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

[smajor]

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.

 

^ This. How long now and no other response from them? I won't trust (now) that the free version won't be further crippled down the road. I'm 90% converted over to SyncThing and it is working well.  Still a little rough around the edges, but as more and more refugees from here seem to be showing up, the contributions, even bug reports, are going a long way. The devs seem mostly excited about all the new attention too.

[boruguru]

Sync 1.4 has been getting to a stage where it worked well, bugs getting fixed, and becoming usable. Now 2.0 with the promise of keeping all features of 1.4 Free, and it seems like a broken promise. Version 2.0 is hard to use as well, too complicated for simple use. Can btsync at least maintain 1.4 or make version 2.0 simple. In version 2.0,  if you disconnect a folder from one node, it gets disconnected from all connected nodes. It is too much to deal with for a simple use case. Not so good, don't kill a good product by make it too expensive to own, and complicated.

[haberjr]

I agree that a promise was broken.

 

At the same time I don't mind paying $ 40 a year. Why? Because it will support continued development. This is incredibly advanced software with huge complexities. It provides us users amazing convenience circumventing the cloud and making syncing of large files simple and easy.

 

The 10 folder limit (with unlimited subfolders) and one identity for multiple devices is not unreasonable for a product that is free. 

 

What will we do as users to assure that these developers will continue to advance this piece of amazing software? I propose we pay a reasonable fee. What is reasonable? 1 Starbucks cappuccino per month. Now that is a hell of a deal.

 

Let's support these developers.

[FPtje]

I agree that a promise was broken.

 

At the same time I don't mind paying $ 40 a year. Why? Because it will support continued development. This is incredibly advanced software with huge complexities. It provides us users amazing convenience circumventing the cloud and making syncing of large files simple and easy.

 

The 10 folder limit (with unlimited subfolders) and one identity for multiple devices is not unreasonable for a product that is free. 

 

What will we do as users to assure that these developers will continue to advance this piece of amazing software? I propose we pay a reasonable fee. What is reasonable? 1 Starbucks cappuccino per month. Now that is a hell of a deal.

 

Let's support these developers.

Oh do you think you're safe with the paid version?

With 2.0 they came up with the pro version, but no changes to any logic needs to be made to come up with a platinum version. Like I said, they are comfortable with limiting existing users of a particular plan (in this case the only plan: the free one) in an update. There's no guarantee that the free one will not get any further limits. I already said that, but the same applies for the pro version. There is no guarantee, and even an enlarged risk of the pro version being limited in updates to make room for a more expensive platinum or so version.

 

Think of restrictions like "10 folders for free, 15 for pro, unlimited for platinum". 

 

Literally every argument given in favor of the 10 folder limit could also apply for the 15 folder pro limit.

 

The 15 folder limit (with unlimited subfolders) and five identities for multiple devices is not unreasonable for a product that is not the highest subscription. 

 

What will we do as users to assure that these developers will continue to advance this piece of amazing software? I propose we pay a more reasonable fee. What is reasonable? 1.5 Starbucks cappuccinos per month. Now that is a hell of a deal.

Edited March 15, 2015 by FPtje

[Kaetemi]

1. I don't subscribe to software. Too bad.

2. I don't want a centralized identity. That seems like a terrible weak link in the security.

3. 10 main folders limit is ridiculous.

 

BTSync is turning into needlessly complicated bloatware. Can we have a BTSync Light or something, with just plain and simple key based sharing and no other bells and whistles?

[w411]

People keep exaggerating how unhappy "everyone" is with this change . . . it's fair to say a high percentage of this thread seems unhappy but I'm guessing the percentage of total BTsync users active in this thread is pretty minimal (I have no idea of the actual number of users of course).

 

I can't imagine why BTsync would go back to the original unlimited folder structure.  

 

Even if 9 out of 10 users jump ship, it makes a lot more sense to support 10,000 paid users than supporting 100,000 free users. 

[mexter]

People keep exaggerating how unhappy "everyone" is with this change . . . it's fair to say a high percentage of this thread seems unhappy but I'm guessing the percentage of total BTsync users active in this thread is pretty minimal (I have no idea of the actual number of users of course).

 

I can't imagine why BTsync would go back to the original unlimited folder structure.  

 

Even if 9 out of 10 users jump ship, it makes a lot more sense to support 10,000 paid users than supporting 100,000 free users. 

