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

[Fear Na Boinne]

- 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?

Yes, you're a fan, I am critical, that much is pretty obvious by now...

 

"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.

Oh, but I *am* putting effort in a solution... And it looks like that will be a combination of BTS on my iDevices and a single 'server' (for as long as there is no SyncThing iOS client) with SyncThing on the rest...

I'm a veteran (in more than one way <G>) of computer, network and Internet usage, tools, design, programming and security, and know very well what I am doing, and what is decent and what isn't.

Simple truth is that what BTS is doing is NOT decent at all... And it will cost them... because...

 

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.

... customers DO have to endorse a product like this for it to be successful! Esp. when they want ridiculously high prices on an ongoing basis for a rather minimal ongoing effort (minimal is only relative, and applies to the effort going forward to keep the tracker running) which is not even guaranteed, but supposedly the only thing we should be able to count on. Nothing compells them to do further development for that money!

A tracker service (which is all what most people will be interested in) should not cost $40/p/yr! 

It is great for you that you feel it is worth $40/p/yr to be able to use their tracker and continue to sync more than 10 directories, but that does not make you the only person that is right.

Many people feel that this is overprized, certainly since they implied (I'll not use the word promised, since that seems to hit a bad nerve with you) that all the features they have in 1.4 would be carried forward in to 2.0 free, and limiting the number of directories is definitely a reduction of functionality!

 

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.

So yes, that is all that matters here, when you're dealing with a community like this. And there are no other ideas to contribute than "put it back the way it was", because that is the only thing that will undo the (real or perceived) slight by BTS towards their community by restricting the number of directories.

Oh, and I *am* discontinuing use of BTS at my earliest chance! I will very likely even forego iOS syncing for now, just to be rid of BTS!

But I want to be reasonable, and give BTS the chance to correct this huge mistake, and THAT is why I am posting here!

Once I am gone, they can take BTS to Hell or wherever they want, but I care about this product, so if they're willing to make concessions (Even Whatsapp is giving 'grandfathered lifetime users' an exception to their payment scheme!), I'd love to stay!

 

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.

I don't think BTS really has any direct competitors... At least none that require payment and make a profit off of it, but a fair point none the less!  

 

PS: I would definitely like to see more feedback from people that are happy with the 2.0 change to the directory count, and the Pro pricetag. So far I have seen very few (not counting, but I think two or three in all?) that agree with this move. And it is only the 10 directory limitation people are protesting!

 

PPS: I'd 'like' GreatMarko's post, but I can't, for a lack of a like button!  

Edited March 5, 2015 by GreatMarko
Removed petty bickering/personal attacks

[Clouseau]

Now after reading these lies from BTSync team I have decided to dump BTSync. If I really need to run my own ifrastructure I can do it also with FreeNAS + Owncloud. Owncloud bundled with FreeNAS is actually great tool and you can share files and folders with "system" external users too. I have some seriour trust issues with this company called BTSync. If I can't trus the company behond of BTSync application then you should not do anything with the product!

 

So if you have your own hardware (what is also needed here in BTSync too) then use look for Owncloud. It's a bit more husle with system, but at the end you own everything by your selves and it's just great! FreeNAS is great and easy to use. Installing a Owncloud plugin is much easier that building on Owncloud server on Linux/Windows. It's free and fun to learn how to do it! You don't have to watch liars like here you do!

 

Hit the road Jack! I'm so gone! R.I.P BTSync 1.4.111 - had nice time with you but our promising future was killed by your parents!

 

Oh - Freenas + Syncthing is also there to use easily!

[w411]

I don't think you will find people that are happy with the change to the directory count.  Logically I would say the only 2 groups would be people that are unhappy (it had a negative affect on the way they use Btsync) and people that are indifferent (it has no affect on the way they use BTsync).

 

As far as hearing from users that feel the pro version is worthwhile, also unlikely as people typically only go looking for a way to voice their opinion when they are unhappy.

