I Was In Support Of Sync 2.0, Right Up Till They Broke A Promise

[delegatevoid]

It's a bullshit move. We (the entire community here) have been testing and providing feedback for btsync since the very beginning.
I'm sure there are many like myself who have set up many sync folders, moving from other services such as Dropbox, GDrive, etc...
to BTSync because of the promises made by the Bittorrent team. And now they want to limit us to 10 folders (which is a purely artificial limitation) unless we cough up money for every device in our sync setup? 

 

This doesn't just affect business users, it affects all users. Of course they have every right to make money (and they should),

but business support should have been something like:

 

 24/7 technical support

 active directory / ldap integration

 bla bla bla

 

 

Here's what we'll do. Backup all binaries of the 1.4 versions for every platform and keep using those.

Since it is supposed to be purely p2p they should continue to work, if they don't we'll know there's something

in the middle and the product as a whole should not be trusted.

 

When they come up with  more acceptable terms for the 2.0 we can reconsider.

[fdbryant3]

It's a bullshit move. We (the entire community here) have been testing and providing feedback for btsync since the very beginning.

I'm sure there are many like myself who have set up many sync folders, moving from other services such as Dropbox, GDrive, etc...

to BTSync because of the promises made by the Bittorrent team. And now they want to limit us to 10 folders (which is a purely artificial limitation) unless we cough up money for every device in our sync setup? 

 

As a technical point it is not $40/yr per device.  It is $40/yr per identity which can have as many devices as you want associated to it.

[quinnvanorder]

This is really not cool. I don’t care what you consider "a lot of syncing activity". I care that your company promised all current features would carry over forever. Your limit destroys my usage case, as was stated earlier. Your PR argument has no technical merit. There is no reason to nerf that feature but to force more people to pay for your software.

 

Now what is to guarantee that down the road you won’t keep yanking features out until the free version is useless?

 

How can we trust any promises you make, when you just use some PR flackie to quibble away past commitments?

 

edit: forgot the word "current"

Edited March 4, 2015 by quinnvanorder

[mexter]

Personally, in terms of sheer platform support I think the Sync team has done a yeoman's job. But if that's something you're not prepared to pay for - and there's nothing wrong with that - do be prepared to contribute to a viable and actively developed FLOSS alternative, as well as for the somewhat slower development pace that may come with that.

 

 

Your points are good. But at the end of the day, we were either lied to or mislead. I like this product immensely, but they need to acknowledge our anger and try to make it right. 

 

I am looking into Syncthing. It seems promising. Time will tell. 

[jwk2801]

"a lot of syncing activity" !!!  That is on my hardware ... my electric bill ... my bandwidth ...

[fdbryant3]

"a lot of syncing activity" !!!  That is on my hardware ... my electric bill ... my bandwidth ...

 

Using the software they developed and are licensing to you to sync your data.  Without it the rest is irrelevant.

[mexter]

Using the software they developed and are licensing to you to sync your data.  Without it the rest is irrelevant.

 

No, it's really not. They have far less overhead cost than a service like Dropbox. And there are alternatives. 

 

And anyway, I want them to follow through with what the promised. If they don't stand behind their word, the rest is irrelevant. 

[steo]

Well another bad news for BTSync.

Look I have no problem paying for BTSync as it really provide a great solution to a problem.

 

However I feel that artificially removing features and/or limiting the software just to make the paid subscription more attractive is not in the best interest of the users.

What about adding really useful features to the Pro uses ? Like stats, option to temporally deactivate folders, or any  feature request popular in these forums ??

 

In a nutshell, you should add value to the software rather than removing it if you want to convince us to upgrade for that "Pro" thing.

[fdbryant3]

No, it's really not. They have far less overhead cost than a service like Dropbox. And there are alternatives. 

 

And anyway, I want them to follow through with what the promised. If they don't stand behind their word, the rest is irrelevant. 

 

Your are right they have less overhead cost.  That doesn't mean they have no cost. 

 

Lets look at the cost comparison though.  As far as I can make out looking at the website for Dropbox you get 2GB of storage (which means you can't sync any more than 2gb of data via Dropbx) for free and then you pay $9.99/mo ($120/yr) for 1TB of storage that you can sync across devices.  With Sync the actual amount that you can sync doesn't matter - I can sync 1TB for free if I want.  Now granted that is presuming I keep my files in one of 10 sync'd folders.  If that doesn't work for me then I can pay $40/yr for unlimited sync'd folders.  So here is the scenario - I want 15 folders sync'd across my devices amounting to 100gb of data.  I can pay $120/yr to Dropbox or I can pay $40/yr for Sync. It really doesn't matter how they are sync'ing data, only that it is sync'd.  If Sync can meet my needs equally to Dropbox, there is no reason to pay Dropbox just because they have servers to support.  Yeah, Sync has the lower overhead, but it is also cheaper.

