What To Expect Next From Sync

[vesnominers]

I was wondering how long before you completely ruined btsync like you did utorrent. I was a fool to think it would take longer than this. At least there are open source competitors on the horizon and I look forward to them leaving you as a distant memory.

Edited November 20, 2014 by vesnominers

[GreatMarko]

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!

As N4TE_B has said, "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"

 

...so it's not a per node/per peer cost - it's "per person" - If you have Sync running of half a dozen of your own devices, you'll only pay 1 x $39.99/year, not 6 x $39.99/year!

 

I was wondering how long before you completely ruined btsync like you did utorrent. I was a fool to think it would take longer than this. At least there are open source competitors on the horizon and I look forward to them leaving you as a distant memory.

 

I'm curious to hear how you think this news "ruins" Sync?! As has been indicated, there will still be a free offering of Sync with version 2.0! The introduction of an additional paid version with features not currently found in the free offering, doesn't take anything away from the current functionality of the free version (in fact, as has been mentioned in the blog post "We're improving the free edition over what’s available in version 1.4")

 

So given that the free offering itself is improving and you're not loosing any functionality than you already have by sticking with the free offering... how is a "Pro" version "completely ruining" Sync?! :s

I think pricing like $1.99pm or $20pa would be a good model.

 

Yes, but based on what assumptions of new/additional features and functionality!? It's pretty redundant suggesting how much you think it's worth or how much you'd be prepared to pay, when it's not yet been released as to exactly what new/additional features and functionality are in fact coming to 2.0 "Pro" over and above the free version! - because surely that information would affect how much you're prepared to pay for a "pro" version?!

 

So why not wait for the feature set for Sync 2.0 "Pro" to be released, and then informed decisions can be made by users as to whether or not they feel it's worth the $39.99/year price point, or whether they're better staying with the "free" version?

[jake.sadie]

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.

 

Precisely. This announcement provided no pertinent information and only served to anger a good number of people. Where are the details?!

 

Regarding a yearly (or per any unit of time) cost, this could make sense if there will be support services like phone support. This is a cost worth paying for assuming you need regular help with your setup. However, it will be a hard sell for most people to pay a yearly cost just for enriching software features, especially when it costs each person their own money to set up their "unlimited" storage.

 

My use case is as follows: I run the data server for my multi-user research laboratory. Every user has a personal account and home directories, as you would expect. Because I liked BTSync from personal experience, I made it easy for everyone to set up BTSync instances to sync their personal directories with their personal machines. I'm not sure how the cost is going to pan out in my case, since so many people are being supported by this 'cloud'. Further, this situation is identical to at least three other laboratories in my workplace alone, since I raved about how well it worked and they followed suit. If we want the Pro software, it is very unclear how that would be handled in my non-unique use case.

 

It seems pretty clear people will want the Pro version versus the Free version, because the announcement implies features, not tangible services, are going to be the difference. In that case, who wouldn't want the most feature-rich option? The mistake made here is not providing any useful information and simply saying, "there will be differences and you will have to pay". Perhaps you'll think a bit more carefully before making such announcements in the future. Judging by the fact that it's been about 24 hours since the announcement and there only about 20 comments on this thread, it seems most people don't know or don't care, but for those of us who do know and care, it is pretty clear we're all on the same side and the defense of your position/decision will be interesting to watch unfold.

[null null null null]

I wonder if the reference to "Capabilities like having access to very large folders..." might not be in reference to a possible x64 version of btsync. Seeing as btync is currently limited to ~10^6 files with x86 OS this would not affect most home users but I can see the file limit being a problem in enterprise settings. 

 

Given what the pro version is expected to cost it is rather cheap for the time I save. The only problem I have with the package is price/device, however if the pro and free version can behave like a server-client (Pro being folder admin) then it might still make sense.

 

I really feel for sorry for the people at btsync who have to decide on the pricing system as this will be their chance to either corner the market or anger all of us.

 

 

[wimbit]

I really feel for sorry for the people at btsync who have to decide on the pricing system as this will be their chance to either corner the market or anger all of us.

 

 

 

 

Quoted for truth.

 

I'm glad this project is coming to fruition. $40 or other, it is a great solution for building a roll-your-own cloud sync. It will cost hundreds of dollars less per year for power users.

 

I'm looking forward to the day when there will be cloud providers that create hosted services for encrypted read only secret nodes. That is the real potential - that we can all offer some of our disk/network to build the cloud.

[thejae]

File replication is directly related to the post I posted in User Stories a while ago: http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/32216-geo-load-balancing-data-replication-alternative/

 

I am so happy to hear BTSync will look into server usage.    

 

Thumbs up!