 

And if that's what they want, all the power to them. But unless they reverse their stance on the free version, I'll be actively discouraging people from using their product. They aren't trustworthy and are willing to artificially limit their software in order to "encourage" their users to pay up, and that's what I will tell anybody who asks me.

 

Maybe we're the minority. But they had a huge amount of goodwill with us until this fiasco started. They quite expertly reversed that and then some in one fell swoop. They could have been reasonable and had our support, which would likely have led to a lot more users in the long run.

[jake.sadie]

Even if 9 out of 10 users jump ship, it makes a lot more sense to support 10,000 paid users than supporting 100,000 free users. 

 

First off, can you define exactly what the folks behind the scenes were doing to "support" free users before the Pro version came out? From what I can tell, it was bug fixes and responses to forum posts, which is a responsibility that any sensible developer is going to undertake if they actually want their software to reach a large number of people.

 

Also, your 10,000 paid versus 100,000 free is a terrible argument if you consider the fact that *many* people would pay once to have BTSync software rather than do a subscription model. What if you break it down with these three offerings:

• BTSync-Lite (Free): fairly restricted version of the software, but still gets you more than 10 folders for crying out loud
• BTSync ($20): unrestricted version with regard to folder limits and other pro features, but no access to 24/7 support or other elements of the pro version that are actually a subscription-based service. Upgrade at will to a newer version but still receive maintenance/bug patches for about a year.
• BTSync-Pro ($40/year): the Pro version as we know it.

Now, let's assume half of the folks here would have thrown the $20 down for the BTSync version I suggest and 10% of them still go with the Pro version. You just bumped yearly revenue by $1M. Use that as incentive to continually improve and produce new versions of the software. If you release major upgrades every 6 months at $20 per release, you might even get some of those 50,000 BTSync users to upgrade and now you've earned yourself another $40/year Pro equivalent revenue.

 

I get that they want to earn money, but their approach is so nonsensical. They have a good product, but it is a Honda Accord, not a Ferrari. If they price their product appropriately, they'll get revenue based on a large numbers of users paying smaller prices rather than a few power users willing to pay the big fee. This is so simple that it is painful to watch them shoot themselves in the feet.

 

And if that's what they want, all the power to them. But unless they reverse their stance on the free version, I'll be actively discouraging people from using their product. They aren't trustworthy and are willing to artificially limit their software in order to "encourage" their users to pay up, and that's what I will tell anybody who asks me.

 

This. I am already actively discouraging everyone I speak with from upgrading from 1.4 > 2.0 if they already have BTSync and going a step further by discouraging people new to the idea of cloudless data syncing from using BTSync as their route to that end goal.

[TimCinel]

The Android reviews. The iOS reviews. The twitter metions. This thread.

 

Oops, you Sync guys really dropped the ball on this one. Pretty hilarious.

[Mokojojo]

The Android reviews. The iOS reviews. The twitter metions. This thread.

 

Oops, you Sync guys really dropped the ball on this one. Pretty hilarious.

 

 

I'd say let your money do the support for you, if their model works and people are paying up then so be it, but if people are leaving them  then they will have to do the necessary adjustment.

 

I personally have no problem with whatever they want to do with their marketing strategy and whatever they see fit. My only real concern is that they weren't completely truthful when it comes to 2.0 (which is still okay with me), however, it is actually the action from the company that worries me. Never mind the subscription fee, or whatever limitation they did to that software. I don't feel that I can trust this company, and with their software not being open source, how I can trust that they didn't have some sort of tracking code for backdoor? That is my biggest concern.

[FPtje]

Due to a bug in the damn thing my BTMusic folder on all devices are read only. There's no way I can connect it in a read-write way.

Is BTSync 2.0 forcing this in some way? For some 1.4 folders to be read only when you add a new device? Some other folders arewritable. I couldn't find an option to get the "write" 1.4 key in the Linux 2.0 client, so I made it a 2.0 folder.

 

I feel dirty now. I had no real choice though.

[boruguru]

Why Limits. This is not good. Please give us all features we had in 1.4 in 2.0 free version as promised.

[bacizone]

Go with Syncthing

 

Still new, a bit rough and a little bit more complicted (and secure) but open source, peer-to-peer, remains free and unlimited. Works fine here syncing amongst multiple devices (server, laptop, desktop, Android).

[calvyb]

People keep exaggerating how unhappy "everyone" is with this change . . . it's fair to say a high percentage of this thread seems unhappy but I'm guessing the percentage of total BTsync users active in this thread is pretty minimal (I have no idea of the actual number of users of course).

