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

[DJSilverline]

From what I was told version 1.4.111 will remain online and operational, just like the previous versions. For me, the unlimited folder option is really important for me, but the new features in 2.0 are not. Until I make money off of what I use BT for, or if I implement this in any business setting then I will consider a license. until then, 1.4.111 will work just fine for me. So at least this is a bit of good news that we are not forced to upgrade to 2.0.

 

I just wish the the BT team would have made a clear and concise statement regarding our concerns and show a little bit of care and respect for this community. Many of us voiced our concerns and the only meaningless responses we get are from fellow holier than thou forum users. I would really like to hear a response or a statement from the BT Team. I think us testers/developers are owed at least that much for all the free help we have given to the team over the last year and a half.

[T42]

 

 

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

 

 

Um, no, they aren't, AT ALL.

 

BTSync is a sync ARBITRATOR - your data doesn't (necessarily) transit their servers (probably doesn't ever, since that would cost them more), nor do they store any of your data. BTSync is much more like a peer-to-peer VPN than Dropbox, etc. There's NO comparison to file-storage services, except that those services may add sync to their transport component. File storage services have to subsidize extensive datacenter, storage, deduplication,and replication/backup, transport (upstream/downstream/replication), for many terabytes of data (petabytes?). None of which is required with BTSync - only a few servers to handle the magnets/torrent files.

 

Just guessing at numbers, but I'd venture BTSync datacenter costs (for actual users) don't even run into the $1m/annual category, while certainly Dropbox, etc run into the tens of millions. Datacenter costs ain't cheap.

[w411]

Actually, what you are describing won't apply to the $59 plan. You'd need at least the $99 to go beyond user folders. You could place the computer backups within those folders, of course, but I personally think that's being dishonest.

 

 

And what do mean that BTsync isn't intended to give you remote access to your files? That's its core function. You install it on one machine, you install it on another, and whichever folders you specify are synced. The new version allows for selective sync, but I haven't looked into that.

 

You don't need the $99 plan to go beyond the user folders, the $99 plan allows backup of external drives (additional internal drives are also included in the $59 plan).  The $59 plan DOES backup all user files by default but you can add any folders you like to the backup.  As for being "dishonest" it doesn't violate Carbonite terms and conditions in any way and over the years my reseller reps have commented on what a slick idea that setup is.  The Server plans are for systems with an actual Server OS installed on them, a home pc set up with peer to peer networking does not fall under that column.  

 

The reference to remote access to files was meaning from a system that is not a part of your BTsync devices, if you were away from your network and needed a few files.  There is no remote access like there is in Carbonite/Dropbox/Drive etc. where you can enter credentials, browse for your files and grab them.  I apologize if that wasn't clear.

[GreatMarko]

Actually, what you are describing won't apply to the $59 plan. You'd need at least the $99 to go beyond user folders....

You don't need the $99 plan to go beyond the user folders, the $99 plan allows backup of external drives (additional internal drives are also included in the $59 plan). The $59 plan DOES backup all user files by default but you can add any folders you like to the backup.

@mexter, @w411, let's try to keep things on-topic please and not drift off into discussing various pricing plans/tiers of backup services!

[w411]

Agreed, sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people misinform others, my apologies.

[ahow628]

Alright, I'm typically not one to comment, but I feel I need to.

 

1) I'm paying for Pro. $40/yr (actually $30 for the early bird special) seems like a heck deal compared to something like Dropbox which is 3-4x that price. A lifetime subscription would have been nice, but I'm not overly concerned about it. I probably would have paid for a lifetime Dropbox subscription a few years ago, but now I'd definitely be having buyer's remorse, since Dropbox has taken some questionable turns in my opinion.

 

2) As for the lying thing, come on. Companies "lie" all the time. Only $19.95!* *does not include taxes, fees, and highway robbery. BT has many developers doing things that I find absolutely mind blowing. They deserve to get paid. If you want to put in the time hacking away at code to get a product that is this good and is totally free, have fun, but I'll go ahead and pay $40/yr for someone to code for me.

 

3) If you want to leave and find some alternative, that is fine. Don't throw a fit and tell everyone you are taking your marbles going home. You sound like the toddlers and kindergarteners that are currently littering my house on a daily basis. Be an adult about this.

