will be distributed as we get closer to launch"

[hungarianhc]

As has already been stated, there will also be a free version of Sync 2.0 which will improve "over what's available in version 1.4". So if you're already "rolling your own cloud", I see no reason why you won't be able to continue to do this with the free version of Sync 2.0 moving forward.

 

This is true, but as I stated, I do want to pay for premium features. I value the software. I'd love it if the company would give us an opportunity to purchase "lifetime" licenses a la Plex pass for around 3x the cost of a subscription.

[wimbit]

I'm fine with a $25 yearly for premium features. $40 yearly is questionable considering the setup required. I think a lot more people would spring for a $25 package too.

 

Actually the $40 is reasonable -- but for bittorrents benefit, I suggest they lower that a bit in order to draw in the sceptics and testers until such time as it is very stable and proven in the market.

 

I'd like to see the "Peers I invite must be approved on this device" feature working. It's not working for me yet though on my desktop version. This may fix any security questions I have.

[GreatMarko]

I'm fine with a $25 yearly for premium features. $40 yearly is questionable ...

Given that the feature sets for Sync 2.0 Free and Pro haven't been released yet, perhaps it's a little premature to be questioning whether the "pro" version is worth $40/year?!

[wimbit]

Given that the feature sets for Sync 2.0 Free and Pro haven't been released yet, perhaps it's a little premature to be questioning whether the "pro" version is worth $40/year?!

 

Well ... a lot of us went through a lot of suffering this last few months with the changes. So perhaps we are the wrong crowd to ask. But then, we stuck with you and that means we also want to see your success. I'm just pulling that $25 our of a hat based on what I suspect people are willing to part with for a new product with a bit of a learning curve. 

 

Seeing a finished 'ready for market' product will help eliminate the speculation at this point.

 

[scottjl]

Given that the feature sets for Sync 2.0 Free and Pro haven't been released yet, perhaps it's a little premature to be questioning whether the "pro" version is worth $40/year?!

 

If it's premature, maybe the pricing shouldn't have been disclosed until the feature set was?

 

I think it's entirely fair to comment on the pricing, especially in comparison to the competition. After all BT itself presented a chart in the blog post comparing Sync to Dropbox, Google Drive and OneDrive.

[kanine]

I think pricing like $1.99pm or $20pa would be a good model. I mean a couple of bucks a month makes the decision a no brainer. I totally understand that funding is required for ongoing development and support and would much rather pay a fee than have any sort of ad-supported model.

 

Also need to understand if this will be a per node etc as I think the whole concept of Sync encourages multiple nodes. The more the merrier!

[Moe]

If it's premature, maybe the pricing shouldn't have been disclosed until the feature set was?

 

This.

Why release information about a product that is staging alpha phase with prizes on a not complete feature list.

Why the rush? Heard the thing about Erik from Greylock Partners - is it that?

You could have easily released the 2.0 along with the new websites and standalone apps for mobile devices in alpha and we would have jumped on that train, but now this kind of has a bitter taste to it.

It is always a way of the how when you do things like that.

IMHO.