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

[ahow628]

If you are backing up your phones witch would be at least 2 folders per phone (system/pictures) and if your family has 5 phones thats 10 folders on the pc or server (NAS) your backing up to....

This is not hard. Set up a folder on your backup server called "Mobile backups". That folder will contain folders titled something like "Device 1", "Device 2", etc. Each of the Device folders will contain "Photos", "Movies", "System", etc. Bam, all your device backups in one folder. You then have 9 more folders to use in the free version. Plus this would make your system far less cluttered and you could more easily find things.

 

Bottom line, this is not a huge hurdle to overcome.

[kramttocs]

This is not hard. Set up a folder on your backup server called "Mobile backups". That folder will contain folders titled something like "Device 1", "Device 2", etc. Each of the Device folders will contain "Photos", "Movies", "System", etc. Bam, all your device backups in one folder. You then have 9 more folders to use in the free version. Plus this would make your system far less cluttered and you could more easily find things.

Bottom line, this is not a huge hurdle to overcome.

Assuming I understand what you are describing, this isn't possible/it doesn't work like that. If I am not, please elaborate.

(Edited to be better)

[arussell84]

Signed up just to add my voice to the many others that are disappointed by this. I'm not re-structuring my directory layout to work around this new limit. This decision was made in bad faith, and it is a broken promise. If this decision is not reversed very soon, I will definitely be moving away from BTSync, probably to Syncthing.

 

The response so far from epounds, the VP, is not acceptable.

Edited March 7, 2015 by GreatMarko
Removed personal attack on another contibutor's opinion

[jwk2801]

This is not hard. Set up a folder on your backup server called "Mobile backups". That folder will contain folders titled something like "Device 1", "Device 2", etc. Each of the Device folders will contain "Photos", "Movies", "System", etc. Bam, all your device backups in one folder. You then have 9 more folders to use in the free version. Plus this would make your system far less cluttered and you could more easily find things.

 

Bottom line, this is not a huge hurdle to overcome.

 

Not how it works at all....

[calvyb]

Personally I have no issue with the price tag itself. I would happily pay £40 for sync 2.0.

the biggest thing that puts me off is that if I pay £40 for 2.0 and I don't pay £40 next year or the year after then my software stops working.

what they should do imo is sell the software a s a full licencse so you can use it forever, and then either charge for new versions another £40 for 3.0 or offer an additional premium plan that includes upgrades and premium support etc etc.

maybe in a year or so when sync 3.0 comes out it has a bunch of features I really am not interested in so I wouldn't buy it. I'd stick with 2.0. maybe the year after 4.0 has some awesome features I really like. and then I would upgrade. and pay another £40. but at then I'd know that my software will keep working if I decide to skip 3.0 or a years payment.

In a way I liken it to windows, I Bought 98, skipped ME as it wasn't worth upgrading, Bought XP pro, skipped vista as again it wasn't worth upgrading, Upgraded to 7 and still using 7 as I have no interest in 8 or 9 ( well 8.1), 10 looks quite good from what i've seen of the preview thus far so will likely upgrade to 10 from 7.

What I am then is a customer that would happily pay £40 for sync 2.0, but is put off simply by the fact it will stop working if I don't pay £40 next year and the year after and so on

for this reason i'll just keep using 1.4, which from a business point of view is a lost customer and a lost sale.

the one thing that stops me buying 2.0 is that it will stop working in a year if I choose not to pay again. maybe 3.0 doesn't offer anything of interest, like my windows example

[kramttocs]

@calvyb

It won't stop working any more than the trial will

stop working after 30 days. Just certain features (the pro features) will no longer be available.

[calvyb]

This is not hard. Set up a folder on your backup server called "Mobile backups". That folder will contain folders titled something like "Device 1", "Device 2", etc. Each of the Device folders will contain "Photos", "Movies", "System", etc. Bam, all your device backups in one folder. You then have 9 more folders to use in the free version. Plus this would make your system far less cluttered and you could more easily find things.

