fdbryant3

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

Recommended Posts

I use Sync since the closed Beta and I was always happy with the app. But what now happened is just a shitty move by the developers.

We've discussed the folder limit and epounds answered that this is enough for most users. I don't agree with this as I also have way more than 10 so I would have to get a license. I could live with that if it was a normal license you buy once and use forever - but it is a subscription.

My big question would be: why the hell do I need to buy a subscription? For what? Which ongoing costs do you have that I should renew the license every year? Do you choose a subscription because you would present us Bittorrent Sync 3 in one year where we would have to upgrade again for 40 bucks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just too poorly executed. We should have been your greatest advocates, potentially bringing it into companies and to people around us. No amount of advertising can beat a large, vocal and happy user base. You built that quite well during the beta period, and now you seem quite determined to flush it down the toilet.

 

Go and study Evernote, and take notes (perhaps using Evernote) on how they grew their paying user base. They started with a very large and very satisfied free user base. 

 

The idea is that we want you to use Evernote forever. Once you’re using it, we want you to keep using it, and it’s more important that you stay than you pay us. We want the engagement. The longer you use it, the higher the perceived value gets. And the higher the perceived value, the more [likely that] you’re willing to pay. It’s up to us to make something that you want to pay for. 

 

They don't do this by crippling their product. Go and read up on them. http://allthingsd.com/20131226/evernote-ceo-phil-libin-on-turning-loyal-users-into-paying-customers/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's almost comical seeing all the new users in this thread that FINALLY felt the need to register and invest a few minutes of their time to post "feedback".  Imagine now spending 1000's of hours developing the software and interacting endlessly with the communities suggestions, complaints and bug reports.  When was the last time you spent even a single 1000 hours doing something for people (other than family) and of course did it all for free?  I know I haven't, and I say hats off to the developers.

 

3 pages of complaining with very minimal useful input, don't just bitch about how you don't want to spend money and how sad you are that "promises" were broken.

 

@elysium

"10 folders is a complete joke"

- I use 4 folders

 

folder 1 - 22 folders | 77,000 files | 115 GB

folder 2 - 8,457 folders | 86,300 files | 38.6 GB

folder 3 - 580 folders | 23,400 files | 60.5 GB

folder 4 - 62 folders | 181,721 files | 24 GB

 

9,121 folders | 368,421 files | 238.1 GB

 

@MrsAngelD

"I've had multiple folders set up for a long time"

- I used Windows XP for a long time, time to move forward.

 

@michaelk42

"I buy software, I don't rent it"

- That's handy, let me know where you bought your Netflix.

 

"$40/year when there's not even hosting of data by BT?"

- I feel like you may have missed the whole point of BT Sync.

 

@hungarianhc

"to thank our beta testers, we're offering a lifetime subscription option"

- We all have been beta testers, how would that make sense?

 

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

- BT isn't charging for data of any kind (and I don't see why they ever would), BT is still simple, BT is still free, Bt is still secure . . . maybe you meant they did a 360?

 

@mexter

"Do you think the majority of us would have been testing version 2 knowing where it was leading?"

- To one of the most flexible ways to maintain an unlimited repository of ALL of your data without having to worry about having your iCloud account being hacked . . . I'm sorry, are we supposed to be saying no here?

 

@smajor

"I've already been testing SyncThing in anticipation of this move"

- I would hope people regularly evaluate all of their software and services, that's how you stay current.

 

@delegatevoid

"business support should have been something like: 24/7 technical support"

- You just posted in the location for 24/7 support, better response in here than MOST paid providers that I deal with.

 

@steo

"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??"

- Yes! That's how development progresses, when you can pay developers and move forward.

 

@wiseadam

"Sell outs"

- . . . welcome new user with a single post that has never contributed to the community.

 

@clouseau

"Now I understand even more deebly how important it is to use and support OPEN SOURCE projects"

- Support like you have demonstrated here? @greatmarko had to take MORE time to edit the profanity out of your post, fantastic to have "contributors" like you.

 

"I'm started emergeny process to move out from BTSync in our company!"

- The current version is still unchanged . . . not sure why that would constitute an emergency.

 

"BTSync 2.0 is born dead!"

- No, there are plenty of community members that understand BT is a great project and will fully support the pro version.  

