fdbryant3

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

Recommended Posts

When 2.0 was released there was a lot of grumbling about it being a paid subscription.  While I understand that point of view there were 2 overlooked facts that made it exciting to me:

 

1) There will still be a free version of 2.0

2) That free version will be able to do whatever the current 1.4

 

With those 2 facts I was good with the direction they were taking.  I don't like the subscription model, I think this should be a 1 time payment with no upgrades unless I buy future versions, but that is neither here nor there.  If the new features were good enough I just might subscribe.

 

Unforntunately, they have broken the second part of that promise by putting a 10 folder limit on the free version.  Sorry that doesn't work for me.  To my knowelege I can do unlimited folders in 1.4 and I would have expected to be able to do so in the free version of 2.0.

 

This is really disappointing and I hope they will reconsider.  At this point though I am going to have to reconsider whether I will be sticking with Sync and if I'll continue recommending it every opportunity I get as an alternative to Dropbox et al (and I have written a good bit text explaining to people what makes BTSync a better solution).

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came here to find out what this "folder limit" was.

10 folders? That's a complete joke. The software, as great and wonderful it is, has become practically unusable over night :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair......when they say 10 sync'd folders they (I believe) mean 10 sync relationships and that subfolders would be sync'd as part of that.

 

In other words I could have the following:

 

  • Sync'd Folder 1 with 50 subfolders
  • Sync'd Folder 2 with 5 subfolders
  • Sync'd Folder 3 with 500 subfolders
  • Sync'd Folder 4 with 42 subfolders
  • Sync'd Folder 5 with 25 subfolders
  • Sync'd Folder 6 with 33 subfolders
  • Sync'd Folder 7 with 0 subfolders
  • Sync'd Folder 8 with 20 subfolders
  • Sync'd Folder 9 with 2 subfolders
  • Sync'd Folder 10 with 345 subfolders

And all of that will sync properly.  However I would need a Pro subscription to set up Sync'd Folder 11.  So 2.0 can still be pretty useful free.....however I am not happy they would put this limit particularly when promising no 1.4 features would be put in the pro version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with this. I really hope they are going to reconsider this, because I am no heavy user and I already have more than 10 folders, yet the 40/year is a price tag I will not justify when most of my use-cases could easily be handled by rsync or unison or other solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 10 folder limit is a big disappointment.  The typical free user will be more frugal with their usage and will not introduce new users to the service (because they don't want to exceed the folder limit).  This will probably slow adoption just as legitimacy with mainstream users starts to look like a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just ridiculous when you think that should BittorrentSync be able to gain any traction at all, you are likely to sync folders with a multitude of people (as I do with Dropbox, where it is perfectly possible with a free account).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with this. I really hope they are going to reconsider this, because I am no heavy user and I already have more than 10 folders, yet the 40/year is a price tag I will not justify when most of my use-cases could easily be handled by rsync or unison or other solutions.

 

$40/year ??? As far as I can tell, the license is per device, so surely that means the minimum cost is actually $80/year (no point having sync on a single device!!)...or am I reading the EULA wrong...

 

 

During the Service Period, You may:

  • use one copy of the Software on a single computer;
  • make one copy of the Software for back-up or archival purposes, or copy the Software onto the hard disk of Your computer and retain the original for back-up or archival purposes; and
  • use the Software on a network, provided that You have a licensed copy of the Software for each computer that can access the Software over that network.

I presume a NAS will also count as a device, so with two NAS, 2 desktops and 2 laptops, I'm now running up a bill of $240/year just for myself...if I include the kit used by my wife and kids that's another 5 devices...

 

And business users can't use the free edition either...I was looking at using it with clients as an intro and then "up-selling" them to pro...

 

I'm now forced to have another look at PowerFolder...and abandoning my current BTS setup...not happy using an unsupported version...