 

Bottom line, this is not a huge hurdle to overcome.

Doesn't work like that though. If I did that I'd blow half my devices up.

For example I have a media folder, in that folder I have music, films, family videos, holiday photos, baby photo's etc etc.

I could in theory simply have 1 share for the media folder yes, but that would kill half of my devices while having my mp3 collection sync to my phone and car stereo is great, syncing the entire media folder and everything in it wouldn't work, I don't need wedding videos and baby photos and a collection of movies on my mobile phone or in my car, my phone is only 64gig, my media directory is little over a terabyte. it just doesn't work

I could also in theory also sync my main c:\users\me folder instead of separate shares for docs pictures downloads etc. however this is a real bad idea as then I end up syncing app data folders and system specific stuff and wondering why my other devices and software don't work anymore.

@calvyb

It won't stop working any more than the trial will

stop working after 30 days. Just certain features (the pro features) will no longer be available.

If I'm syncing 50 folders and the pro features expire then 40 of my folders no longer sync. or so i gathered from a question in another thread. end result is software stops working

[casperghst42]

I've been using btsync since the early beta phase, and in generally lived with it's problems the last year. Then they started talking about version 2.0, and told that all existing features would still be available in a "free" version. Now it turns out that the version 2.0 featuers will be part of the free version, and they will limit their usage - me, I just find that an anoynance to say the least.

 

What they are trying to do is, what Adobe is doing wiht the subscription program, which is to make sure that you pay up every 12 months, as otherwise your software will stop working, and the only reason for that is that they otherwise will only see 20 - 30 % of license holders to come back and upgrade to the next version (as we call it; .next) - and that is not enough if you have to make a living out of it.

 

Now as Cola admitted; their biggest mistage was to change The Coke back in the 80's, I'm sure that Adobe will say the same in a few years times, but that does not help us, as BT have decided to anoy the hell out of any current user they have, and try to compeate with Microsoft, DropBox, Google, etc. who is out there doing cloud file shaing business, well good luck with that.

 

If BT had asked me to pay $25 to get a personal license then I'd paid up, but $40 per year, no thank you, I'll just ignore the up "next version", remove the software from my iOS devices and live happely ever after - and tell everyone I know not to touch the software as the vendor changes their mind about their license model every 5 minutes.

 

And the 25% off mail, was just to add insult to injury... marketing people do not alway have a great idea, most often the oposite....

Edited March 7, 2015 by casperghst42

[kramttocs]

If I'm syncing 50 folders and the pro features expire then 40 of my folders no longer sync. or so i gathered from a question in another thread. end result is software stops working

Nope. The software doesn't stop working. You are correct about the 40 though. A feature of it stops working. I understand exactly what you are getting at though, I just don't want someone completely new to btsync to stumble on this and think the software is actually completely unusable (relative term maybe ) after the subscription/trial is over.

[jake.sadie]

Was a beta tester for 2.0 and have been running BTSync since the <1.0 days. (Edit: Just looked it up, I signed up for the alpha version on 3/21/13 - so that is almost exactly 2 years that I have been using and evangelizing this software!) I am responsible for the backup solution for a group of researchers at a university and I switched everyone over to BTSync about a year ago because of how convenient it was. It was so convenient that other research groups also adopted the software for their backup solution.

 

Throughout the 2.0 beta testing process, the mods consistently avoided explaining the feature differences between the free/pro version. However, they consistently promised nothing would be taken away.

 

I'll either run 1.4 forever, or find something else. There are a lot of ideas for alternatives being generated in these forums. Sort of similar to all of the great suggestions and ideas brought up during the Sync 2.0 testing - all of which went seemingly ignored/overlooked. Who are the people calling the shots here? One glance at these forums and they should see they are losing out on a ton of opportunity here, simply because they refused to go to a one-time fee as opposed to a subscription model.

 

Offer a one-time fee, unlimited, "home user" option as per the suggestions, or remove the 10 folder limit and let all of us go on happily ever after for free. I'm willing to give you my money, but your ludicrous decision-making is preventing you from earning it. It's time to shit or get off the pot.

