fdbryant3

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

Recommended Posts

This is simply greed. We are quickly reaching a point where choices like this won't be an option for software developers.

 

You don't charge for features. You charge for infrastructure.

 

Anyone and their brother (or sister) can create a GitHub account, gather some likeminded coders, and re-create your project BETTER than you. If this was a web-service, then I would get it... but a downloadable app, that doesn't tax bittorrents resources one iota to offer things like unlimited folders, to charge is ridiculous.

 

I'm already researching SyncThing and plan on finding an open source solution soon.

 

Bad move Bit Torrent. This doesn't just push away the users that like the product, it kills your user loyalty. I've been selling your product to family and friends since I first stumbled across it. That ends now.

 

Peace out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone and their brother (or sister) can create a GitHub account, gather some likeminded coders, and re-create your project BETTER than you. If this was a web-service, then I would get it... but a downloadable app, that doesn't tax bittorrents resources one iota to offer things like unlimited folders, to charge is ridiculous.

 

 

Your understanding of software development and the engineering behind BT Sync is laughable. Even if the behind the scenes technical smarts weren't important, you would be hard pressed to find a piece of software such as BT Sync that is available on basically all platforms (granted Windows Mobile is missing, but once Windows 10 comes out and the unified backend exists, I'm fairly confident we'll see something then.). 

 

But that would be ignoring a very significant issue. BT Sync is not a trivial piece of software. It took many intelligent and professional individuals a lot of time to develop and create. Open source is great, but even with all the time in the world, a viable piece of software might not exist. Because no matter how giving an individual is, expertise and time are not free. 

 

So be mad, for sure, but please don't insinuate something that you clearly know very little about. It would be like walking into a Porsche design studio, seeing the latest design blueprints for a 911, and saying, Pssh I could design a better one, when you have no training in any relevant field of discipline needed to design and build a car. You only make yourself look like a fool.   

 

2d

 

PS: I don't think you're a fool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Actually they're not the same, one is a Cloud based solution (with 3rd party involvement), the other is a P2P based one (no 3rd party running costs).

 

The only thing to consider with P2P based solutions are development costs for new software releases, so the 'subscription model' (usually best represented when providing a SERVICE) make little sense here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they're not the same, one is a Cloud based solution (with 3rd party involvement), the other is a P2P based one (no 3rd party running costs).

 

The only thing to consider with P2P based solutions are development costs for new software releases, so the 'subscription model' (usually best represented when providing a SERVICE) make little sense here.

 

 

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?

 

There are the development costs for the software but also the maintenance of the relay and tracking servers to consider. (Which subsequently qualify as 3rd party involvement.) You could use sync and circumvent those services, but you'd need a dns service (assuming you don't have a static IP address) and would have to redirect every time you connected from a different location.(Your phone would be particularly annoying to work with as most carriers provide dynamic IPs that change as the tower you're using changes.) It's messy but totally do able. In this way those servers are a convenience that does cost BT money to maintain. 

 

I'm again not saying that I wouldn't prefer a single purchase cost, and additional upgrade costs over the current subscription model, but based on your argument the subscription model is indeed justified. 

 

2d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you very much for the paid version 2.0.

 

It should probably be a gift for all of us for testing and endlessly reporting while helping to bugfix earlier versions.

 

Lot of us (users from this forum) spend days with testing and bug fixing, installing lab environments and so on. Why ?

Probably because we all want to have excellent sync app.

But when they finally looked promising, bang, paid version.

 

Do you think that we've all been doing because we finally lived to see the paid version?

 

I'm personally totally disappointed and lost of confidence.

 

You used a large group of people to help you to develop this app and now you still want to pay? This could be called as a fraud.

 

I urge all: STOP helping bug fixing and feedbacking this product. This is not and never will be OPEN SOURCE!

 

I really did not expect that I will see such behavior on your part.

[removed - RomanZ]

Edited by RomanZ
Offensive language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add one more vote to this discussion.

 

I have no intention of paying for a subscription. My use does not warrant it.

I use this entirely over a lan. I disable all external relay and tracker servers.

 

I have no problem with the product having a subscription for the use of the servers. BitTorrent is a private company and they need to make a profit. I do not expect BitTorrent to provide me with a high quality product for free.

 

I would be happy to pay a one off cost to purchase the product and then be limited to LAN only. I don't think this is unreasonable since I am not going to incurr any operational costs to the company.

 

So I would ask for some or all of the following:

1. Allow me to purchase the product and set me free on my LAN. I WANT to pay you money but I don't need your servers and don't intent to pay for them.

2. Remove the 10 folder limit for LAN-only use on the free version.

3. Take away the daily upgrade nag-ware on version 1.4 (especially since it ignores the checkbox to stop the reminder)


I probably shouldn't pour fuel on the fire but what the hey...the righteous indignation of people makes me mad.

 

Bad move Bit Torrent. This doesn't just push away the users that like the product, it kills your user loyalty. I've been selling your product to family and friends since I first stumbled across it. That ends now.

You haven't been selling the product to family. None of them have paid for the cost of development.

