Please Offer A Lifetime Version Of Btsync Pro.


Recommended Posts

If you're going to charge $40 / year, I think a one-time fee of $120 is more than reasonable. This would be equivalent to a 3-year subscription, and BT gets that revenue up front. I just don't like the idea of paying an annual fee for software that isn't hosted / cloud based. I feel the same way about Plex, which is why I took the lifetime service option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question - just for a moment, lets pretend that Sync operating as it does and Dropbox operating as it does were free across the board.  Which would you choose and why?

a) not related to the thread topic - so let's not go there.

B) okay let's go there. Bittorrent sync. I prefer to store my stuff on my stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is what your subscription is paying for.  The whole hosted/cloud based thing is just a red herring for those to providers to make the easier sell to justify being a subscription. 

 

Here is the thing though - nobody goes to Dropbox because they want cloud-based storage (okay, maybe some do but honestly if that is your only reason then there are cheaper solutions).  The reason you go to Dropbox is because you want to be able to sync and share your files across the Internet.  The cloud storage angle is just a benefit of the method they have chose to provide that service.  That is what you paying for - software that syncs your data across the Internet.

 

Paying for a subscription to Sync is the same thing.  You are paying to sync your files (in excess of the free tier) without a 3rd party middleman.  While they are not only game in town that does this, all the others (that I know of) do the same thing.  So you are paying for a subscription somewhere or you are not going to sync your data.

 

Finally, the main thrust of your objection seems to be that you are paying something for nothing whereas a hosted service has a "tangible" cost associated to it.  Except that isn't true.  Your subscription is paying features, past development, support, and perhaps most importantly future development.  Yes, I get that those are more intangible ideas but they have very real costs.

 

Anyway, asking for a lifetime option is fine and probably a good idea for them to do.  However tying it to the mindset that only something with a physical ongoing cost is worth a subscription is disingenious.  You are not paying for the hardware associated with a product, you are paying for the product.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paying for a subscription to Sync is the same thing.  You are paying to sync your files (in excess of the free tier) without a 3rd party middleman.  While they are not only game in town that does this, all the others (that I know of) do the same thing.  So you are paying for a subscription somewhere or you are not going to sync your data.

 

But that's not the thing. BT made a specific promise about the functionality, and then didn't follow through.

 

Anyway, asking for a lifetime option is fine and probably a good idea for them to do.  However tying it to the mindset that only something with a physical ongoing cost is worth a subscription is disingenious.  You are not paying for the hardware associated with a product, you are paying for the product.

 

Well, no, we're only renting the product. Remember not so long ago when you paid $40-50 and got tech support for maybe a couple of years until the next major version released?

 

Software companies aren't moving to a subscription model for the benefit of users. The periodic subscription payments are just an ehanced revenue stream. Now they get paid more for providing that support whether people use ir or not. Then the added bonus of not having to come up with a major revision too soon (or at all.) Look at Adobe CC. They realized they couldn't think of much more in the way of new features to justify anyone upgrading on a regular basis anymore. So they went rental with everything in order to keep making money.

 

So no, it's not disingenuous. You can pay for Dropbox on a subscription and get off-site hosting of your files in addition to syncing them across your own hardware, in addition to support. Trying to get people to pay in that same sort of subscription model while actually providing less then even what was provided before is just being greedy.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would pay for a lifetime license and/or a license for the features as they are now with bug patches only (no major feature additions).

 

I own Adobe Master Collection CS6 outright.  Paid cash in full for it.  I will never, ever upgrade to Adobe CC.  I'm not going to pay monthly for a product that doesn't need a subscription model.

 

It would be like game companies asking me to pay a subscription for a game that is single player only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also in favor of a lifetime option. All I want to do is sync files from computer A to B with other computers or people. I don't need any fancy bells or whistles attached or constant updates or upgrades. Just make a product that works and sell it as is. Charge for major upgrades and if people want it then give them that option. Seriously? how far can you take a basic syncing program? You're going to hit a plateau sooner rather than later. A program like this is not suitable for a subscription basis, especially $40. Adobe and Office, sure! They make products so that people can make a living off it. Syncing without server storage? ya, not so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think keeping this secure and up to date is going to be a full time job and that cheap lifetime subscriptions would sink (no pun intended) the whole project in the not very distant future, forcing development of a completely new product just to get out from under the burden of supporting lifetime subscriptions. Whereas, if they keep the yearly subscription model it will provide a solid income stream allowing all of the energy to keep going into it so that it would simply become that "new" product, organically.