 

Anyway, thanks to BT for the awesome software and hopefully we'll see some more great stuff due to the support that I and others have provided.

[fdbryant3]

Um, no, they aren't, AT ALL.

 

BTSync is a sync ARBITRATOR - your data doesn't (necessarily) transit their servers (probably doesn't ever, since that would cost them more), nor do they store any of your data. BTSync is much more like a peer-to-peer VPN than Dropbox, etc. There's NO comparison to file-storage services, except that those services may add sync to their transport component. File storage services have to subsidize extensive datacenter, storage, deduplication,and replication/backup, transport (upstream/downstream/replication), for many terabytes of data (petabytes?). None of which is required with BTSync - only a few servers to handle the magnets/torrent files.

 

Just guessing at numbers, but I'd venture BTSync datacenter costs (for actual users) don't even run into the $1m/annual category, while certainly Dropbox, etc run into the tens of millions. Datacenter costs ain't cheap.

 

You know what, I am going to concede an error saying they are the same product.  They are different products designed for solving the problem - synchronizing data on multiple devices across a LAN or Internet. 

 

So while they are 2 different products they acheive the same goal.  If you disagree with this - they why is everyone comparing it to Dropbox.  If Dropbox isn't their competitor than who is?

 

Everyone keeps pointing out that Dropbox has a higher overhead that drives their subscription cost.  This is true to a the tune $120/yr.  Sync is only $40/yr.  So if Dropbox and Sync solve the same problem for me in relative equal fashion - why should I pay more for Dropbox just because they have a datacenter?

 

You can whine and complain about the subscription price all you want - but what is the alternative?  Currently, to my knowelege the closest thing to Sync is Syncthing but it isn't ready for prime time.  So again if you need your data sync'd across the Internet, and the free tier doesn't cut it - what do you do, pay more to Dropbox, et al, cause they have servers, or pay less to Sync?

[Justaman]

Someone influential will read this post. If that person is you, read this post in its entirety, for it will be well worth your time.

 

To Whom It May Concern,

 

What you do from this moment will determine whether you get hundreds of dollars from me over the next several years. And not just hundreds of dollars from me, but hundreds of dollars from my family and friends, all at a net customer acquisition cost of $0. Hundreds of dollars for a product whose paying customers supply you with an astronomical profit margin, and whose non-paying customers cost you nothing. Hundreds of dollars, or nothing.

 

You have a rapidly growing thread of five pages in one day (!) comprised in no small part of devoted users of your product who went through the trouble of registering an account (!!!) to voice their displeasure at your organization's failure of integrity. This is no small event. Take heed. Software doesn't sell itself. The enterprise behind the software sells the software, and if I can't trust the enterprise, how can I trust the software?

 

I've written this small piece because I love your software, but when I purchase something I'm not just buying a product, I'm doing business with a company. Will your company fail or succeed at the most basic of customer service? Here's to the hope of future business.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Justaman

[michaelk42]

2) As for the lying thing, come on. Companies "lie" all the time. Only $19.95!* *does not include taxes, fees, and highway robbery. BT has many developers doing things that I find absolutely mind blowing. They deserve to get paid. If you want to put in the time hacking away at code to get a product that is this good and is totally free, have fun, but I'll go ahead and pay $40/yr for someone to code for me.

 

Really? "Everyone else is doing it too!" isn't exactly a defense here.

 

3) If you want to leave and find some alternative, that is fine. Don't throw a fit and tell everyone you are taking your marbles going home. You sound like the toddlers and kindergarteners that are currently littering my house on a daily basis. Be an adult about this.

 

Again, really? I see people expressing dissatisfaction here.

 

(Hey, Greatmarko, if calling the dude out for likening dissatisfied users to children is a "personal attack," maybe you should consider removing that initial blanket attack instead?)

Edited March 5, 2015 by michaelk42
Removed personal attack against another forum member

[Timbo]

No, the core functionality is the seamless syncing. The number of folders is a feature.

 

I never said it was "menial". If it were, I wouldn't be here feeling disillusioned. 