 

I can't imagine why BTsync would go back to the original unlimited folder structure.  

 

Even if 9 out of 10 users jump ship, it makes a lot more sense to support 10,000 paid users than supporting 100,000 free users.

Not really. a lot of people here have said they'd pay for a license if it meant they own the software out right. so where you may have 10k customers out of 100k, you also have a big ass chunk opf that 100k that would pay for a license. thus instead of 10k paying customers you might have 50k paying customers.

there's a big loss in potentital revenue. I'm one of those that would pay for 2.0 if it meant I owned it. if 3.0 was good enough I'd pay for that as well, but the fact its only a subscription means i'll just keep using 1.4. which equals lost revenue. and reading the forums there's a lot more people who feel the same way. which in turn equals A LOT of lost revenue.

[slawson2000]

Not really. a lot of people here have said they'd pay for a license if it meant they own the software out right. so where you may have 10k customers out of 100k, you also have a big ass chunk opf that 100k that would pay for a license. thus instead of 10k paying customers you might have 50k paying customers.

there's a big loss in potentital revenue. I'm one of those that would pay for 2.0 if it meant I owned it. if 3.0 was good enough I'd pay for that as well, but the fact its only a subscription means i'll just keep using 1.4. which equals lost revenue. and reading the forums there's a lot more people who feel the same way. which in turn equals A LOT of lost revenue.

And they tell two friends, and they tell two friends and so on....

I'm with you. However, due to a lack of response or any new "promised change" it seems the BTSync staff has adopted the "bury your head in the sand" option of addressing the problem. "Don't worry, remain calm, it will blow over". A typical neophyte mentality of hiding from the problems instead of addressing it.

I would like to hear from the staff as to their philosophy and any potential change they might make to the model. I even like to hear that it is what it is even after all the back lash.

A thought for you software developers out there, now would be a good time to create something similar taking into account what has been said in this thread... Simple, clean, powerful, reasonably priced (for purchase, not rent). It is just an idea...

Without a response, I can only assume BTSync is content with their thought process. I will give them a little more time, but then I must start over again evaluating different softwares.

Reminds me of what happened to LogMeIn (completely different kind of software). They changed their model an promises one day. Tons of people jumped ship. I was one. Ended up with TeamViewer. Not quite as easy to use as LogMeIn, or as clean, but for what accounted to me as $240/yr - worth the savings. Now I recommend TeamViewer...

I digress. So staff, how about a reply?

[haberjr]

We live in a world where services and products need to be paid for.  I accept the risk that in the future a product may rise in price. Conversely, I may also walk away from the product when I feel that the price is too high.

 

There are always alternatives. 

 

Let's support these developers. They too need to eat and make a living. 

[slawson2000]

As I have stated before, I have no problem paying for a product as long as it is a fair price and fits my needs. However, paying for a "service" when all that is provided is a "program" rubs me the wrong way, especially when promises were broken.

And I understand some need tech support. In my case, all I have done is pointed out and provided debugging information to help them better their product. I do not see why I need to pay yearly for that privilege..

[disappointed24442]

I too, simply registered to voice my utter dissatisfaction with the broken promise.  How many lurkers or other people haven't gone through the effort of registering for a single post and are yet similarly disgusted?  How many people find out from another source and bail without as much as a thread view.

 

I waited a couple weeks to see what the official position change was, to see if an apology was issued and how sincere it was, to determine whether or not I would continue with this company.  The silence is deafening.  Internet time moves faster than dog years.  Two weeks and nothing.  Buh-bye.

 

It's mind boggling how they are alienating customers willing to pay per release, just not per year/subscription.  These customers find value in this product, but they are being ignored for the promise of sustained income without the pressure of providing future value.

 

Another user said it well - software doesn't sell itself, and you are alienating your salesforce.

 

It's their right to sell their integrity for $40/year subscription, and it's our right to walk away with the taste of $h!t in our mouths.  w411 should get a sales position for this company.  He must like the taste.

 

P.S.  What's with the asinine puzzle captcha to register?

P.P.S.  I thought it funny that when I tried to register my username as "disappointed" it said it was already taken - that's not good!

[jake.sadie]

[...]

 

I waited a couple weeks to see what the official position change was, to see if an apology was issued and how sincere it was, to determine whether or not I would continue with this company.  The silence is deafening.  Internet time moves faster than dog years.  Two weeks and nothing.  Buh-bye.