 

It might be of advantage (and fairness) for BTsync to invite all users to weigh in on the changes, but otherwise, I would expect a heavy negative opinion in this thread.

[jwk2801]

Did you look at the reviews in google play ? I have 7 android devices (family phones/tablets) synced and now im screwed.

 

Im using 1.4 on 5 PC's (family laptops/desktops) and 1 Server.

 

The android app only works with 2.0 and self updated so now im forced to go to 2.0 as all my android devices are not syncing and just asking me to sign in...  all links are gone in all devices...

 

I have 26 shared folders...

 

What would you suggest i do ?

[johmar]

I was a long time user of livemesh and was very disappointed when that product was dropped. I tested out onedrive but just could not make that work out. Too many files and not flexible enough when it came to folders. I also did not want my data up on the cloud.

 

Then along came BTS, is was a perfect replacement. I did recommend and help setup a lot of folder shares with co-workers, friends and family. The 10 folder limit is a deal breaker for me. I incorporated this product into my workflow for business, friends and family. Sorry BTS, but re-structuring my folder layout for this product is not an option. Promised functionality has been removed with the 10 folder limit. So between 4 family members, several friends, and 8 co-workers that would amount to $600 per year. That is NOT going to happen. I will speak for my group that I have recommended this product to - very disappointed. The consensus is the same, the loss of functionality that was promised (10 folder limit) and the subscription model is a deal breaker for the group. This limitation should have been made public prior to releasing the 2.0 software. The re-work I now face to get back to 1.4 not going to be pleasant.

 

We will be uninstalling 2.0 and going back to 1.4 until I can find another solution.

 

If it was not for the subscription pricing model, I would stick with it. I have no problem paying for the current version, and if an upgrade to 3.0 were to come out in a year, I would most likely upgrade if new features made it worthwhile for my group.

[Clouseau]

Did you look at the reviews in google play ? I have 7 android devices (family phones/tablets) synced and now im screwed.

 

Im using 1.4 on 5 PC's (family laptops/desktops) and 1 Server.

 

The android app only works with 2.0 and self updated so now im forced to go to 2.0 as all my android devices are not syncing and just asking me to sign in...  all links are gone in all devices...

 

I have 26 shared folders...

 

What would you suggest i do ?

Take a beer or two! Nothing to do here - BTSync has ruined your system and there is no other way to go that away from this! I have +10 folder in or company NAS. Now I moved back to rsync between our two NAS server and tomorrow I install Owncloud and start sync laptops and desktops with NAS. We all have also unlimited space on OneDrive, but not using a single bit space there.

 

I say that go for Owncloud. BTSync will be gone after upcomming summer.

[johmar]

Did you look at the reviews in google play ? I have 7 android devices (family phones/tablets) synced and now im screwed.

 

Im using 1.4 on 5 PC's (family laptops/desktops) and 1 Server.

 

The android app only works with 2.0 and self updated so now im forced to go to 2.0 as all my android devices are not syncing and just asking me to sign in...  all links are gone in all devices...

 

I have 26 shared folders...

 

What would you suggest i do ?

 

That is a point I did not consider. So in order to keep 1.4 working we need to turn off the auto-update feature for all apps on our android devices? This is really bad news to me. I might have to consider ditching 1.4 all together.

[jwk2801]

That is a point I did not consider. So in order to keep 1.4 working we need to turn off the auto-update feature for all apps on our android devices? This is really bad news to me. I might have to consider ditching 1.4 all together.

Yes when I noticed my sync icon was not in the notification bar on my phone i opened the app and saw this:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1uO98-Dt7klXzFkLXl1bEJHVFE/view?usp=sharing

 

Each phone/tablet has 2 backup folders (pics/system) and a shared dropbox type folder...

[nunu]

Hi,

first sorry for my english....

 

I'am a little bit disappointed by the limitation of number of directories. And I hope that bittorent will change this ...

 

I will never pay for a software all years. I pay for a software that offers me functionnalities that fit my needs 1 Time. And BTSYNC 1.X was this software. BTSync 2.X too, but  not with directories limitations.

