RomanZ

Sync 2.0 Is Available

Recommended Posts

No sure what the issue is here with folder limits?

 

<...>

 

Personally, I have been waiting for a way to pay for the service I rely upon so heavily.  And, in the current tech world, where services disappear overnight, I would have thought others would also want to ensure that their service providers are supported, thus ensuring continued improvement.

 

I think the issues are threefold:

 

1. Suddenly being charged for functionality that previously existed, when the community was explicitly told that wouldn't happen

 

2. Community feels used by BitTorrent Inc. A number of people have spent a lot of time essentially acting as free testers for the BT Sync team, only to be suddenly expected to pay after providing all that free work.

 

3. $40 is a steep price (if you don't believe me, look at the analysis of Valve's Steam Sale methodology - cheaper unit prices generate higher total revenue), especially as a recurring subscription fee. I can only speak for myself but I'd happily pay for BT Sync....once. Heck, I'd even be willing to pay a small upgrade fee if a new major version came out. But I will never pay a subscription fee. Right there BitTorrent Inc. lost a paying customer and gained nothing from it. And based on the feedback in this thread, I'm guessing I'm not the only one. They are literally pushing paying customers away by insisting on a subscription-based model.

 

Of course complaining is useless without a recommendation, so here's mine: Charge something reasonable like $9.99 and watch sales increase substantially. Additionally, removing the folder limit (if even only for a while) would be a show of good faith to the community that's spent so much time beta-testing Sync for free.

 

I love BT Sync, use it heavily (I maintain and distribute the Tron project with it) and admire the work the Sync dev team has done. But just like if I started charging people in the Tron community after they've spent combined hundreds of hours testing the program for free, the Sync business management team would do well to re-evaluate their approach to monetizing the product without alienating the core user base - which are the people who recommend Sync to their peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add to the sentiment that the issue isn't charging for the software. The issue is charging a subscription without providing any clear service. I pay $40 this year to get a fully featured Sync 2.0 client -- great. What am I paying $40 for next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest proactiveservices

 

vocatus: 2. Community feels used by BitTorrent Inc.

 

Just as the community used BitTorrent Inc's free software for quite some time. It works both ways. You got a free meal and told the snack bar how they could make the meal better. Sounds like a very reasonable trade to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it will sync all 50 of your subfolders :)

 

The limit is that you can add 10 folders to the free edition of sync - there is no limit on the number of files/sub folders within each of these 10 folders

 

Thanks, this is a life (and money :) ) saver to me. I share only few folders, but they have a massive number of subfolders :)

One more question: I see there is a ARM linux version of the app available: will it run only in graphical mode or within the application it's available an headless/daemon?

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more question: I see there is a ARM linux version of the app available: will it run only in graphical mode or within the application it's available an headless/daemon?

Thank you!

I have it running on a dlink NAS and works like earlier versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add to the sentiment that the issue isn't charging for the software. The issue is charging a subscription without providing any clear service. I pay $40 this year to get a fully featured Sync 2.0 client -- great. What am I paying $40 for next year?

Bingo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pay $40 this year to get a fully featured Sync 2.0 client -- great. What am I paying $40 for next year?

i agree and I understand some of arguments i read on thoses pages.

It's true that if the price would be lot cheaper, like 10$, i'm sure that all of people won't hesitate to pay, maybe even if a subscription.

In my case, you're true, i am not ready to pay 40$ a year and every year, because we don't really know what is next step and free version is enough for me. I'm pretty sure i would pay for 2.0 for 10$ and 10$ more for 3.0 or other major update.

 

Maybe staff have to make a step to users and users will follow btsync staff and support way more their work.

 

i remerber sugar sync, a dropbox like, which tells users "warning we're going to update and it will cost xxx$, there is xx weeks remaining"

BTsync should have do the same and asking community for what they would be ready to pay for, and what solution they'd like, subscription, pay once.

 

I think a fix low price to start, and then each customer could put his own price above the fix price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if I buy pro, sync a hundred folders, and then then my sub expires?

do 90 of these folders suddenly stop syncing or get deleted?

personally this is what puts me off a subsctiption model. the idea things would stop working if my sub expired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:( :(

Sync on my tablet is upgraded automatically to Sync2.0. Unfortunately the new Sync versions always crash at startup....

 

What can I do? I use Sync often for syncing files to my tablet.

 

I'm using a Asus ME302C tablet (Android 4.3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of crap.  Crippleware.  Looks like I need to find a new backup solution.  Time to get myself and 7 of the people I had using it to migrate.  You dun goofed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 10 folder restriction is a really poor business decision. I think this may actually cause a mass exodus.

 

I agree. But the question is: exodus to where? It seem it's the only software doing this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. But the question is: exodus to where? It seem it's the only software doing this

Somebody talked about syncthing. I tried it, and it's a little bit more complicated than BitTorrent Sync, but it's open source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest idef1x

Somebody talked about syncthing. I tried it, and it's a little bit more complicated than BitTorrent Sync, but it's open source.

every new software is complicated until you know how to use it ;)

I agree it's a bit more work to set up than btsync, but so far I like it, although I am still testing it.

And you can set up your own tracker server :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately syncthing is much slower than btsync in my tests.

Syncing my server and my Tablet over Wifi: ~10MiB/s with btsync and only ~3MiB/s with syncthing

Syncing my server and my Tablet over internet: ~600KiB/s with btsync (max Bandwidth for one of the sides) and only ~350KiB/s with syncthing

Syncing my server with my desktop over GBit Ethernet: ~70MiB/s with btsync (or SMB) and only ~10MiB/s with syncthing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody talked about syncthing. I tried it, and it's a little bit more complicated than BitTorrent Sync, but it's open source.

 

Being open source isn't the issue, the question is does it work well enough to be a replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the options to disable using a relay server, a tracking server and searching the DHT netowrk gone in 2.0?

For me it was one of the important things to prevent undesired access to my data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add my voice to those others that feel let down by the 10 directory limit. I will be migrating to Syncthing, as well, unless this limit goes away very soon. I don't care if the performance is less or if it's more difficult to use. Heck, I might even help try to fix these problems!

 

I'm a developer myself, by the way, so believe me when I say that I know that developers need to be paid somehow. I'm saying that introducing this 10-directory limit is not the correct way to go about this. Whoever decided to impose this limit made the decision in bad faith. I do think it's a very good idea to charge for professional use; however I think that this directory limit crosses the line too easily into personal use. I'll point you to Trello as just one example of a product that I think is currently doing it right: http://help.trello.com/article/718-how-much-does-trello-cost and (although I despise Quora) http://www.quora.com/How-will-Trello-make-money .

 

I sincerely hope that this 10-directory limit is rescinded, and I also hope that the monetization of BTSync is successful. I am obiously not the only one who feels this way. Please consider our appeal.

Edited by arussell84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is this behavior wanted??:

 

i created a link (read & write) that doesn't expire and i don't have to approve new peers for syncing.

however, new peers don't start syncing until the owner of the folder is "online" for a moment.

 

atm i'm still in the 30 days pro trial...

 

 

This is my setup:

Win 7 is the Owner.

Mac OS x was the first peer (synced completely).

Then, the Win7 Client was turned off, and and a new peer (Win 8.1 Client) was turned on and the sync-folder was added, but it awaited the approval (= appear online) by the owner (the Mac OS X was running all the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.