 

@foo8ar

"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"

- Being aware of the bandwidth usages is not the same as having access to your information and "tracking" you.  You can't design a system to move data without being aware of how much data you need to scale for.  If you are that worried about others knowing how much data you have moved . . . perhaps the Internet isn't for you.

 

@sebijiski

"the price is really steep for what it is"

- Just over $3/month . . . I probably need to get some help from you creating my monthly budget if that is what you consider a "steep" price.

 

@kovah

"Do you choose a subscription because you would present us Bittorrent Sync 3 in one year"

- I hope so, and BT 4 in 2 years, BT 5 in 3 years!

 

@fnordsensei

"You built that quite well during the beta period, and now you seem quite determined to flush it down the toilet."

- It's amazing how many people in here think their own opinion somehow applies to the masses.  If you are that concerned about $40 I can only assume that restructuring your data to work within the 10 folder limit of 2.0 HAS to be less than an hour or two of work.

 

"Go and study Evernote, and take notes (perhaps using Evernote) on how they grew their paying user base. They started with a very large and very satisfied free user base."

- I have been a paying member of Evernote for the last couple of years, they are VERY slow to answer tickets and EXTREMELY slow to implement fixes.  I constantly have to use workarounds for things that don't work.  The only difference with Evernote is they started with a product that was very limited, BT had the foresight to include amazing features from the start and spoiled the users who now feel entitled.

 

For anyone else that thinks a 10 folder limit isn't enough, it's quite likely (although I'm sure there are a few exceptions) that you can restructure your data organization to work easily within those confines.  If you can't, phone a friend with some logic and creativity skills.

 

I would like to see constructive feedback about alternative services out there that people have found for syncing data.  It's fine to say open source is the way to go, but open source projects die off all the time, people get busy in life or lose interest in development, and walk away after all, they aren't accountable, no one paid them any money.

 

A few for the list:

 

P2P

 

GoodSync: should be called HorribleSync, most unresponsive support I have ever encountered.  My first migration after Live 

 

Mesh ceased operations.  I walked away from 3 paid licenses (@michael42 let me know if you would like those PAID software 

 

licenses).


 

Syncthing: haven't looked into this one yet, just found it today as a result of this thread, but I will look through it.


 

Sparkle Share:


 

Aero:


 

Non P2P

 

Cubby: by LogMeIn (who by the way completely shut down their free services last year after 10 years of providing a free 

 

remote login solution).


 

Spider Oak:


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTSync just blew it, big time.

 

I'm pretty sure that Richard Stallman would NOT approve.

 

*** UPDATE ***
User "w411" sounds like a shill and/or fanboy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@michaelk42
"I buy software, I don't rent it"
- That's handy, let me know where you bought your Netflix.
 

 

I'll gladly pay a subscription for services, but what service does Sync provide? As far as I can gather, the whole point is that nothing lives on their servers.

I'd gladly pay $40 for this piece of software. ONCE. If version 3.0 comes out next year with a bunch of sexy features, then I might consider paying again to get those features. But I don't want to give money in perpetuity to develop features I probably don't care about. Even in its current incarnation I don't have any use for most of the Pro features (my use case involves a single user).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's almost comical seeing all the new users in this thread that FINALLY felt the need to register and invest a few minutes of their time to post "feedback".  Imagine now spending 1000's of hours developing the software and interacting endlessly with the communities suggestions, complaints and bug reports.  When was the last time you spent even a single 1000 hours doing something for people (other than family) and of course did it all for free?  I know I haven't, and I say hats off to the developers.
 
3 pages of complaining with very minimal useful input, don't just bitch about how you don't want to spend money and how sad you are that "promises" were broken.
 
@mexter
"Do you think the majority of us would have been testing version 2 knowing where it was leading?"
- To one of the most flexible ways to maintain an unlimited repository of ALL of your data without having to worry about having your iCloud account being hacked . . . I'm sorry, are we supposed to be saying no here?

 

Yes, hats off to the developers. They made a fine product. I don't know the internal workings of Bittorrent, Inc. so I can't know if they had any say on this new direction.

 

I'll respond to mine. The answer is no. It's a flexible product, but they came up with a price and model that is far outside the bounds of reality. Knowing that, I would have transitioned out of the product back when 2.0 was announced. But they said that existing functionality would remain. This has proven to not be the case.