 

As for alternatives - well make the same cost comparisons.  If they are cheaper and do what you need then yeah, go with the alternative if you can find one.  That is the entire point and beauty of having a competitive marketplace.

 

Now as to refusing to pay for a sub because of broken promises, that is a fair argument and judgement call to make.  That goes to their integrity and whether you still want to do business with them which a different consideration than comparing the products they are offering.

[wiseadam]

I find it funny that when I first came to this site to see what this software was about, in the FAQ it had a question/answer something like How much does BTSync cost... Their answer being it doesn't cost anything, it's your data we shouldn't charge for us helping you move your data around. Not exact words, but you get my point. Base your software model on helping the people, get them hooked then pull just enough of the rug out from under them to catch a few "can't live without-ers" and hope the numbers end up in your favor before the other sync things take all your customers.

I understand the business side of it, but basing your whole idea of what we are and how we're different from the other pay services is we don't charge you to move your own data around, then go ehhh no we're just as greedy as them ahhhh give me money or you don't get features and functionality, is wrong.

Sell outs

[mexter]

Yeah, Sync has the lower overhead, but it is also cheaper.

 

It is. On the other hand, it's not the same thing. Like, at all. BTsync is a a file sharing tool, whereas Dropbox is a fully hosted service. When I host 1TB on Dropbox, my house can burn down and I'll still have my data. (Not that my data is worth my house, or even remotely close) 

 

I really don't want Sync to be Dropbox or its ilk. I want it to do what it's doing, and I would be happy to throw some money to purchase the program. But I don't see them as a service. I want them to continue improving the software, so buying a copy makes sense. I see no justification for a subscription model. 

[el_milagro]

does the 10 folder limit apply even if you're using old key-based 1.4 folders? like, do you only get 10 new 2.0 identity-based folders? or 10 total?

[Clouseau]

They says that Free version has sync only Up to 2 sync folders!

 

This was END OF BTSync! Now I'm moving out of this product. BTSync has proken all the promises to all the users. That's worst thing you can do !

 

Now I understand even more deebly how important it is to use and support OPEN SOURCE projects - This what we have now seen happennig here is very ugly. My feeling was that this is great tool but now I really hate this extreamly bad! This happended in one second I saw the first page when 2.0 was released!

Edited March 4, 2015 by GreatMarko
Edited for offensive language

[fdbryant3]

It is. On the other hand, it's not the same thing. Like, at all. BTsync is a a file sharing tool, whereas Dropbox is a fully hosted service. When I host 1TB on Dropbox, my house can burn down and I'll still have my data. (Not that my data is worth my house, or even remotely close) 

 

I really don't want Sync to be Dropbox or its ilk. I want it to do what it's doing, and I would be happy to throw some money to purchase the program. But I don't see them as a service. I want them to continue improving the software, so buying a copy makes sense. I see no justification for a subscription model. 

 

Get a friend or family member to let you hook up a computer (or NAS, or Raspberry PI, or even just trade space) to there network with BTSync set up - wahlah, if your house burns down, your data is safe.  Don't have any friends/family willing to help you out - well you a lease a Vitrual Private Server running Linux or Windows for a lot less than Dropbox.

 

Whether you want BTSync to be Dropbox or not the fact is they are the same product.  They are both for sync'ing data among multiple devices across your network or the Internet.  They are different in how they accomplish this but they are the same thing.  People get hung up on the whole infrastructure arguement because it is a tangible thing to latch on to as something to pay for but in the end it is a false difference.  While development, features, and support are more intangible things they are still ongoing very real costs.  You pay (if needed) to sync your data.  While it would be nice if they had other options besides the sub model being against it because don't have a hosted infrastructure is disingenious.  The hosting isn't what you pay for, it is means to an end.

[foo8ar]

The really do provide a great product. I also am willing to pay for software

 

BUT i totally lost confidence in them after they have mislead on several occasions.

The biggest one: "we do not keep track of your communication"

Was I troubled when I received the following mail sometime ago?

 

Hello,

We recently compiled a list of our Sync API top 20 data movers and you're on the list!  In all seriousness, I really hope you that Sync has made a difference in the way you move data.  

 

 

As others have mentioned. There are alternatives open sourced with nothing to hide.

To bad as I really like Sync.

 

/f

[Guest]

funny things are happening here at the BTSync side.

 

I do have more mobile devices syncing to my server than the limitation in sync 2.0 would allow.

I moved my whole family out of the "Camera Upload" to the cloud world into the "Pictures should only belong to us" life. Now I do have a problem, because 2.0 would not support to upload all mobile devices of sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers, granny and co because we are over 10 mobile users.