[ironista]

I would even pay, but my expectation is that a link shared from a premium user can be added from a free user no caring of how many folder he is synchronizing. That would be a limitation.

[Fear Na Boinne]

"assumptions are the mother of all f**k-ups"

I would assume that you can NOT add more than 10 under any circumstance on the free version, that would be a safer (and less disappointing) bet than your assumption!...

[fdbryant3]

I would even pay, but my expectation is that a link shared from a premium user can be added from a free user no caring of how many folder he is synchronizing. That would be a limitation.

 

Well we won't know for another 27 days or so when the trial periods start expiring.  Beyond that I would bet that majority of people are single licenses running looking to run their own sync solution, which can make the 10 folder a limit regardless..

[carsten.uhlig]

Attention! - Long statement ahead ^^ - Attention!

 

I am a pro user, who discovered Bittorrent Sync recently (2 months ago) and i was really impressed by the sheer simplicity of this product, that just works (like Apple products, well not anymore that much, but that's offtopic). I used the 1.4 Beta version and tried the 2.0.52 Alpha as well. I tested it on various devices and considered (and still considering) it for my family (parents, etc.) to put on a NAS. Also to include this at work would be awesome.

 

I have to say, that there is a point, that Bittorrent Inc. did not stay true to what they said, and in my point of view it is very important to apologize, though they don't need to give out lifetime subscriptions etc.. but i would say to thank everyone that helped in the past and to make a statement that is not based on a half-truth (like there was on page 1 in this thread) would be mandatory. This would be good marketing and would really help to fight against this negative current atm.

 

Now to the site, that just complains: i think what w411 said, is completely right. I agree 100% with him because what is the point is offering a service, that offers the program on various platforms, that works all the time, that has useful features, that won't stop working after 3 years, because the person, who programs it decides to go off. It simply works, and for that - personally - i am willing to pay money, because i can really use that. It saves so much time and effort. (keyword: development costs)

Why would you stay with the easy-to-use-service and want to keep it free under any circumstances? Because you're greedy and don't want to spend money, because you get scared of 40 USD per year and because you are so naive to think that Bittorrent Inc. has done something so evil, that the world will disappear. You know many systems nowadays (i am german, so sorry if there are any mistakes in the text) are based on this model, because it gives a more stable income. I think 3,33 USD per month is quite good. That s the same as the Private Internet Access VPN (at annual payments). It is also less than Netflix or any other major product (e.g. Spotify with 10 USD per month).

 

I think complainers must stop throwing dirt and stop just seeing the company at fault. It is true that they did deceive the userbase/community, but it was not something very serious (even understandable and foreseen by many, even with much worse expectations). Compare it to other companies. Then you will say that Bittorrent Inc. actually did quite well.

 

When suddenly it will come out, that security with Bittorrent Sync is not that given (keywords: NSA, backdoors, CIA, company espionage), then i would really consider to go away though, because data security is a reason why many people switched to Bittorrent Sync.

 

And btw, in Germany, companies are not using Dropbox, etc. at all (not even GMail, Microsoft knows that, but they can't do anything against that), because any provider that lies in a cloud with unknown data center origins or lies within America, is a threat to the company. That is no secret in Germany. The topic data security is very big here. And Bittorrent Sync would be one way to completely eradicate so many problems at once, IF it is secure. (implying no backdoors, etc.) -> regular 3rd party security audit reports concerning this matter!!!

 

EDIT: Wanted to add: in my opinion, the discussion is getting better and going in the right direction. Good points are stated, that i am pretty sure, are considered by the staff of Bittorrent Inc.. And i think Bittorrent Sync should maybe increase the folder limit. Maybe do some statistics on the distribution of power users vs. normal users and make a convenient limit that helps both parties. And another thing is that, i am also against a subscription model for now. Maybe it is good maybe not. Too few experience with this. But an alternative would be, to let people to pay for upgrades or certain features. Similar to "in-app-purchases" for iOS Apps. Or maybe supply a new version each year with upgraded features, though long-term that would probably end problematic. (not enough features to make, if not considering anything else then file-sharing and syncing)

Edited March 9, 2015 by carsten.uhlig

[casperghst42]

Attention! - Long statement ahead ^^ - Attention!