 

Feeling very disappointed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surprised by the folder limit, too, even though I've been using the Sync 2.0 alpha and been keeping up with news about the Pro version. There was no mention of this in the original Pro announcement: http://blog.bittorrent.com/2014/11/19/what-to-expect-next-from-sync/

 

It feels like a bit of a sneaky/deceptive move, to quietly pull this out with the 2.0 final release, and I'm definitely disappointed about the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$40/year ??? As far as I can tell, the license is per device, so surely that means the minimum cost is actually $80/year (no point having sync on a single device!!)...or am I reading the EULA wrong...

 

I presume a NAS will also count as a device, so with two NAS, 2 desktops and 2 laptops, I'm now running up a bill of $240/year just for myself...if I include the kit used by my wife and kids that's another 5 devices...

 

And business users can't use the free edition either...I was looking at using it with clients as an intro and then "up-selling" them to pro...

 

I'm now forced to have another look at PowerFolder...and abandoning my current BTS setup...not happy using an unsupported version...

 

Feeling very disappointed...

 

The costs are for one user. You have one identity and that can contain all your machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for all of your feedback. We’ve committed to developing a free version of Sync alongside Pro, and will continue to do so. With Sync 2.0’s free version, there are no limits on folder capacity, nor will there be any performance throttling. 10 active folders is a lot of syncing activity and we feel that those who need more capabilities will benefit much from Sync Pro.


To ensure everyone understands the functionality that was mentioned earlier by @fdbryant3...10 folders can be added to Sync. There can be any number of folders enclosed inside that high-level folder, which will all synchronize to devices connected to the folder.

We feel that the free version of Sync is a great product that will satisfy the needs of a lot of users. With the functionality/usability enhancements and core engine improvements for 2.0, it is much improved over Sync 1.4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't the issue. We were promised that, whatever else happened, we would still have the same functionality as 1.4. A 10 folder limit is a pretty big drop in functionality, and breaks my particular use case. I will happily pay for your product, but I will not pay for a subscription. 

 

If you really must have the subscription model, perhaps you could consider something like Plex's lifetime subscription? (Pay once at a higher price for a lifetime subscription). 

 

And while I'm at it, is there a way to opt out of the free trial?

 

Thanks everyone for all of your feedback. We’ve committed to developing a free version of Sync alongside Pro, and will continue to do so. With Sync 2.0’s free version, there are no limits on folder capacity, nor will there be any performance throttling. 10 active folders is a lot of syncing activity and we feel that those who need more capabilities will benefit much from Sync Pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOPE If BT isn't going to keep their promise of having the same functionality from 1.4 to 2, I've got no reason to trust BT will keep any other promises they make.

 

And I buy software, I don't rent it. And $40/year when there's not even hosting of data by BT? That's even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOPE If BT isn't going to keep their promise of having the same functionality from 1.4 to 2, I've got no reason to trust BT will keep any other promises they make.

Hear hear!

Not only that, but when you're trusting them to keep your data secure through encryption, and you don't believe they're trustworthy enough to keep a promise, then they've just lost 90% of their business model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really needs to be a "BTSync Home" product that's a single, fairly cheap one off cost.

 

This doesn't impact me much at all, I only sync a single large tree and I've a compelling use case for the Pro features so will be subscribing anyway once the NAS clients get updated.

 

But I can definitely see this being seen as a big degradation for a lot of home users who may never need some of the fancier Pro features.

 

It's also definitely going back on the statements originally made about how 2.0 was handled which is pretty disappointing to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that response from the VP was such a "corporate" response. How about a bit of goodwill for the longtime beta users... Like "okay blah blah blah we provide great value to our customers, etc etc etc, AND to thank our beta testers, we're offering a lifetime subscription option for a limited time and we have decided to remove the 10 folder limit." Goodwill = recovered. But... nope...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't expect to find this thread so huge...lol. I am also a non-subscription person. I don't even mind paying yearly IF the software is good and is being further developed. But I certainly don't do any auto-pay methods, no thanks. Too bad, it seemed like good stuff. The link in the post above (for syncthings) is VERY inetresting...ha ha, cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for all of your feedback. We’ve committed to developing a free version of Sync alongside Pro, and will continue to do so. With Sync 2.0’s free version, there are no limits on folder capacity, nor will there be any performance throttling. 10 active folders is a lot of syncing activity and we feel that those who need more capabilities will benefit much from Sync Pro.