 

To answer your question, I started using it because its core functionality is exactly what I had been searching for for a long time. It's unbelievably great software (with a rather lackluster interface). It's not Dropbox, Carbonite, Drive, etc., and I don't want it to be. All I want is end to end file synchronization between my devices. That doesn't warrant a subscription. The quality of the software totally warrants buying. 

 

http://blog.bittorrent.com/2014/11/19/what-to-expect-next-from-sync/

 

"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."

 

They have absolutely improved some things, including the interface. They also took away the core functionality by reducing the number of shared folders to 10 (I am aware that subfolders are not counted in this).

 

Thank you! This is really the issue. Previously the software fit an existing need, but the new version reverse this, forcing us to either pay or restructure in order to meet the needs of the program. 

 

EDIT: This forum is lumping all of my separate replies into one. I don't recall it doing that yesterday.

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.

 

NO. Data measuring and capping is way more painful than a 10 folder limit.  

[purepulp]

Registered just to say I'm severely disappointed in the way this turned out.  BTSync 2.0 is like Digg 4.0.  Stop fucking with the software.  Just make a good version and be done with it.  Over time you've taken out so many things and made it all complicated for no damn reason.  Way back in the early days of the mobile app you could send files to someone directly without creating a folder.  Gone now.  Then you kind of abandoned the key idea in favor of who knows what that BS is now.  Keys are still there but you could't leave well enough alone.  Now you're offering a crippled version of your software and just pissing off your user base.

Edited March 5, 2015 by GreatMarko
Removed personal attack against another forum member

[Dahaniel]

I have to say that I don't really get the subscription thing... If a service hosts data I completely understand that I have to pay a subscription fee but for a software that runs on my machines and where I do provide all the storage and the bandwidth and I have to do all the configuration, I do not want to pay a subscription fee.

For software I pay one time and then again for a new major update, subscriptions are for service or rent of server capacity/bandwidth...

[Fear Na Boinne]

 

Agreed, sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people misinform others, my apologies.

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!

 

 

Someone influential will read this post. If that person is you, read this post in its entirety, for it will be well worth your time.

 

To Whom It May Concern,

 

What you do from this moment will determine whether you get hundreds of dollars from me over the next several years. And not just hundreds of dollars from me, but hundreds of dollars from my family and friends, all at a net customer acquisition cost of $0. Hundreds of dollars for a product whose paying customers supply you with an astronomical profit margin, and whose non-paying customers cost you nothing. Hundreds of dollars, or nothing.

 

You have a rapidly growing thread of five pages in one day (!) comprised in no small part of devoted users of your product who went through the trouble of registering an account (!!!) to voice their displeasure at your organization's failure of integrity. This is no small event. Take heed. Software doesn't sell itself. The enterprise behind the software sells the software, and if I can't trust the enterprise, how can I trust the software?

 

I've written this small piece because I love your software, but when I purchase something I'm not just buying a product, I'm doing business with a company. Will your company fail or succeed at the most basic of customer service? Here's to the hope of future business.

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.

[sciurius]

Regardless of many of the other things written in this thread: While btsync does a good job most of the time, often it gets in a "Out of sync" status or otherwise just stops synching. This problem has been mentioned here many, many times yet it still exists in the 1.4.111 version.

I am very reluctant to even consider paying for a product that has such serious flaws.

Also, the subscription model implies that a) internet connectivity is mandatory, so I cannot deploy it anymore in a secure, isolated network, and BitTorrent can change the fee and start charging whatever they like anytime.

[drone9]

I have been using BTSync for quite a while and when I found the announcement of Sync Pro in my mailbox I thought, 'why not pay for a product you have been happily using for so long?'. Then the first shell hit home. They really went for a yearly subscription model?! For no less than $40?! Really?! Heading to the homepage  to find a comparison chart. 'Unlimited number of folders' for Pro only?! A sinking feeling sets in. Off to the forum to see what others have to say. The free version is limited to 10 sync folders?!? Please say it ain't so...

 

Currently I feel I should have followed my gut feeling when v2 was announced. That was one of the few times I spent time on the forum gathering information on the current state of things. Back then I came to the conclusion that all is well since full functionality was promised to be kept for the free version also. Guess you shouldn't believe what it says on the internet...