I think complainers must stop throwing dirt and stop just seeing the company at fault. It is true that they did deceive the userbase/community, but it was not something very serious (even understandable and foreseen by many, even with much worse expectations). Compare it to other companies. Then you will say that Bittorrent Inc. actually did quite well.

.....

And btw, in Germany, companies are not using Dropbox, etc. at all (not even GMail, Microsoft knows that, but they can't do anything against that), because any provider that lies in a cloud with unknown data center origins or lies within America, is a threat to the company. That is no secret in Germany. The topic data security is very big here. And Bittorrent Sync would be one way to completely eradicate so many problems at once, IF it is secure. (implying no backdoors, etc.) -> regular 3rd party security audit reports concerning this matter!!!

 

I think you misunderstand somthing (I don't fell like starting a discussion), but most people have a problem with the subscription model. I would not mind paying to get a license for 2.0.x which means that I'll get all the minor releases for 2.0.x as part of my license, when they bring out 2.1 or 3.0 then I'll have to pay for a new license if I want updates. I do that for all the software I used, but the if you don't pay after 12 months it will stop working.

 

That is also in some cases called ransom-ware..... Adobe is also involved in this business.....

 

Subscription based software is something the devil invented, and it is counter productive ... in this case I could suspect that BT might not sell as many licenses as they expect.

 

I don't see why BT couldn't just leave version 1.x as it was and release a version 2.x which have all the new funky stuff, but then again I never see eye to eye with marketing people and/or developer who get a "great".....

 

As for cloud based services; It is not only in Germany, as far as I know it's most countries in the european union which have a problem with cloud based storage. And MS is currently fighting an court order to hand out data to a US court from their datacenter in Ireland.

[mexter]

Why would you stay with the easy-to-use-service and want to keep it free under any circumstances? Because you're greedy and don't want to spend money, because you get scared of 40 USD per year and because you are so naive to think that Bittorrent Inc. has done something so evil, that the

world will disappear. You know many systems nowadays (i am german, so sorry if there are any mistakes in the text) are based on this model, because it gives a more stable income. I think 3,33 USD per month is quite good. That s the same as the Private Internet Access VPN (at annual payments). It is also less than Netflix or any other major product (e.g. Spotify with 10 USD per month).

 

I think complainers must stop throwing dirt and stop just seeing the company at fault. It is true that they did deceive the userbase/community, but it was not something very serious (even understandable and foreseen by many, even with much worse expectations). Compare it to other companies. Then you will say that Bittorrent Inc. actually did quite well.

 

Two points. I would be happy to pay for this product. They are not offering something that warrants a subscription, and are charging an obscene amount for something that requires very little server time or bandwidth on their part. This isn't a VPN, it's not a media streaming service. Those things, particularly the latter, have very high costs involved. Bittorrent, Inc needs to pay programmers, maybe office space and run some servers to host their software.

 

This is a decentralized solution where the customer pays virtually all of the costs. The are offering a program, NOT a service. I don't want a service. 

 

And deceiving your userbase is absolutely a serious thing. 

 

If they want my business, the can rescind the 10 folder limit (which I would construe as an apology), and offer a product that does not require subscribing for a price that is reasonable.

[mexter]

I don't see why BT couldn't just leave version 1.x as it was and release a version 2.x which have all the new funky stuff, but then again I never see eye to eye with marketing people and/or developer who get a "great".....

 

Actually, this is the one silver lining in all of this. 1.3/1.4 remains available (if a bit hard to find) and can continue function as it did previously. 

[fdbryant3]

Actually, this is the one silver lining in all of this. 1.3/1.4 remains available (if a bit hard to find) and can continue function as it did previously. 