 

Also, with regard to your Netflix jab. There are absolutely other services out there, including Plex which pretty much covers that one. They have both an inexpensive subscription model and a very good free product. 

 

BTsync has been a great product. It may become one again. But so long as they are not being honest with their consumers, they won't. It's not the price, it's being able to take them at their word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll gladly pay a subscription for services, but what service does Sync provide? As far as I can gather, the whole point is that nothing lives on their servers.

I'd gladly pay $40 for this piece of software. ONCE. If version 3.0 comes out next year with a bunch of sexy features, then I might consider paying again to get those features. But I don't want to give money in perpetuity to develop features I probably don't care about. Even in its current incarnation I don't have any use for most of the Pro features (my use case involves a single user).

 

You can sync unlimited data (based on the storage capacity of the devices), between an unlimited number of devices (I haven't seen any device limits mentioned anywhere) regardless of OS across the globe . . . that seems like a pretty damn sexy service to me.

 

But, that's just me, if you don't need any of the pro features, you can use the free version.  Or if the pro version doesn't seem worth the price, go weigh out the alternatives.  There are all kinds of service providers out there and I hope everyone finds what works for them, home or business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ 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.

Yeah, I thought of that actually. But my biggest issue is that while they indeed deserve to make money on their product, they could gain much needed instant good promo by not losing most of the tester's confidence. Even a good product can fail at launch time if too much loss of support happens. Testers are almost guaranteed supporters and can make the needed difference for a new product. Out of principal, I don't think I will be giving them my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll gladly pay a subscription for services, but what service does Sync provide? As far as I can gather, the whole point is that nothing lives on their servers.

I'd gladly pay $40 for this piece of software. ONCE. If version 3.0 comes out next year with a bunch of sexy features, then I might consider paying again to get those features. But I don't want to give money in perpetuity to develop features I probably don't care about. Even in its current incarnation I don't have any use for most of the Pro features (my use case involves a single user).

 

This is the problem I have with the Pro cost.  If I saw a valid reason for a subscription I might consider it, but since all the data is stored on my own systems and isn't passing through any BTSync servers there is no reason for a subscription.  $40 for 2.0 and then an upgrade fee to 3.0 I could get onboard with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
@MrsAngelD
"I've had multiple folders set up for a long time"
- I used Windows XP for a long time, time to move forward.

 

There is no need to be rude. I have no problem paying for software, what I have a problem with is a subscription. I would gladly pay over $100.00 for a lifetime option of btsync with no major features added and security fixes only. If I want new features I would be happy to pay again for a version with those new features. But as it stands why do I need to pay $40.00 a year for this peice of software doesn't even offer remote hosting of my files?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need to be rude. I have no problem paying for software, what I have a problem with is a subscription. I would gladly pay over $100.00 for a lifetime option of btsync with no major features added and security fixes only. If I want new features I would be happy to pay again for a version with those new features. But as it stands why do I need to pay $40.00 a year for this peice of software doesn't even offer remote hosting of my files?

 

 

It's not rude, it's just progress . . . in technology and business and life, things constantly evolve.  It just is odd to me how much effort people will put into trying to keep things the same.

 

It was never a software intended to give you remote access to your files, but there are some very cost effective options for that out there.  Personally I use SplashTop, very good value for the money.

 

Here's just one example of how to justify the cost of BT Sync:  

 

- let's say an individual had 2 laptops and a desktop and they want to use a backup service (such as Carbonite)

- on the desktop you could create a folder c:\backups\laptop01 & c:\backups\laptop02

- sync the documents and whichever folders you wanted on each laptop to the appropriate folders

- purchase a Carbonite backup subscription for the desktop

- you now have a Carbonite backup of all 3 systems for the price of 1 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's just one example of how to justify the cost of BT Sync:  

 

- let's say an individual had 2 laptops and a desktop and they want to use a backup service (such as Carbonite)

- on the desktop you could create a folder c:\backups\laptop01 & c:\backups\laptop02

- sync the documents and whichever folders you wanted on each laptop to the appropriate folders

- purchase a Carbonite backup subscription for the desktop

- you now have a Carbonite backup of all 3 systems for the price of 1 

 

Ugliest workflow ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can sync unlimited data (based on the storage capacity of the devices), between an unlimited number of devices (I haven't seen any device limits mentioned anywhere) regardless of OS across the globe . . . that seems like a pretty damn sexy service to me.