 

I am not opposed to paying for BTSync. On the contrary. I would have paid for Pro even if I don't need the additional functionality just to support the project. As a private user a one time payment of $10, $20 or $30 I would have paid without batting an eye. More than that would have given me pause for consideration but I might still have gone for Pro. I also would have no qualms paying twice, once for a desktop and once for a mobile app. But I won't even consider paying for a yearly subscription for reasons mentioned by others like tjluoma.

 

Having various shared folders, some with single users some with groups, the 10 folder limit breaks the app for me. I will stick to 1.4 and actively start looking into other options. My thanks to those suggesting SyncThing which looks like an interesting alternative.

 

In my circle of friends and family I am the one on watch out for new software and services that I and others might find useful. Even the not so tech savvy I take by the hand and help them with installation and first steps. A considerable number of people installed BTSync due to my recommendation. While there is still a chance that the current situation may be rectified I don't have my hopes up. As of today I will caution if not actively discourage people from using BTSync. I regret not being more cautious when I first heard about BTSync going Pro.

[jkf]

 I've been using Sync for a while now and I knew that at some point they would need to find a way to fund their development.  

I don't need what Pro provides but i see that it make life easier with the automatic linking of folders on all devices I control.

 

 So I'll pay $40 a year to help support their development.   I could get by with the Free version quite easily but I'll get the Pro version anyway.    I don't mind paying someone for doing work for me.   I was initially opposed to Adobe's switch to a subscription model as well but now I like it.   I get the best they have without having to consider "should I upgrade or not??"  every time they come up with a new version.

 

 For the person with a family of 4 I'd suggest that not everyone needs the Pro version.   The kids can probably get by with the free version.  Maybe you only need one Pro version for  Dad or Mom.

[ng_4r]

I know it's not fair sign in just to grumble, while lot of supporters really did a great job in order to grow this service during the beta testing.

Before all, I'm not here to grumble, I'd like to make a really fair purpose I think lot of users could agree with.

 

Why don't pass from "free" vs. "PRO" distinction to a more equitable "home/private" vs. "commercial/business"?

 

HOME/PRIVATE --> unlimited folders shared within personal devices, 10 (or even less) folders shared with others. Sync-all option should be welcome. Free of charge or maybe a one time payment.

 

COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS --> unlimited folders shared with customers, contributors, staff team ecc... and maybe a dedicated proxy (or something similar - I'm not an ace in that field) to ensure stability and more speed. More actually PRO features. Monthly or yearly paying method.

 

In this way BT Team could keep the promise written during the advertising campaign ("verba volant, scripta manent" ancients said) and people who use this software as a working tool, who makes money with it, will pay for it.

 

People who simply need to have same folders on different devices (photos, documents and other stuff) or wants to backup things maybe could pay it as a Backup software.

 

That's my opinion.

 

I think BT Sync is a great tool, I love it and I think I'll continue to use it. 10 folders limit is not something to difficult to deceive, if you only use it for personal use. If you need to share different things with different people (customers) maybe you need a personal NAS. in this point of view BT Sync PRO (or a future Business version) is indispensable.

[Guest idef1x]

I think it sucks most for all the people putting time and effort into testing and filing bug reports until version 2 and now it's like BitTorrent says to you thanks for testing and now please pay for it. OK you get a 25% discount as thanks, but still have to pay. I 'll give syncthing a chance now. At least I can fork it if they are also decide to take a path I don't like..

[mrmachine]

I don't care if the free version has a folder limit of 10. It's disappointing that you did go back on your word that pro would have new/additional features and free would retain existing features, but it's not a deal breaker.

 

What is a deal breaker is paying a subscription fee for software where you only need to provide minimal infrastructure to facilitate it. In fact, one of the key features has been that users can completely bypass your infrastructure to ensure their privacy and to ensure that old versions will continue to work for as long as the binaries still run on the current OS version.

 

I would happily pay a fee to purchase the software. I'd even pay micro-transactions to unlock specific features. I'd also pay a higher but one time "lifetime" price, if you insist on going for subscription pricing. But if it's subscription or nothing, then I'm afraid it will be nothing.