 

It currently isn't that hard to find.  The link is in the first pinned post on a link which leads to http://syncapp.bittorrent.com/1.4.111/.

 

I do advise grabbing and archiving for your own purposes.

[sciurius]

... that won't stop working after 3 years, because the person, who programs it decides to go off.

The subscription model implies that your (your? think again) program will stop functioning as soon as BTinc decides to pull a plug, or even just flip a bit. Basically, you are on the wrong site of a remote control.

[casperghst42]

Actually, this is the one silver lining in all of this. 1.3/1.4 remains available (if a bit hard to find) and can continue function as it did previously. 

 

Actually, only for computers, for iOS you'll be nagged until doomsday to upgrade and if you upgrade you're on v2.0 ....

 

So if you're using devices this is a no go.

[slawson2000]

Well, it is what it is... I guess. Have not seen any updates from BTSync since the weak response from Mr.VP.

I was content with continuing to run 1.4.111, but it appears (at least with one of the issues I was having) that updates (e.g. fixes) will only be coming to version 2.0 and higher. So if you are experiencing bugs now, you will probably continue to do so.

That being said, if there are any future compatibility issues with 1.4.111 are we to be stuck with those and forced to the subscription model?

[fdbryant3]

The subscription model implies that your (your? think again) program will stop functioning as soon as BTinc decides to pull a plug, or even just flip a bit. Basically, you are on the wrong site of a remote control.

 

Well, one would hope - that if that day does come that they would do the right thing and flip the bit in a final update so it can continue operating without the subscription.  Of course there is no guarantee of that.

[carsten.uhlig]

I think you misunderstand somthing (I don't fell like starting a discussion), but most people have a problem with the subscription model. I would not mind paying to get a license for 2.0.x which means that I'll get all the minor releases for 2.0.x as part of my license, when they bring out 2.1 or 3.0 then I'll have to pay for a new license if I want updates. I do that for all the software I used, but the if you don't pay after 12 months it will stop working.

 

That is also in some cases called ransom-ware..... Adobe is also involved in this business.....

 

Subscription based software is something the devil invented, and it is counter productive ... in this case I could suspect that BT might not sell as many licenses as they expect.

 

I don't see why BT couldn't just leave version 1.x as it was and release a version 2.x which have all the new funky stuff, but then again I never see eye to eye with marketing people and/or developer who get a "great".....

 

As for cloud based services; It is not only in Germany, as far as I know it's most countries in the european union which have a problem with cloud based storage. And MS is currently fighting an court order to hand out data to a US court from their datacenter in Ireland.

No i didn't misunderstood it . And yes i understand that people don't want to pay for a subscription model. I would agree with that too, but for me it is just more convenient and i believe it is cheaper as well. I think it also depends on the people, since it is another way of thinking. I am pretty sure that another company could have sold that product for easily 150 USD as for version 2.x. If you rethink it, it might be cheaper even to "rent" it. But then it might be better to give both possibilities.

They of course did it to keep an income in the long-term. That s why i mentioned, that in case they ran out of features to implement, the company would go down, since they are not offering anything else. It is just an Abonnement (i understand the difference to a service though). If you don't want it, then you might have to go, or either wait until Bittorrent Inc. changes their offerings. Wanting that, would definitely mean, writing threads here on the forums and commenting and showing interest in that (basically protesting online).

 

But then i thought: well this thread was actually speaking about deceiving their user-base. Not about the subscription model. Though indirectly it concerns many, since they need to buy it now to unlock the separate folder limit feature. Though honestly i think, it is just fair for them to make that limit, because people need some reason to buy it, otherwise that would be a stupid sales strategy. Honestly. I can understand them (in putting up a limit feature for separate folders). But i also would say they did a bad job at marketing and community communication. If you promise something, you hold it. Simple as that. That's why i absolutely understand those people. I just can't stand people, who simply use that reason, because of their greediness. Or of people, that just want to say something, because they need to act up. (quite a few comments here sounded like that to me)

 

Well my opinion is that subscription model is not evil at all. (but actually reading your comment and thinking about service vs program, i have to admit, you do have a point. though they still offer a small service including linking devices and so on, which does help a lot)

 

"as many licences as expected": yep, i agree with that.