 

Those who want free service and support are going to get what they pay for. As they should.

Edited by cinco
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I saw the pricing model I laughed and thought, someone's misunderstood what needs to be communicated and put up on the site. Then when I saw that it wasn't a joke I LOL'd hard.

 

The pricing model is quite frankly ridiculous. I'm not paying the current prices so I can do some extended file sharing. And not many people will either. Your corporate reputation is screwed because of your bitcoin mining screw up and this is your pricing? Your marketing department should be fired now. They will later when you see how pitiful your sales are.  Your USP is very small in a crowded established market and what you do is very overpriced and here's why:

 

Take Lastpass. I can get Lastpass free for my laptop, works in my browser, offers a supremely good security product that's multiplatform and for $10 p/a I can get a WHOLE load of extra functionality and they continue to enhance the product with even more features - in fact a HUGE amount of extra functionality. But the $0 option is enough for many many users who can be secure without the premium version. Against that the free version of BTSync is not a very useful product and because it's a crippled version it has no value in most environments (I mean Airdrop is easier to use for Mac users and setting up shared file systems is a breeze - I can even put in file management at per file per user level if I want to and if I buy Mac Server for a one off $20 (or less I think) I have so much extra user functionality it is unreal). And the pro version is frankly something that if you want to sell into a commercial environment is up against products like Google's Drive and Docs/Sheets functionality which offers so so so much more (audit trails for one) for less than $5 a seat if you're happy to negotiate.

 

Sorry but even at $10 a year I wouldn't look at it - other $10 subscription software offers so much more and I'd be asking myself what am I paying these guys to do and when will they drop in some bloatware or malware? $7 per version per user lifetime licence I'd buy. $35 p/a? Nope. Not going to happen.

 

And Bittorrent is a protocol. $35 makes it very tempting to produce a competing product for a load of people. For example I use Transmission and I always will now. Because your reputation re malware stinks and I paid for it even tho I didn't need to because I pay for good honest product development and a product that shows design and functional excellence.

 

I'm out until you find a price point that isn't so hilariously high and you produce a product that is at least stable.

 

Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A life time thing would be cool but personally I'd just be happy if the software was owned when purchased and thus would work forever, or the lifetime of your hardware at the very least.....

if I then had to pay again for 3.0 or something when I get newer hardware that maybe 2.0 doesn't work with then fair enough. but then I could perhaps pay my £40 for 2.0 and use it for 5-10 years.

it's like windows basically. had 98 skipped me, had xp, skipped vista, got 7, skipped 8 and 9 (8.1), might get 10..

lifetime subscription would be cool but I'd be happy with just a paid license and not this subscription stuff.

for that reason i'll just keep using 1.4 until either my hardware outdates it or they change the pricing policies,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would pay for lifetime service. as right now i am searching for another solution. All we need is the ability to have a personal licence lifetime option (even with limited non-pro support)

Absolutely. Paying subscription fees for this isn't an option for me. Just give me a lifetime option, and I'm in. I don't really care about the price. Otherwise, I'll continue to stay on the free tier until SyncThing is a bit more polished.

 

I wish the BTSync leadership understood this. You're not losing $40 / year on me if you offer me $120 lifetime option. You're just gaining $120 cuz I'm not going to pay for the subscription.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is what your subscription is paying for.  The whole hosted/cloud based thing is just a red herring for those to providers to make the easier sell to justify being a subscription. 

 

Here is the thing though - nobody goes to Dropbox because they want cloud-based storage (okay, maybe some do but honestly if that is your only reason then there are cheaper solutions).  The reason you go to Dropbox is because you want to be able to sync and share your files across the Internet.  The cloud storage angle is just a benefit of the method they have chose to provide that service.  That is what you paying for - software that syncs your data across the Internet.

 

Paying for a subscription to Sync is the same thing.  You are paying to sync your files (in excess of the free tier) without a 3rd party middleman.  While they are not only game in town that does this, all the others (that I know of) do the same thing.  So you are paying for a subscription somewhere or you are not going to sync your data.