 

Take a look to teamviewer model : you have all functionnalities for home users for FREE, but for entreprise you need to pay.

 

So just let free basic functionnalities like BTSYNC 1.X for home users and functionnalities with more admin stuffs etc... for the PRO version.

 

i think that the plan of this limitation is "to force us to pay" because you think that we are too addicted to btsync which is a very good product. BUT i don't like this feeling, and it is like many things, nothing is irreplaceable even if, sometime,  it's not easy

 

Or like i see sometimes, just allow home users to donate  to get a btsync 2.0 home users with no limitation . For good software, people donates.

 

3 versions ?

- FREE with limitations

- Home users, with 1 shot donation with no limitation directories  + other functionnalities ?

- PRO with a payment / years.

 

 

 

 

it's a big shame

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[adms]

Now after reading these lies from BTSync team I have decided to dump BTSync. If I really need to run my own ifrastructure I can do it also with FreeNAS + Owncloud. 

 

Thats exactly what I ended up doing. I've completely lost trust in BTSync after this little stunt and taking away features that have been there for free before is just a big "no no".

A part of me still hopes they come back to their senses though.

[instcode]

I don't know. I have just uninstalled BTSync from my computer. Maybe next time...

[zbigb69]

Who promise to give 10 or 20$ for a life license personal use, for 2.0, and as much for each major release ? I would

 

I'm sure there will be lots of people to do so. many more than actual option

[SenorLoco]

Who promise to give 10 or 20$ for a life license personal use, for 2.0, and as much for each major release ? I would

I'm sure there will be lots of people to do so. many more than actual option

This is the biggest thing for me. The subscription model just doesn't fit this product.

[ng_4r]

Hi,

first sorry for my english....

 

I'am a little bit disappointed by the limitation of number of directories. And I hope that bittorent will change this ...

 

I will never pay for a software all years. I pay for a software that offers me functionnalities that fit my needs 1 Time. And BTSYNC 1.X was this software. BTSync 2.X too, but  not with directories limitations.

 

Take a look to teamviewer model : you have all functionnalities for home users for FREE, but for entreprise you need to pay.

 

So just let free basic functionnalities like BTSYNC 1.X for home users and functionnalities with more admin stuffs etc... for the PRO version.

 

i think that the plan of this limitation is "to force us to pay" because you think that we are too addicted to btsync which is a very good product. BUT i don't like this feeling, and it is like many things, nothing is irreplaceable even if, sometime,  it's not easy

 

Or like i see sometimes, just allow home users to donate  to get a btsync 2.0 home users with no limitation . For good software, people donates.

 

3 versions ?

- FREE with limitations

- Home users, with 1 shot donation with no limitation directories  + other functionnalities ?

- PRO with a payment / years.

 

 

 

 

it's a big shame

It's exactly what I think, I was also proposing something like you did. Teamviewer was exactly the type of service I was thinking to.

This could be the only solution to conciliate who wants to use BT Sync with the initial "terms of use", who is fine with this new subscription system, who is angry for the "betrayal" and BT Sync Enterprise!

I'll pay for it because I really love it, but just one time or for future upgrades, not yearly as a cloud service because it isn't a cloud service!

[Droolio]

That is a point I did not consider. So in order to keep 1.4 working we need to turn off the auto-update feature for all apps on our android devices? This is really bad news to me. I might have to consider ditching 1.4 all together.

 

You can disable auto-update for individual apps on Android, which is what I did after reinstalling the v1.4 APK from the direct link AND having to re-add all the lost syncs which the auto-update to v2.0 obliterated. Yea...

 

Oh and mobiles is one reason why the 10 sync limit was ill-thought out imo. You can maybe consolidate folders on a PC easily enough but on my mobile, the read-only 'backup' folders - Camera, Downloads, Whatsapp etc. - need to be in those locations. They take up sync slots on my main PC which I backup to. For one mobile device. Add in the tablet and you run out very fast indeed.