 

If the sales pitch for the subscription pricing model is that users get new features because developers get paid every year, how is that any different than the old perpetual licensing model? The difference seems to be that users are locked-in, because if they eventually decide that the new features are no longer worth the annual fee, not only do they miss out on the new features but they lose all access to existing features that they already paid for and would like to keep using.

[SenorLoco]

I'm sure this isn't how they expected the launch of 2.0 to go but how long until we get an official response from the BTSync team? Now of course those who are disappointed are going to be the most vocal and I'm sure they have a large group of users who are happy with the direction things have turned but there is also a large group that is ready to jump ship and its those who are disappointed that are more likely to continue to be vocal and will have a hard time recommending anything BT related.

Really all I'm looking for is some sort of official response. Either say you messed up and let us know what changes are coming or tells us nothing is changing so we can pack up and find another solution.

[GreatMarko]

I'm sure this isn't how they expected the launch of 2.0 to go but how long until we get an official response from the BTSync team?

One official response has so far been given by Erik Pounds, Vice President of Sync, earlier in this thread.

 

Further official responses will most likely follow in due course...

[w411]

"Agreed, sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people misinform others, my apologies."

 

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"... 

 

 

- My OPINION is that a reduced scope is not a reduction of core functionality.  Once again, allow me to put it into simpler terms:

 

- "Agreed, sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people present incorrect FACTS to others, my apologies."

 

- Does it make sense to you now?

 

- now back to the actual topic

 

"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."

 

Yes, it is absolutely about the users and what we (in this case "we" refers to the people that are happy with the product) think.

 

There are 5 pages or so of comments at this point mostly from people that "can't believe BTsync had the nerve to mislead them" (that by the way is sarcasm), public forums like this one are often filled with the people that will put more effort into complaining about things than they ever would put into finding a solution.

 

There will never be 100% satisfaction with any product or service, unfortunately in technology, a lot of it stems from users that don't understand how the product or service works.  I'm not saying that applies to anyone in here, but I'm sure everyone has experienced seeing that in themselves or others.

 

Take into consideration the fact that you don't see many people that are proponents of the pro offering . . . why do you think that is?

 

Customers don't have to endorse a product or service for it to be successful, they just need to feel it's worth paying for, which I do.

 

We all understand that people FEEL like they were lied to, whether I disagree with it or not is irrelevant, you feel lied to, they are forcing you to do something you don't want to do, the man is getting you down . . . we get it.

 

Now how about contributing some ideas other than "put it back the way it was". Or at the very least take action and stop using the product, if they see a huge drop in user base, you better believe they will rethink strategies.

 

Edit: I see a lot of references as to the trustworthiness of BTsync as a company, but who's to assume any of us are trustworthy, we could be shills for other competitors, developers of BTsync or just liars for fun . . . not a fact, not my opinion.

[ng_4r]

As I told before, for me and my way of using it 10 folder limits is not a problem.

 

The point is that if you say it's a free service and it will always be free with all the features you give and a new update changes the statement maybe you could loose followers.

It's the same as Zuckerberg starting asking a fee to use Fb, while it's written on the home page "It’s free and always will be". 
 

[GreatMarko]

@all - The topic of Sync 2.0 is understandably generating a lot of quite heated comment & opinion here in the forums, and feelings are evidently running high.

 

Now, everyone's opinion here counts, is welcomed and indeed encouraged, and is equally as valid as any one else's opinion here.

 

However, please bare in mind that petty "bickering" or personal attacks against other contributors or their particular opinions is not constructive to the overall discussion, and will not be tolerated.

 

You don't have to agree with everyone's opinion here, and you're more than welcome to put across your own view point, but please try to do so in a way that's respectful of others, without belittling their opinions.

 

Folks, Let's keep things mature, civil and on topic for the benefit of all readers.

 

Thank you for your understanding and co-operation.

[Merk7]

I am really surprised at how poorly this was rolled out to current users. No advance notice. No explanation of the new folder limits (until after-the-fact). Renegging on prior promises. No 'grandfathering' or other benefit for current users. Complete loss of goodwill. 

 

For those of you now seeking an alternative, the open source and totally free FreeFileSync is a pretty good option. Here is an old, somewhat out-of-date comparison between the two. Also, there is a wikipedia article comparing file syncing software.

 

Merk