 

[...]

 

 

[...]

I'm with you. However, due to a lack of response or any new "promised change" it seems the BTSync staff has adopted the "bury your head in the sand" option of addressing the problem. "Don't worry, remain calm, it will blow over". A typical neophyte mentality of hiding from the problems instead of addressing it.

I would like to hear from the staff as to their philosophy and any potential change they might make to the model. I even like to hear that it is what it is even after all the back lash.

[...]

Without a response, I can only assume BTSync is content with their thought process. I will give them a little more time, but then I must start over again evaluating different softwares.

[...]

I digress. So staff, how about a reply?

 

Cutting to straight to what we all want now... Staff should be responding to these issues. They are silent. I've seen numerous threads in this forum where posters are expressing their dissatisfaction and the mods have actually linked the posters to this thread, so it is clear the mods are aware of the discontent, but we aren't hearing ANY response.

 

Take some action rather than being so spineless.

[kramttocs]

^^ this is more and more becoming the issue. This thread specifically was a hot topic with a lot (some good some not) of feedback. Yet there was very, very little response from staff. So my greatest disappointment isn't so much the changes in 2.0 but the lack of explanation and consideration from the staff. A lot of users commented on the integrity of the company with the 2.0 changes but this lack of acknowledgement/caring speaks more to their [lack of] integrity in my book.

[wronkiew]

I've been using BTSync since 1.3. Subscribing to a "decentralized" service is unacceptable to me. I have more than 10 shares, some from friends I've introduced it to. I accept that this is commercial software and would consider paying for the client. Even so, the Android-Mac synchronization is not reliable enough to make it worth a meaningful amount of money. BitTorrent was building something big and they threw it all away with 2.0.

 

I'm testing Syncthing now. So far, it seems to fix everything I didn't like about BTSync.

[boruguru]

I agree. We are using this for non-commercial use, like sharing few files with friends. There are many free services like google drive, box.com etc, where they provide they server and bandwidth. In btsync, it our server, our bandwidth and there are many software to send files as well. Charging a subscription is ridiculous. It is not acceptable from a such a reputed company as bittorrent to start charging for a subscription service. What they provide, just the software, and a tracker server. It will be matter of time, something like syncthing will kill btsync in my opinion. 

[carsten.uhlig]

I'd say let your money do the support for you, if their model works and people are paying up then so be it, but if people are leaving them  then they will have to do the necessary adjustment.

 

I personally have no problem with whatever they want to do with their marketing strategy and whatever they see fit. My only real concern is that they weren't completely truthful when it comes to 2.0 (which is still okay with me), however, it is actually the action from the company that worries me. Never mind the subscription fee, or whatever limitation they did to that software. I don't feel that I can trust this company, and with their software not being open source, how I can trust that they didn't have some sort of tracking code for backdoor? That is my biggest concern.

Totally agree with that. That's what i thought as well. If it works it works, if not then not. Problem here trust is important. More like control. -> 3rd party auditing on security each year.

 

On top of that i think that the folder limit really is a problem. It should have been much higher. If you use dropbox and just have 2 gb, but share lots of folders, for projects etc. you get everything for free. (ofc security is the issue here, but still) so what i think should be possible is, when you accept a share from somebody else then this should not count towards the 10 folders limit. I think, that is quite a reasonable point. Otherwise many people will see this program just as a sync app for their own purpose, without sharing files. just max. 10 folders, which i believe is quite ok for most, if they don't share files.

[mxisaac]

I think its great.  

 

I think subscription models are necessary.  I think we feel entitled to one-time purchase systems because software used to be held to the same standards as physical products.  You bought a thing, brought it home, it was what it was.  Now things need frequent maintenance, particularly software dealing with security.

 

I'm happy to pay for it.

 

I am concerned about the closed-source code though...

[maximbroos]

Just giving my two cents:

I'm also not too happy with the idea that suddenly a certain bit of functionality is being dropped while they said they were going to keep it like "the good 'ol days".

We were setting up a system with over 50 different synced folders. Now that functionality is gone.

Based on this thread started to look at syncthing, i'm getting all excited again! 

It's opensource! You can actually dig in the software and find the exact codelines where the connections are being handled.
THAT is what  i really like! 

 

Syncthing seems to me the way to go!

On top of all of that, not sure where they spend 40 bucks per year on to make sure i can sync between my raspberry pi and my laptop... Not cool guys...