[koldKat]

So how would payment work then, if it's subscription based? Wouldn't that mean signing up somewhere, including logging into the client? If that's the case, then what happens with the whole anonymity/privacy thing?

[jhutch2000]

One of the captions made me think that perhaps selective sync will be in the desktop client in the new version?  If so, that's wonderful.  That's the feature I need for my use case (sharing pictures among a group of relatives).

 

Anyone in the know can confirm/deny?

[GreatMarko]

One of the captions made me think that perhaps selective sync will be in the desktop client in the new version?  If so, that's wonderful.  That's the feature I need for my use case (sharing pictures among a group of relatives).

 

Anyone in the know can confirm/deny?

 

As N4TE_B has said, "Feature list will be distributed as we get closer to launch".

 

Your observation is correct, however, that one of the image captions in the blog post indicates you'll be able to "Access Folder Contents On-Demand" in "Sync Pro"... take from that what you will... and watch this space!!

[rockhill04]

I think $39.99/per year/per computer is quite high.

 

In my case I have 8 computers using BTSync.. 

 

Goodsync is $29.99 but they give discounts when you buy 2 or more. And that is a one time charge. 8 licenses is $17.95 per license AND THAT is a one time fee.

Google Business Apps is $35/month for 400 GB// to all the computers on the Google Business domain.

 

I guess we need to wait for it and see the specs of the free and the paid. I hope on the free they do not put limits on amount of data.

[Guest proactiveservices]

Angry? I'd pay for BT Sync. It's great software, and since it has an ongoing cost for discovery servers and relays, I understand why it's a subscription-based model. The costs that have quoted sound like very good value for money as well as being inexpensive. Add in "formal" technical support - it's a complete no-brainer.

[GreatMarko]

I think $39.99/per year/per computer is quite high.

 

In my case I have 8 computers using BTSync..

Someone's not read this thread properly before jumping and complaining!!

It's not a "per computer" pricing model - it's "per person" - if you're running Sync on 8 of your own devices, it's $39.99/year - NOT 8 x $39.99/year!!

[scottjl]

Marko, you might want to take a breather and let BT do some of the speaking for themselves, this is the hole they dug. Let's get some official word from them, unless you're somehow speaking on behalf of the company?

[N4TE_B]

First things first...please keep comments on topic. I think Marko does an amazing job mixing it up with you guys. He frequently asks Roman and myself for clarification on things and we do are best to outfit him with the available information to help clear things up for you guys.

 

Thanks everyone for the feedback. The topics regarding elements of the 2.0 product plan that we have yet to disclose are legitimate, but I encourage everyone not to jump to conclusions and assume the worst. Some product details are dependent on the discussion we are currently having here on the Sync forum, while others are technologically dependent.

 

One thing I'd like to reiterate, as I see it come up repeatedly, despite Marko and myself having dispelled it. You will NOT need to buy licenses for every computer in your personal network of mobile devices, PCs and NAS boxes. More to come on how that will specifically work, but as I understand, it won't entail you needing separate licenses for each machine you own. So the "$39.99 x 8" comments are not relevant to the 2.0 plan.

 

We at BitTorrent aren't sheepish when it comes to scrutiny of what we produce, which probably comes from how long we've been doing this with a user base that isn't afraid to tell us what they think. So keep it coming. While of course it is beneficial to the end-product, and if that idealism fuels you to continue contributing, then great. If you need more motivation, then maybe...just maybe...there could possibly be a little something in it for you in the end. 

[scottjl]

Thanks for the information N4TE_B. I am curious about a point koldKat brought up. How can you remain anonymous if you have to use a license that obviously is registered to someone, especially if it is a subscription.

[sfmcnally]

Why am I suddenly worried that one of the "features" of Sync 2.0 will be a size limit on folders in the free version.

Maybe I just have a bad taste in my mouth from the "upgrade" from 1.3 to 1.4

[fearedbliss]

I agree with some of the previous posters as well about supporting a purchase once model and am willing to pay for new version of upgrades if/when needed.

 

I love sync, been a user since "SyncApp" (Alpha) and strongly recommend everyone to use it, but $40/year for a product when basically nothing is being hosted for me is not something I would support. I'm definitely willing to pay $40 as a one time fee for pro features/support the product and pay more as new versions come up depending if I "need" those new features (or.. even a one time $150 dollars for a lifetime license, like how Plex does it).

[Moe]

Why am I suddenly worried that one of the "features" of Sync 2.0 will be a size limit on folders in the free version.

Maybe I just have a bad taste in my mouth from the "upgrade" from 1.3 to 1.4

 

I don't think so.