 

Presently, I have exactly 10 syncs which means I'd have to disconnect syncs (and later set them up again) if say, I wanted to temporarily share some files with a new friend or whatever.

 

IF the limit had applied to 10 simultaneous active syncs - which you could manually deactivate and reactivate - so long as there's under 10 active at any time, then maybe that might be acceptable to me. BT Inc. need to rethink.

[T42]

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?

They don't solve the same problem - one is a storage system that uses a sync architecture, the other is *just* a sync architecture.

 

BTSync is much more like a VPN (you control the secure chanel between your devices) and something like Robocopy over that channel, Dropbox, etc are a storage system using a VPN-like channel.

 

They are not the same, and while they *can* solve *similar* problems, the storage aspect of Dropbox, etc make them very different tools.

 

People compare them because some of using BTSync want JUST the encrypted channel, without our data being stored elsewhere (on someone else's hardware, e.g. dropbox, etc), for different reasons - security, trust, etc.

 

The reason you should pay more for Dropbox is it's orders of magnitudes more epensive to run the service, since it's a *storage* system, not just Bittorrent (a distributed system reliant on user systems) with some sync features thrown on top.

 

Do you really think the storage, management, backup, deduplication, replication between data centers, network bandwidth for user data, network bandwidth for replication to the tune of probably petabytes isn't far more costly to run than a simple Bittorrent system?

 

THAT's part of the beef...what BTSync does isn't all that magical, and doesn't require significant infrastructer/management costs - nothing even close to the scale of a file storage system like Dropbox, etc.

[Droolio]

I'll pay for it because I really love it, but just one time or for future upgrades, not yearly as a cloud service because it isn't a cloud service!

 

Same here. I'd happily buy it outright and wouldn't mind paying for major updates (for example, I've done so twice for Scooter Soft's Beyond Compare  - they give major upgrades for half price). I already pay $60 a year for a CrashPlan sub with unlimited cloud (*shock*) storage, but they let me back up to friends for free.

 

Could understand businesses subscribing for software like this - I was seriously on the verge of recommending Sync Pro to some of our clients - but for home users, renting this particular piece of software is nonsensical.

[freigeist]

Today I read that the free edition is limited to syncing 10 folders. AFAI the 1.x version does not have this limt. Wasn't it promised that the free 2.x will keep all featues of the earlier versions.

 

Anyway, if this is true btsync is dead for me.

[kramttocs]

Wasn't it promised that the free 2.x will keep all featues of the earlier versions.

 

If I had a nickel...

[michaelk42]

Yes when I noticed my sync icon was not in the notification bar on my phone i opened the app and saw this:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1uO98-Dt7klXzFkLXl1bEJHVFE/view?usp=sharing

 

Each phone/tablet has 2 backup folders (pics/system) and a shared dropbox type folder...

 

There is a direct link to 1.4.110 that has the last non-2.0 .apk 1.4.65

 

The direct link to 1.4.111 has been reported to have a 0k .apk, but it's still only 1.4.65 anyway.

 

Once you have the .apk you're on your own for installing it I guess (Check "unknown sources" to install it, provided that option is available on your Android device.) From that point on, if it's still hooked to your Google Play store turn off auto updates, and ignore it asking to update.

 

You'll still have to rebuild your folders though.

[T42]

What seems to be most frustrating is the combination of how they transitioned to a pay model and the blatant denial of what was previously said and how this technology works.

 

This is 2015, not 1995 - far more people understand how tech works today than 20 years ago, so can see through the (non)techo-babble being spouted.