 

But, that's just me, if you don't need any of the pro features, you can use the free version.  Or if the pro version doesn't seem worth the price, go weigh out the alternatives.  There are all kinds of service providers out there and I hope everyone finds what works for them, home or business.

 

It's not unlimited in the sense of something like Drive or Dropbox. It's unlimited in that you own and control all of the endpoints. It's unlimited in the sense that if you need another TB of data you go and buy an additional hard drive and install it yourself. And you pay for your own power and labor. 

 

What offer is a program that acts as an intermediary (assuming the default setup is used). So at best they're maintaining a tracker. The main thing that they do is update the BTsync software. That's not subscription-worthy. It's totally worth buying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugliest workflow ever.

 

Yes, a local and cloud backup of 3 systems for $59/year . . . not as elegant as the clearly thought out and concise alternative you offered based on your own workflow, but I am only working within the limits of my knowledge.

It's not unlimited in the sense of something like Drive or Dropbox. It's unlimited in that you own and control all of the endpoints. It's unlimited in the sense that if you need another TB of data you go and buy an additional hard drive and install it yourself. And you pay for your own power and labor. 

 

What offer is a program that acts as an intermediary (assuming the default setup is used). So at best they're maintaining a tracker. The main thing that they do is update the BTsync software. That's not subscription-worthy. It's totally worth buying. 

 

I guess as usual . . . I am wondering what your alternative solution is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not rude, it's just progress . . . in technology and business and life, things constantly evolve.  It just is odd to me how much effort people will put into trying to keep things the same.

 

If it's just business, then they took a very bad stumble out of the gate by lying to the original customers. 

Yes, a local and cloud backup of 3 systems for $59/year . . . not as elegant as the clearly thought out and concise alternative you offered based on your own workflow, but I am only working within the limits of my knowledge.

 

I guess as usual . . . I am wondering what your alternative solution is?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if they HAD lied to original supporters/users (not customers as no one paid for anything) it would have been a bad stumble.

 

It's unfortunate that no one will take the time to read the original "promise" that keeps being referred to:

 

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

 

For people that don't want to follow the link:

 

"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?""

 

It's still free, and there will still be a free version in 2.0 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a local and cloud backup of 3 systems for $59/year . . . not as elegant as the clearly thought out and concise alternative you offered based on your own workflow, but I am only working within the limits of my knowledge.

 

I guess as usual . . . I am wondering what your alternative solution is?

Alternative solution to what, exactly? I don't think we share the same definition of what BTsync does.

 

Here, I'll go first. BTsync provides real time synchronization of a shared location stored on two or more end user devices. This can be facilitated either by using a BT hosted tracker or by the user configuring one themselves. If the former then BT is doing two things; hosting the tracker and maintaining / updating the software. Otherwise, it's just updating the software. 

 

Do we disagree on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading all this with interest and a taste of distain.

In general, I agree that BTSync has broken promises with the capabilities of its current release 2.0, but that is nothing new. Even in development many feature requests were promised and never delivered (even a year after the promise). The sad part is that this time BTSync has now taken away something people have become accustom to. This is typical marketing/political methodology to make people pay for things they previously had not instead of instilling a feeling of having to do without.

Is it ethical? I guess that all depends on everyone’s own tolerances, but I am of the school that you say what you mean, and do what you say. Everything else just lessens who you are, be it a person or a company.

As for the price structure, well… First, I do not believe in a subscription based program. A subscription based service, yes, but a program… no. I know companies need a revenue stream to continue, but a subscription is a bad move. Providing tech support is one thing, but in my experience, the only tech support questions I have asked have ended up being short comings of the software, not my laziness to find out how to use it. $40/yr to point out shortcomings in the software is a bit absurd in my view. That being said, would I buy the program, if reasonably priced, yes I would.

As far as future development, that is a mixed bag. Some of us just need a simple platform without limitations to use. Think of Windows OS, the bells and whistles are nice, but how often do you really use them, and how much of an added cost is put into the software for things people really do not use. I would think that perhaps different levels of bells and whistles could be had in different levels, say Free, Lite, Full, and Pro versions.

I see that there is also some limit to mobile devices; however I cannot seem to find it in the product description. Same holds true for the folder limitation.