Your freeloading ends now.

 

Having said that the price is WAY too high and I won't be paying for it in its current form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using BitSync since the first beta.  I loved it.  But this new upgrade extortion is bad for business.  I would be willing to pay once for a sofware product, or pay annually for hosted storage with a certain number of Gigabytes.  But there is no way in hell I am going to pay $100 a year just to have BitSync.

 

There was a great hosting service called BtSync that I was using for my backup with BitTorrent sync.  But when the plans of 2.0 and 3.0 came out they refunded my money and shut it down.

 

Long story short - BitTorrent Labs needs to poll their customers as to WHAT we are willing to pay for.  I would pay for BitSync with offshore hosted storage OUTSIDE AMERICA.  I will not pay a subscription just for BitSync itself, as much as I loved it before you guys BROKE it.

 

Time to find a new sync product. :((((

Edited by kengriffith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is no way in hell I am going to pay $100 a year just to have BitSync.

 

Actually, it is $39/year.

 

 

There was a great hosting service called BtSync that I was using for my backup with BitTorrent sync.  But when the plans of 2.0 and 3.0 came out they refunded my money and shut it down.

 

Ugh.. I think you're a little bit confused.

There was Alpha & Beta 1.X and and then there was the "final" release of BitTorrent Sync 2.0 as the first public release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me join the number of fans of btsync that are disappointed with the direction it is headed.  

 

I have been using this for quite a while now and really like the software.  I upgraded from 1.4 to 2.0 and was surprised but not shocked to see that they were going to a paid Pro version.  It gave me 30 days to try it and I was fully ready to pay for the the Pro version when my time expired.

 

Then I saw the price tag.  And worse yet that it was an annual subscription service.  

 

I use this on my local LAN only.  I don't access it from outside of my home.  So, I'm going to download one piece of software on my server, one piece of software to my phone, and (as long as that version serves my needs) never interact with BitTorrent again, yet they want me to pay them annually?  Very, very disappointing.  

 

I can keep my use case under the 10 folder max, so the free version can be made to work.  But if the software was a little more reasonably priced and sold to me once, not charged each year, I would have been a paying customer.  At this point, I'm not sure I even want to keep the free version installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@all, you may be interested to know that Sync 2.2 has now been released - and the Sync team have listened!
 
Gone is the 10-folder limit in the "free" version, and gone is the "annual" pricing for personal use of the Pro version!
 
Read more here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chapeau!

 

This was definitely the right move. As many others I liked the simplicity of sharing content only by knowing the secret.

 

I also was trying out Syncthing, but it was cumbersome since it was necessary to mutually grant access between all nodes, and also not reliable when syncing. I have been using BTSync 1.4.111 since (which also had several bugs), which was still the best solution to sync between 4 computers and 3 mobile devices (and >10 folders - not every folder should be visible on every device).

 

THANK YOU!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really get this. First Sync is all "please use 2.0 folders!", now I have ninety billion 2.0 folders and it's all "ADVANCED FOLDERS are for Pro users only!".

Similarly, first Sync is all "auto-sync your folders across your devices! just add new ones!", then it's like "oh wait that's for Pro only".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless they have a way to remote kill 1.4.111 why would anyone switch?

 

Don't get me wrong, I would have been happy to support a "Yay we are out of beta give us some money" ONCE, but I don't rent software services, and I don't pay to get what I once could free.

 

I still like BTSync because I delude myself into thinking it creates additional bittorrent trafficto obfuscate and confuse, but isn't anyone who engages in shernanigans using VPN thingys already?

Edited by Pugsly Addams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I would have been happy to support a "Yay we are out of beta give us some money" ONCE, but I don't rent software services,

 

But Bittorrent Sync 2.2 can now be purchased as a perpetual license. So, you give money once, and get all the nice 2.0 features (selective sync, automatic sync of folders on all devices, the new folder permission system, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lux

Your 2.0 (advanced) folders will work fine in 2.2. Main feature of 2.0 folders (access control) was not available for Sync Free in 2.0, so no major changes here.

 

Similarly, first Sync is all "auto-sync your folders across your devices! just add new ones!", then it's like "oh wait that's for Pro only".

Auto-sync is still free. Selective Sync was part of PRO (and is part of Pro). There was just confusion about naming it: Selective Sync was called "Sync All Off". Sorry about that - we've changed name to avoid even further confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone clarify this as I am not seeing how the answer addresses the question? (from FAQ)

 

Q: If I purchase a non-subscription license of Sync for personal use, will I be charged for major product updates in the future?

A: Non-subscription licenses will be subject to the standard product warranty but no Priority subscription support.

 

 

http://help.getsync.com/customer/portal/articles/2113928

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kramttocs You look for FAQ clarification, or have another question that is related to it? Sorry, I can't find what exactly needs to be clarified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is the same as the FAQ question: If I purchase a non-subscription license of Sync for personal use, will I be charged for major product updates in the future?
 
The 'Answer' refers to a standard product warranty and subscription support which I don't see how that answers the question.

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.