 

It's really unfortunate the BTSync marketing/CFO/whatever team didn't take the approach that many other bits of freeware are taking today - continue providing the free functionality, and provide additional *new* features in the pro version to entice people to upgrade.I'm stil not hot on the subscription basis they're going after, especially since there's little backend to support that would justify a subscription model. A better model would be to be able to buy each major version, with minor versions being included in the price of the major (since those should be bug fixes, minor improvements), and continuing to allow each major version to function when the new version comes out...sort of a rolling-free-version functionality (but you only get that major version feature set through purchase, while still maintaining a true "free" version that has a noticeably reduced feature set). Taking this approach, as a goodwill measure they could allow current 1.4 users to continue on indefinitely, expecting that at some point enough additional features would be added to entice most of those users to upgrade. It's pretty simple - it's easier to get people who like you/are on your side to continue supporting your product if you work *with* them. Keeping a free funcitonality and enticiing with new features is working *with( your customer base - degrading an existing product to give the *appearance* of greater functionality in the upgrade/pay/pro version is not.

 

Hopefully the BTSync team will change tack and take the free/premium approach I describe - it seems to work really well for many apps on iOS/Android

[kramttocs]

It's really unfortunate the BTSync marketing/CFO/whatever team didn't take the approach that many other bits of freeware are taking today - continue providing the free functionality, and provide additional *new* features in the pro version to entice people to upgrade.I'm stil not hot on the subscription basis they're going after, especially since there's little backend to support that would justify a subscription model. A better model would be to be able to buy each major version, with minor versions being included in the price of the major (since those should be bug fixes, minor improvements), and continuing to allow each major version to function when the new version comes out...sort of a rolling-free-version functionality (but you only get that major version feature set through purchase, while still maintaining a true "free" version that has a noticeably reduced feature set). Taking this approach, as a goodwill measure they could allow current 1.4 users to continue on indefinitely, expecting that at some point enough additional features would be added to entice most of those users to upgrade. It's pretty simple - it's easier to get people who like you/are on your side to continue supporting your product if you work *with* them. Keeping a free funcitonality and enticiing with new features is working *with( your customer base - degrading an existing product to give the *appearance* of greater functionality in the upgrade/pay/pro version is not.

 

Well worded post. Due to beta vs release, I would scratch the legacy 1.4 and start at 2.0 (the second bolded sentence) (IF current 2.0 fit the criteria of the first bolded sentence).

Personally I am not necessarily angry at the new 2.0 but the model you have described has a proven track record.

[T42]

Well worded post. Due to beta vs release, I would scratch the legacy 1.4 and start at 2.0 (the second bolded sentence) (IF current 2.0 fit the criteria of the first bolded sentence).

Personally I am not necessarily angry at the new 2.0 but the model you have described has a proven track record.

 

Thanks kram.

 

Yes, taking this approach (kill 1.4, start at 2.0) could work well if:

 

1. Grandfather in existing accounts to still have unlimited sync "sets" (folders)

2. Setup v2 with two account options - Free and Pro, with the Free version limited to 10 sync sets, and pro unlimited

3. Instead of subscription let the user buy the app version as I described. You buy v2 Pro, you get v2 Pro functionality forever (including incremental) updates to v2.

4. Continue working on value-added features, to entice users to upgrade to v3. Perhaps improved compression, performance, transmission speeds, etc. I'm sure there's a plan for feature implementation, with some kind of matrix showing difficulty/value/priority. Let the users vote on what's most important to them to help drive that development.

 

It seems to me that a bean-counter type got ahold of BTSync and realized the challenge of monetizing a decentralized system because it's not dependent on back-end infrastructure which they can rationalize charging for (no data center storage, etc, like DropBox, etc). As BTSync stands, once you've built the app it will "just work" - with little control by the "company" because it's just a BitTorrent client - which uses a decentralized system (our machines). This new model is simply a way to monetize with artificial constraints because there are no "servers" that manage it.

 

I've liked the idea of BTSync since I first discovered it. Unfortunately it's always been shy of the mark for me (controls/permissioning are rather simplistic, performance on mobile devices lackluster). This change to a monetized, hamstrung client has made me search for other solutions.

 

Frankly all I really need is true self-hosted cross-platform VPN and sync client. There are solutions out there, but they all want you to subscribe for nothing more than running software on your own box (e.g. NeoRouter). Why should I pay for their clearinghouse servers when my home server already runs DynamicDNS? 