 

I don't understand this paragraph with "who get a "great"".

 

Yes, exactly. I know about this, because i am working for a company, that has to deal with that a lot. And i know quite a few other companies that have problems as well. I also heard that about Ireland. I didn't know though, that the court could access the resources and data in Europe. I thought the main problem was, that MS mirrors that data from Ireland to America in case of data loss (or something similar).

 

 

Two points. I would be happy to pay for this product. They are not offering something that warrants a subscription, and are charging an obscene amount for something that requires very little server time or bandwidth on their part. This isn't a VPN, it's not a media streaming service. Those things, particularly the latter, have very high costs involved. Bittorrent, Inc needs to pay programmers, maybe office space and run some servers to host their software.

 

This is a decentralized solution where the customer pays virtually all of the costs. The are offering a program, NOT a service. I don't want a service. 

 

And deceiving your userbase is absolutely a serious thing. 

 

If they want my business, the can rescind the 10 folder limit (which I would construe as an apology), and offer a product that does not require subscribing for a price that is reasonable.

See on the comments on the first quote.

 

I know. That's why i think they should also offer a single payment for one version. But i am not of exactly the same opinion to define that programs can just be bought by single payments. I know of Outbank who do the same. And a few other examples. I think in some cases it makes sense and in other cases it doesn't. -> Office 365 (if you just look at the Windows Office Versions not the online service)

Not all the costs. No. Linking the devices through internet e.g.. And guaranteeing, that the service keeps up.

 

Absolutely, especially if they are so stupid to first seriously promise it openly. They could have kept it secretly like many other companies do it. I think Bittorrent inc. was just not thinking in the right way, before and being super anti-commercial. But that went South.

 

Well, again this topic is not to discuss subscription models actually, but talking about deceiving the user-base.

 

The subscription model implies that your (your? think again) program will stop functioning as soon as BTinc decides to pull a plug, or even just flip a bit. Basically, you are on the wrong site of a remote control.

Well it is basically rented, true. And yes, other companies do that too. If you don't agree with that, again: protest and hope for the best, or go. I agreed in adding an option to add a single buy option, which price is much higher.

 

BUT: this is not to discuss subscription model. ...

 

Btw, protest i believe works the best, if 1. not buying the product 2. commenting on the forums 3. buying another competitor product 4. making constructive comments, e.g. why is it stupid to have just a subscription model.

Edited March 13, 2015 by carsten.uhlig

[mexter]

Actually, only for computers, for iOS you'll be nagged until doomsday to upgrade and if you upgrade you're on v2.0 ....

 

So if you're using devices this is a no go.

Good point. I'm on Android and have a bit more flexibility in this particular arena.  i hadn't given iOS much thought. That would seriously irritate me.

[FPtje]

 

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

 

I'm responding to a really old post here, but I think this reasoning deserves some extra attention.

Perspective points A, B and C are all about how BTSync is better than anything else. The reasoning is that this justifies everything? They are in a power position, does that give them the right to abuse it? No it doesn't, and even if the 10 folder limit was otherwise a good choice, this would not  be a valid argument for it.

 

No one is denying the deceiving, not even the people defending the decision. Have another perspective to this deceit: (to show that we people are not just "throwing dirt"):

 

Upgrading your setup to 2.0 breaks syncing if you upgrade more than 10 folders. Version 1.4 and below can be used exactly as it is supposed to be, and things would still break in the upgrade. That is unheard of. They are forcing people to either stay out of date or pay up. That is much more than just breaking promises.

 

BitTorrent is setting a precedent: They are clearly comfortable with limiting the free version in updates. There is no guarantee, and even an enlarged risk that they will limit the free version even further in future updates.

 

Luckily the 2.0 app on Android supports 1.4 folders. I'm sticking with that for now, I might try Syncthing.

Edited March 14, 2015 by FPtje