As for epounds (VP of Sync) neophyte comments

“10 active folders is a lot of syncing activity and we feel that those who need more capabilities will benefit much from Sync Pro”

Folders are a function of structure, not a function syncing activity. Changing files defines the activity. Forcing people to restructure their data to fit the confines of the program is a huge leap backward. This should not be a limitation (at all).

I also realize that being just one person, my comments may not hold very much weight. I have hopes that the voices of the masses will account for something and that BTSync will rethink its current undertaking and not screw so many people that have helped them up to this point.

There are many other options out there in various stages of development from full blown and established to just getting started. I am hoping I do not have to go through selecting another program as I thought I was done based on the previous promises made by BTSync, and now broken.

Time will tell…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternative solution to what, exactly? I don't think we share the same definition of what BTsync does.

 

Here, I'll go first. BTsync provides real time synchronization of a shared location stored on two or more end user devices. This can be facilitated either by using a BT hosted tracker or by the user configuring one themselves. If the former then BT is doing two things; hosting the tracker and maintaining / updating the software. Otherwise, it's just updating the software. 

 

Do we disagree on this?

 

No, we don't disagree on what BTsync does, I'm not sure why you would have assumed that in the first place.

 

Maybe I should rephrase my question to more effectively elicit the answer I am looking for, what made you decide to start using BTsync in the first place if the "service" provided is so menial to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we don't disagree on what BTsync does, I'm not sure why you would have assumed that in the first place.

 

Maybe I should rephrase my question to more effectively elicit the answer I am looking for, what made you decide to start using BTsync in the first place if the "service" provided is so menial to you?

 

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. 

Yes, if they HAD lied to original supporters/users (not customers as no one paid for anything) it would have been a bad stumble.

 

It's unfortunate that no one will take the time to read the original "promise" that keeps being referred to:

 

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

 

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).

As for epounds (VP of Sync) neophyte comments

“10 active folders is a lot of syncing activity and we feel that those who need more capabilities will benefit much from Sync Pro”

Folders are a function of structure, not a function syncing activity. Changing files defines the activity. Forcing people to restructure their data to fit the confines of the program is a huge leap backward. This should not be a limitation (at all).

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new to the BTSync scene, and I literally just finished getting my sync setup working.  I have multiple devices and a single remote server all syncing together, and I have more than 10 base folders.  Some folders only sync with some devices, and other folders sync with other devices.  For them to say that one would really benefit from the Pro version if one has more than 10 shared folders is patently false.  The pro version doesn't give me (specifically) any extra value except for the removal of the 10 folder limit.  

 

Thankfully I haven't invested that much time into this application.  I have found, however, that Syncthing (written in Google's Go which is awesome) is a great drop-in replacement for btsync.  Like most of the other posters, I would gladly pay for the BTSync software if it were a one time fee.  I will not pay a subscription for this type of application.  I should say that I *would* have paid for BTSync if it were a one time fee.  Since they introduced the subscription version, I went looking for alternatives.  It is safe to say that I probably wouldn't have found Syncthing if they didn't announce this subscription model.

 

To put this into context, you can get Office 365 for about $60/year.  I hated the fact that Microsoft went to a subscription model with Office, but $60/year for the full office suite is a decent value.   $40/year for a product that sends data from one of my devices to another one of my devices, using my own bandwidth, and my own hardware -- I'll skip it thank you...

 

Kudos to you guys for making a great product, but I think you guys missed the boat on monetizing this.

 

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Clearly it's a difference of opinion, but I still feel that core functionality is not getting removed, it has had a reduction in scope in some senses.

 

I keep seeing people refer to it as an arbitrary reduction in the number of active folders, do we know it's arbitrary, or is there some fundamental reason for the reduction?  I haven't seen anything stating why that number was chosen.

 

People keep making blanket statements on behalf of all the users, making up fiction like something that should end up with an entry on Snopes.

 

It makes sense to post about how the change affects you: previously the software fit YOUR needs, and "reversed" the fit to YOUR circumstances.  Engineers can read about your situation and get ideas about how to proceed, not listen to a couple of dozen people crying "put it back the way it was!".

 

Sure complain about being unhappy, but back it up with how the change affects you, and how you would like to see things done instead of dredging up posts where this engineer said blah blah blah.  Like none of you have ever started something and then changed part way through because you found a better way to do it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if they HAD lied to original supporters/users (not customers as no one paid for anything) it would have been a bad stumble.