 

It's frustrating that the current business approach is for subscriptions for stuff that really doesn't require it. With one subscription to a DYNDNS service, anyone can host their own VPN providing secure comm from any device with a compatible client. Any other app can run across that VPN. In the last couple years Android devices have powered up enough to be able to run a VPN continuously.

 

Fortunately this event with BTSync has caused me to revisit other sync solutions, and I've already setup SyncThing on my home server, laptop and phone. It's already working better than BTsync ever has for my needs (largely backing up phone data, with a secondary feature to share files between machines).

 

It has it's limitaitons too, unfortunately. Sigh...I wouldn't mind finding some devs for each platform (Windows, Linux, iOS, Android) to design and build something that provides all the features it really needs (with true discrete access controls, sync directionality, etc). I would monetize by version/feature addition. This would provide a "full circle" approach - users would be part of the dev cycle, and there'd be cash flow to help keep dev going. Most likely though, this kind of cash flow wouldn't make significant money, which is why orgs like BTSync choose the subscription model. At least NeoRouter provides hosted servers and performance levels for the subscription.

Followup...

 

For the last 4 years I've had my own secure sync by using DynDns and an SFTP server hosted on my home server, with sync clients on each device (Foldersync on Android, scheduled tasks running different SFTP clients on Windows).

 

Lots of flexibility (limitless sync sets/permission/scheduling/overwrite, etc), and all controlled by me, and I can add a new sync almost instantly from most any client.

 

This is what a sync system has to be better than.

[jaredthirsk]

This 2.0 thing sounds like a turn for the worse, and loss of trust.  A lot of us came to BT Sync because we want more control and trust over our data than cloud storage, and want our data on computers we trust.  (And many want anonymity and the option for complete decentralization.  And the ability to keep using a software/protocol if a company dies or decides to hike fees.)  Being an untrusting and do it yourself userbase, we also want to be able to trust the software, as in open source.  Closed souce aka "trust us, our code is good" or "we passed an audit once, isn't that awesome, and since then we have written bug free code, because we are perfect human beings"  is kinda like dropbox saying "trust us, our servers are good" and "we will only give your data away if the government asks really nicely".  It doesn't fly.

 

I understand the desire to make money, but to handicap free users at 10 folders is a pretty big blow.  I would have thought you would be more interested in cultivating your reputation as a company that fosters trust and provides value people are willing to pay for, rather than burning trust and reducing current value to make a money grab.  

 

Hey, how's this for a business model: open source the code already, offer to host peoples' bulk encrypted data on the cloud in multiple locations around the globe for a price -- I'd consider giving you money for that over hosting my own BT Sync boxes in geographically diverse places, or paying Microsoft/Amazon/Google for cloud storage, or convincing my family members to buy a 4TB drive attached to an always on linux box.  Charge something like $49.99 per major version of BTSync with premium features (like the ones you mentioned 2.0 such as pause folder, which I didn't even finish reading because I am so ticked off), with free updates for a year and a $40 yearly renewal, or better yet, don't worry about major version numbers and simply give people the latest version for $49.99/year, or renewing at $40.  Maybe I should be your CFO.  

 

Also, don't cap folders -- the user should have freedom here.  If there was a cap for a premium version, it should be more like 50+ folders.

 

My interest has been declining as other open source solution(s) become more mature but this really pushes things over the edge.   i got multiple members of my family on it (which eats into that 10 folder share limit pretty fast when we share photo albums, video albums, and host each others' backups!), and now I'm going to have to get them all to switch to something else :-/.  You rose because you captured the imagination of people like me who were ahead of the tech curve -- if you lose us, where will that leave you?

 

 Maybe you will find a (uninformed? non-savvy?) market segment that works for you -- if so power to you -- I can't argue with capitalism, and I love to see the dropbox / moby types sweat a little even if I'm not the target audience of either.  And over most of the life of BT Sync so far I have appreciated the useful tool -- thanks for that.  So cheers and good luck!