 

PS: I saw that my post got deleted just as a heads up

[patoka]

>>You will NOT need to buy licenses for every computer in your personal network of mobile devices, PCs and NAS boxes.

 

The complainers won't need to buy ANY license, they can just exercise their right to move to a different product and leave the forum to meaningul discussions.

[null null null null]

After reading through some of the comments and thinking about the idea of btsync vs Bittorrent I just can only say we can only speculate as to what the future holds. I am actually starting to think the idea of the blog might have been to see what users want long term and what they would pay for the product. 

 

Another thing is we have yet to see a full feature list. I expect the free version will remain about as limited as is, while the pro version might give power users more options per folder.

 

Now with the license idea they could say:

1.) pay x-amount and get unlimited installs. This gives them a steady income and keeps most users happy.

2.) pay and get a option to link a client to a account which allows remote management, with a cap of 10 links. Still somewhat acceptable

Overall I do not have the answer but these are some of the possible options I have identified. 

[scottjl]

>>You will NOT need to buy licenses for every computer in your personal network of mobile devices, PCs and NAS boxes.

 

The complainers won't need to buy ANY license, they can just exercise their right to move to a different product and leave the forum to meaningul discussions.

 

Well it's clear who won't be earning a Customer Service Rep of the year award.

 

I'd like to point out that as a potential customer I have every right to express my opinion just as BT has the right to charge for their software. What the "complainers" are providing is called "feedback" and smart companies take note.

 

Not all of us posting here are individuals sharing porn torrents with their buddies, some of us work for multi-billion dollar companies with global data centers. Yes, I have a "right to move to a different product" but that generally isn't something you want to tell your customers or they will take their business elsewhere and your company won't be in existence very long.

 

 

PS. I too noticed postings getting deleted (since I'm subscribed to the thread and emails go out when messages are posted). Again, not the best customer service practice.

[Helen]

Yes, I have a "right to move to a different product" but that generally isn't something you want to tell your customers or they will take their business elsewhere and your company won't be in existence very long.

 those words were posted by a customer, not by Sync team. The team never presumes saying that. 

 

The post was hidden for personal attack. Now let's get back to constructive criticism and feedback on *product*. Thank you! 

[b0rman]

Since 1.4.x has lots of bugs like "Out of sync" and "Extremely slow sync speed" for me, I don't see any reason to pay for it

Your politics is same to NGINx+: they read user's feature requests and add it to business version only. I don't think it's good idea.

[scottjl]

Removing of customer comments just because you disagree with them is a pretty bad business practice. If you can't take criticism from your customers, then perhaps you shouldn't be in business.

 

 

 

I do understand that Bittorrent is a company and needs to generate income or there will be no product to sell, my previous comments regarding the subscription pricing model simply reflects my belief that there needs to be certain amount of value provided to justify the annual billing model. Subscriptions are all the rage for software companies these days as they generate recurring revenue, and they make sense in a case where the provider has reoccurring expenses, like hosting customer data in the cloud. But based on the information provided at this time, what is Sync providing for me for my $40/yr? As I mentioned in a previous message, Sync compares itself to Dropbox, Drive, etc. But those services provide off-site hosting of my data for those fees, Sync provides, if I choose to use it, a torrent tracker.

 

Sync, I think what the problem is, you offered just enough information to open up a whole lot of questions, particularly about pricing, with very few answers. You might want to provide more answers, or retract your information until you are able to do so, because what you have right now is simply causing a lot of confusion, anger, and frustration.

 

Just my 2 bits.

Edited November 22, 2014 by scottjl
Offending and out of topic discussion

[Rizzo96]

 

Your politics is same to NGINx+: they read user's feature requests and add it to business version only. I don't think it's good idea.

 

That was my feeling too. That's not fair to act this way, a lot of people here are early adopters, they gave feedback, submitted bug reports, suggested new features. Now, you announce that these features will be available in the "Pro" version. Well, I can understand the frustration of many people.

 

Sync, I think what the problem is, you offered just enough information to open up a whole lot of questions, particularly about pricing, with very few answers. You might want to provide more answers, or retract your information until you are able to do so, because what you have right now is simply causing a lot of confusion, anger, and frustration.

 

Just my 2 bits.

 

I could not agree more on that. You cannot announce a price without showing anything. That seems to be the basics in marketing: you show first the product, then you announce the price. Here, you announce the price and show nothing, with users fearing that they will have to pay in the future.

 

Moreover, people are quite disappointed with Sync 1.4... Not only the GUI (which I find, as a Linux user, an improvement), but also the sync engine which is clearly buggy. Note for the future:

1. Make your product stable

2. Show innovations

3. Announce the price