To ensure everyone understands the functionality that was mentioned earlier by @fdbryant3...10 folders can be added to Sync. There can be any number of folders enclosed inside that high-level folder, which will all synchronize to devices connected to the folder.

We feel that the free version of Sync is a great product that will satisfy the needs of a lot of users. With the functionality/usability enhancements and core engine improvements for 2.0, it is much improved over Sync 1.4.

 

*lol* You say "10 active folders is a lot of syncing activity and we feel that those who need more capabilities will benefit much from Sync Pro" as if anything more is a burden and yet then say "There can be any number of folders enclosed inside that high-level folder.."

 

Your statements conflict each other. The 10 folder limit is completely arbitrary to get those that may not be creative in organizing their data to buy the Pro version.  That's all it is, a lie, just like when BT said the current features would stay.

 

With all due respect, you can take your "Pro" version and jam it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or has everyone lost their mind?  10 folders is a LOT of syncing.  If you want to sync your entire PC library that is only 4 folders.  Or, if you were to set up exclusions for non-needed folders and files/types you could do it in one folder.  So, with a little re-working you could sync the libraries of 10 users across all devices.  That seems like a LOT to me.  Remember that you've been getting the software for free this entire time.  Do you really expect to get something for nothing forever?  Compare the price of this to the price of one of the cloud services and I think it will be pretty clear that even $40 a year is really cheap.  Don't like it, don't use it, that's your right.  But they are the ones selling it, and let's not forget that they are a BUSINESS that is doing this to make MONEY, and they have the right to provide what ever they want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or has everyone lost their mind?  10 folders is a LOT of syncing.  If you want to sync your entire PC library that is only 4 folders.  

 

I have no idea which entire PC library you are referring to. But that misses the point. The said one thing, that they wouldn't remove functionality from the free version, and then said another thing, which is a 10 folder limit. 

 

And while we're on the topic of something for nothing, they used the community to test their product for free. Do you think the majority of us would have been testing version 2 knowing where it was leading?

 

There's a lot of ill will right now, and what they do in the next day or so will have a fairly big impact on who does and doesBn't use their product going forward. If they get rid of the limitation, I'll use it. If not, I'll pursue other options. Honestly, in spite of today I would rather continue using btsync. But they need to deliver what they promised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, it's safe to say I, at least, have not lost my mind.  I have a clear memory of promises of no features removed from 1.4.

 

I also have cognitive faculties to realize that $40/year is a huge bargain - for BitTorrent.  $40/year and I have to provide my own storage and bandwidth.

 

Nope, my Spidey sense started tingling as soon as they announced 2.0.  I've already been testing SyncThing in anticipation of this move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things:

  1. It's sad that free features in 1.4 didn't carry over to 2.0, especially when we were assured they would.

    That said:
     
  2. Perspective point A: this is still the sync solution with the best cross-platform support.
  3. Perspective point B: it's still more capable than Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive, etc.
  4. Perspective point C: the only alternative paid P2P product I know of, Cubby, costs ~$90/year. I know this as a Cubby refugee myself.

    If that doesn't make you feel any better about the situation:
     
  5. Look into - and donate to - Syncthing, a completely FLOSS alternative, albeit one that's at a considerably less advanced development stage than BitTorrent Sync.

    Furthermore:
     
  6. One of the problems with developing a project like this is there's no intrinsic business model for it as P2P by definition relies on resources at user-owned nodes rather than 3rd party servers. As such, the only way for developers to profit is to introduce artificial constraints such as the ones seen here.

    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.

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.