 

the only thing which makes btsync still worth the money is the lack of alternatives on the number of devices. no vendor I know supports windows, linux, android and ios devices.

 

hard move, hard to consider what I do next. you somehow broke everything I thought the bittorrent protocol and everything which builds upon it, stands for.

[patoka]

@ richinmusic - Look into one time use credit cards, my bank offers them, I use them for every online purchase. The cards can be set to expire in as little as 2 months with what ever amount you want. Give Bitsync a number that's only good for $40 and expires in May and you don't have to worry about automatic billing. Drives my insurance company nuts, they've been complaining since November about my annual payment due in August.

I'm still using 1.3.109 and will probably stay there, seems to work OK. Might sign up for a year just to say thanks to Bitsync for the great product.

[duch]

I find it funny that when I first came to this site to see what this software was about, in the FAQ it had a question/answer something like How much does BTSync cost... Their answer being it doesn't cost anything, it's your data we shouldn't charge for us helping you move your data around. Not exact words, but you get my point.

 

I completely remember this too.

[duch]

https://web.archive.org/web/20130811154750/http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/17782-bittorrent-sync-faq-unofficial/#entry44650

 

 

 

Will BitTorrent Sync remain free, or will they start charging for it once it comes out of beta?
BitTorrent Sync will remain free! 

From BitTorrent:
"If tomorrow we want to charge you $100 for 10Kb transferred, stop everything related to the app or try to force you not to use BitTorrent Sync, we just physically can't achieve that!
BitTorrent Sync will work tomorrow exactly like it works today, no matter what we will do. And it will work exactly like today even 10 years from now, of course, if we will have computers in future " (Source)

...and in publicising the start of the "beta" phase on 17 July 2013, the team commented: "And don’t worry. BitTorrent Sync is still free, simple to use, and secure. Pretty awesome, huh?"

[Tel]

I have been pushing BTS heavily on customers for close to 2 years, but also pointing out that it is in development. However a year ago I started moving customers away from BTS due to little niggles. They are all now using Goodsync.

 

Whilst it is a paid for product, it's a one time deal.

 

Last night I had the email offering a 25% discount for businesses, however that ship has long sailed.

 

What the team needs to do is charge by volume.Most consumers will be backing up their libraries and probably wouldn't do much more that 100Gb, so 100Gb is free. Then have bands of data, so 200Gb is say $10, 500Gb, $30 1Tb $40 etc (example). I don't think it would be that hard to have volume based accounts.

[sebijisi]

In fact in my current usecase I do not need more than 10 folders, HOWEVER the only reason I came to the forum/this thread today, was looking at the "Pro/Free" comparison, seeing the "Unlimited folders" for PRO, immediately thinking "Wow, despite what they said earlier, they really screw us". So yeah, I think this is not a good idea.

 

As for the one time payment vs. Subscription-model: I understand, that software development needs to be continuously founded, so I rather have an "honest" subscription model, instead of a "one-time" fee and a paid upgrade to more awesome, not 100% compatible "Sync 3.0" a year later. However the price is really steep for what it is. 

 

If you do not want to go into the business of selling cloud storage yourself, just make a license like this that a commercial cloud storage provider for btsync needs to pay you license fees. Like 0.1 ct/GB/month rent to one of their customers comes flowing back your way.

[Clouseau]

I'm started emergeny process to move out from BTSync in our company! We are also going to heavuly warn all our customers NOT TO USE BTSync in any use. BTSync is dead and will stay like it. You can build trust on customers (even free ones), but you can lose it only once - after that you have no change to recover that - never!

 

Now worst case scenario happend - BTSync 2.0 is bussiness killer, I mean killer for customers bussiness who trusted on their written promises that features which are in 1.xx version will remain free in 2.0! Now after thus huge fuck up - there as idiotic limitations etc. What would you expect users to react? yeah - this is real fuck up to their active product users and customers.

 

BTSync 2.0 is born dead! My storage is my Storage and it't not unlimited! I'm just moving it around. Lets go to true Open Source product - I rather support foss project with 1000€ than give it away here. It's not gonna happend!

[jdrch]

Whether you want BTSync to be Dropbox or not the fact is they are the same product. 

No they're not. A truck and a sportscar can both be used for grocery runs, but are not the same vehicle.

[hungarianhc]

https://web.archive.org/web/20130811154750/http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/17782-bittorrent-sync-faq-unofficial/#entry44650

Wow. Great find there. Really sad to see the company publish something like that, build a community around it, and then do a 180.

[Denyson]

The folder limit is a deal breaker for me. I would not have a problem if the sync 2.0 free had the same features as 1.4. When you start taking features away to force people into the paying model that's a problem. 

 

I was recommending BTsync to everyone that I know. I no longer can do that. This is precise the problem with close source software.