 

Finally, the main thrust of your objection seems to be that you are paying something for nothing whereas a hosted service has a "tangible" cost associated to it.  Except that isn't true.  Your subscription is paying features, past development, support, and perhaps most importantly future development.  Yes, I get that those are more intangible ideas but they have very real costs.

 

Anyway, asking for a lifetime option is fine and probably a good idea for them to do.  However tying it to the mindset that only something with a physical ongoing cost is worth a subscription is disingenious.  You are not paying for the hardware associated with a product, you are paying for the product.

Your logic seems to make sense. One pays for the "ability" to share over the internet and you need to pay to maintain that ability. Just like cell phone service, you pay a monthly fee to be able to talk over the phone. The same as the mailing service. One can subscribe to UPS or Fedex to have unlimited service. Or if one can subscribe to New York Times to read news, as long as he/she pays.

 

However following this logic, if Microsoft or Apple charges a subscription fee for the operation system or even the computer you are using, every year, and if you stop paying the fee, you can't get back to your desktop anymore, do you think it's fair?

 

The critical difference here is that for the subscription model, you either "rent" or "lease" the product like mailing or phone survice, because they *OWN* the infrastructure (trucks, planes, signal towers etc), or you subscribe to get *NEW* stuff in every period like a newspaper subscription. For Microsoft Windows, once it's written, and you buy it, you OWN it like a hammer you buy from a hardware store, and you can use it as long as you want.

 

Dropbox runs on subscription model because the users use Dropbox server to store and version their files. That's called "rental"! And people are will to pay for that *service*. If btsync wants to charge subscription fee, provide storage and versioning, and confront Dropbox!

 

Does btsync own any infranstructure over the internet, or does it provide new information to us that we need to know every year?

But that's not the thing. BT made a specific promise about the functionality, and then didn't follow through.

 

 

Well, no, we're only renting the product. Remember not so long ago when you paid $40-50 and got tech support for maybe a couple of years until the next major version released?

 

Software companies aren't moving to a subscription model for the benefit of users. The periodic subscription payments are just an ehanced revenue stream. Now they get paid more for providing that support whether people use ir or not. Then the added bonus of not having to come up with a major revision too soon (or at all.) Look at Adobe CC. They realized they couldn't think of much more in the way of new features to justify anyone upgrading on a regular basis anymore. So they went rental with everything in order to keep making money.

 

So no, it's not disingenuous. You can pay for Dropbox on a subscription and get off-site hosting of your files in addition to syncing them across your own hardware, in addition to support. Trying to get people to pay in that same sort of subscription model while actually providing less then even what was provided before is just being greedy.

I was a casual and occational user of Adobe software, and I will never buy a subscription to such an expensive software. I have switched to simpler and free alternatives, ie GIMP and inkscape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is what your subscription is paying for.  The whole hosted/cloud based thing is just a red herring for those to providers to make the easier sell to justify being a subscription. 

 

Here is the thing though - nobody goes to Dropbox because they want cloud-based storage (okay, maybe some do but honestly if that is your only reason then there are cheaper solutions).  The reason you go to Dropbox is because you want to be able to sync and share your files across the Internet.  The cloud storage angle is just a benefit of the method they have chose to provide that service.  That is what you paying for - software that syncs your data across the Internet.

 

Paying for a subscription to Sync is the same thing.  You are paying to sync your files (in excess of the free tier) without a 3rd party middleman.  While they are not only game in town that does this, all the others (that I know of) do the same thing.  So you are paying for a subscription somewhere or you are not going to sync your data.

 

Finally, the main thrust of your objection seems to be that you are paying something for nothing whereas a hosted service has a "tangible" cost associated to it.  Except that isn't true.  Your subscription is paying features, past development, support, and perhaps most importantly future development.  Yes, I get that those are more intangible ideas but they have very real costs.

 

Anyway, asking for a lifetime option is fine and probably a good idea for them to do.  However tying it to the mindset that only something with a physical ongoing cost is worth a subscription is disingenious.  You are not paying for the hardware associated with a product, you are paying for the product.

 

You don't see anything weird about installing this software on a bunch of computers on a LAN, disconnecting that LAN from the internet, and then having to pay $40/year to someone else to keep it working?

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.