 

 

 

PS - ...just finished reading this entire thread.  [REMOVED] and like many others I would have gladly given $40 one time for the value provided up til now, especially if the not-syncing issues were resolved and they stopped messing with how it worked. But after this perceived betrayal I would rather donate it to an open source cause that is more likely to fulfill my long term desires.  Someone even showed up on an open source forum to say they wanted to donate out of spite.  People are that upset!  Like I said above, I'd also pay for hosting IF the software was open source with client-side encryption).  

And I understand the disdain [REMOVED]  But make no mistake, barring some extremely dramatic turnaround, this will be one of the top 10 tech fiascoes of the decade.  This is the kind of move that could and/or should get executives/CFOs fired.  Maybe BT Sync will succeed financially in a more niche role (in which case the CFO might get a fat bonus and the execs can stop thinking much about how to help humanity and simply preen their niche user-base while planning company team holidays to exotic locations), but this is a crippling move in terms of widespread adoption and solving the sync problem on a mass scale.  Instead of having an army of tens of thousands of tech enthusiasts getting all their friends and family to install BTSync, you now have much of that same army providing negative adertising, warning everyone to stay away from what is now perceived as an untrustworthy company that not only breaks promises but charges based on what they can think they get away with rather than what value they are providing (it may be fair game in a supply and demand market to charge nonsensical subscription fees in the absence of direct competition, but it comes at the price of bad faith to those who are not ignorant that the company is using their monopoly position to charge an inflated premium to the customer).  It is difficult to watch this happen, but with all of the strange little twists to BTSync's interface, I can't say I am entirely surprised about what seems to me to be bad judgment (if people like me are the target market, which I am doubting.)

 

BT people: If you decide to backtrack, please know that doing a minor correction isn't going to repair this breach of trust.  I think many of us are going to be looking for a mea culpa and dramatic turnaround in strategy if we are to be won back.  The choice lies with you.  Good luck.

 

Moving forward (and giving BT some insight into my headspace and the state of the competitive playing field):  SyncThing has been a great drop-in replacement for me, and while it has its limits, I have been using it happily without any real issues, although I haven't really tried it on Android.   I don't have a huge deal of confidence in their current developers to take it to the next level. (Last I could tell, they don't seem to think it is an issue that there is no iOS client, and were ok with crippling it with a GPL license that is incompatible with app stores -- I think they are either insane or shortsighted.  And the Pulse/ind.ie guys aren't interested in solving sync but in destroying Facebook, or something.)  So I think there is still room for open source developers to join up with syncthing and hold their hands to take them to new heights, or room for a new company to fork it (i.e. when it was last licensed under a permissive license so that you can get to iOS, like ind.ie did), or start something new.  There are a lot of people on this thread, including me, who would be willing to put $$$ into supporting a PRODUCT (not a bittorrent tracker subscription scam) that does what BTSync set out to do (maybe with regional hosting as an optional service so I didn't have to convince my family to set up huge HDs on always-on servers that I can park my data on -- a painful problem that I would pay to resolve).  And there is still room for a company to solve sync for the masses with business mindset more like Evernote that is friendly to free consumers and provides extra value for premium features.  Now, we have nowhere to put that money!!!!  If that isn't a recipe for a kickstarter campaign, I don't know what is!   Somebody please save us.  It is 2015 and we have robots that can play table tennis, but we still have not solved this relatively simple problem!     BT: you have a choice: do you want to try to be a part of the solution to this problem or not?  Making money doesn't have to be a zero-sum game (contra helping the masses), you know!

Edited March 6, 2015 by GreatMarko
Removed belittling of other contributors opinions

[kramttocs]

... or better yet, don't worry about major version numbers and simply give people the latest version for $49.99/year, or renewing at $40. Maybe I should be your CFO.

Am I missing something or is this what they are doing? Maybe you are their CFO