 

It's unfortunate that no one will take the time to read the original "promise" that keeps being referred to:

 

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

 

For people that don't want to follow the link:

 

"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?""

 

It's still free, and there will still be a free version in 2.0 

 

Yes, but you glossed over the actual point:

 

“BitTorrent Sync will work tomorrow exactly like it works today.”

 

“Yesterday” we could sync an unlimited number of folders for free, and today we can sync 10.

 

The point that you are missing (or ignoring) is that they said one thing (base 1.x features will remain free, new 2.0 features will be "pro") and did another.

 

And there's still no answer to what we are getting for $40/year to explain why it isn’t a $40 purchase of version 2.0 and all 2.x updates.

 

It sounds like the only "feature" we're getting for $40 is a guaranteed revenue stream for BitTorrent, which is good for them, less so for us. An annual fee means that we are locked into continually paying for today's features, regardless of whether there are any substantive improvements to the app. Maybe next year it goes to $50, or $100. Maybe next year "Pro" can only sync 50 folders for $40, and it's $100 to sync "unlimited" folders.

 

If I had paid for version 2, I would be able keep using it. But instead I have to keep paying for it, and trust that BitTorrent, Inc. will keep  making improvements to it. Also, we trust that they're going to stay in business. Maybe in 5 years they decide they no longer want to keep doing this, so I would have spent $200 only to now have an app that I can’t use anymore.

 

None of this is to say that the app isn’t worth $40. It is. My concern isn’t the $40 for a year. My concern is $40 per year for software that will (it appears) cease to work if the company behind it decides to stop supporting it or goes out of business.

 

I thought BitTorrent Sync was going to make me less reliant on a company like Apple or Dropbox, because I was syncing my files directly to my own computers. Instead, it appears that I am just reliant on a different (and much smaller) company instead.

 

I thought I was going to be buying software (or a software license, you know what I mean). Instead I'm signing up for a subscription service with an annual fee.

 

For example, I bought Transmit (the Mac S/FTP app) for $30. I can continue to use that even if Panic (the developer) goes out of business, because S/FTP is a standard protocol that I fully expect to be around in 10 years.

 

Quoting again from the article you cited:

 

"[bitTorrent Sync] will work exactly like today even 10 years from now…”

 

The really big asterisk to that is “Assuming that BitTorrent, Inc. is still around and still supporting it, and assuming you're still paying your annual fee.”

 

That’s disappointing, not because I'm cheap or don't realize the value of the software, or any of the other slams you might want to make against me, but it's disappointing because BitTorrent Sync now comes with a huge question mark for the future.

 

I've looked at the alternatives, and so far I think they're worse, so I'll be sticking around. I'm just disappointed.

 

Hopefully enough people will sign up and keep up so that they will be able to continue to develop it in the future. Obviously that's the plan. But I've seen a lot of software companies come and go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't gloss over anything all the core functions are there, just the scope of included active folders has changed.  Some don't acknowledge a difference between function and scope, that's up to the individual.

 

I don't try to "slam" anything people contribute, however people are putting more effort into singing the blues than adding anything of value, and unfortunately that's what often happens in a free community.  Accountability is a rare thing these days, but it isn't just a problem with vendors & developers, users and people in general.  It bothers me just as much when a thread is filled with thoughtless useless posts (hopefully mine don't fall into that category for others, and I apologize if that's the case).

 

Every software & service comes with a huge question mark, it sucks, but we have to try to find a way to keep things as vendor neutral and available to us in case of emergency as possible.  It's a never ending process.

 

I also agree the alternatives don't seem to offer the same advantages, my business could function just fine within the 10 folder limit and I still intend to register for the pro version.  

 

BT is making a change for a reason, I don't know the reason, and from what I have read in this thread, neither does anyone else commenting in here.

 

Hopefully they will release further details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sent several bug reports, log files, etc. for the support, spent considerable amount of time describing bugs - all this for free, hoping that this great app will become better, while they keep the core of it free.

 

The 10 folder limit is a ridiculous broken promise, lying is a really bad PR for you.

 

I will stop using BT Sync from now on, go on with http://syncthing.net/ 

 

good bye

Edited by bacizone

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.