Btsync 2.0, Why Change, It's Working Like A Charm

[zbigb69]

Hello everyone,

 

i understand all things i've read on this forum, with the new price etc...

Like lots of people, i find that it's expensive for the job, like i tell on another post, some backup solutions are just a little more expensive, but they need storage etc. 

Anyway i'm not here to talk about this.

 

But i read that lots of people have problems to sync with this 2.0 version, but honnestly it does the job very well, people think that like it's not a beta anymore, there is no more problems, but hey do you know some software without update ?

 

Ok 10 folders is limited, i'd prefer no limitation, or a personnal use cheaper and without have to pay every years, but i have no problems with this version. I always have problems with betas, and since 2.0 is out it's ok. I use 7 folders, with more than 2To sync, and all is ok.

 

I don't like that you cannot know the status easily. But i like in folder there is no more ".sync" file, and there is a "bts" file with status of transfer.

 

 

So ok i think like other people, they must adjust the price of pro version, and limitation of free, but why changing to another sync software ?

 

Please if you have good arguments, explain to me, maybe i miss something, but for me this version is nice, and i don't plane to move to another. Pretty sure that if they move to a reasonable price i'll take the pro version.

 

hope you like my english guys

[fdbryant3]

 

So ok i think like other people, they must adjust the price of pro version, and limitation of free, but why changing to another sync software ?

 

Well if you want to know why people are moving to other platforms you have to look at the reasons:

 

1) Subscription plan - most people don't object to paying for Sync but they do object to paying for a subscription for a couple reasons.  First off because Sync is simply a program that provides functionality and does not have the infrastructure that needs to supported like Dropbox many people feel that a reoccurring charge is unjustified.  There is also a independence factor.  Many people like Sync because unlike say Dropbox if Bitorrent being a company then the program keeps working.  Now that it is tied to a subscription who knows what happens if Bitorrent disappears.

 

2) The 10 folder limit - for most people the 10 folder limit isn't the problem in and of itself.  The problem is that when 2.0 was announced they said none of the functionality in 1.4 would become a paid feature.  Well 1.4 has unlimited folders.  So now they have violated the trust they built up.  This a big deal for a product that needs to be trusted to move personal data securely around the Internet.  They already have an issue by not being open source.  This just makes it worse because if you can't trust what the developers say, then who knows what they are doing with your data.

 

Which brings us the question of why switch?  Because that is how the system works.  If you are not happy with a product, then you move on to something else.  It is the only thing we as consumers can do to get what we want.  It is why competition is a good thing.  In this case of Bitorrent does not meet their subscription goals or sees people moving to other platforms like SyncThing then maybe they will change to something more palatable. 

[kramttocs]

Please if you have good arguments, explain to me, maybe i miss something, but for me this version is nice, and i don't plane to move to another. Pretty sure that if they move to a reasonable price i'll take the pro version.

If you're happy with it why do you want to be convinced otherwise? I recommend reading the Broke A Promise thread for people's reasoning. No point repeating it all again.

[trevellyan]

1) Subscription plan - most people don't object to paying for Sync but they do object to paying for a subscription for a couple reasons.  First off because Sync is simply a program that provides functionality and does not have the infrastructure that needs to supported like Dropbox many people feel that a reoccurring charge is unjustified.  There is also a independence factor.  Many people like Sync because unlike say Dropbox if Bitorrent being a company then the program keeps working.  Now that it is tied to a subscription who knows what happens if Bitorrent disappears.

 

This is incorrect. First, there is infrastructure to support, in the form of tracker and relay servers. You can argue over relative costs and reasonable pricing, but don't claim there's no infrastructure to support. Second, Sync has always used those servers (at least as long as I've been running it), so if the company disappears and takes those servers with them, it will affect all versions equally. Remember, a subscription only pays for additional features, the base product requires no activation, nor even any internet connection.

 

2) The 10 folder limit - for most people the 10 folder limit isn't the problem in and of itself.  The problem is that when 2.0 was announced they said none of the functionality in 1.4 would become a paid feature.  Well 1.4 has unlimited folders.  So now they have violated the trust they built up.  This a big deal for a product that needs to be trusted to move personal data securely around the Internet.  They already have an issue by not being open source.  This just makes it worse because if you can't trust what the developers say, then who knows what they are doing with your data.

 

This is a specious argument. There has been no loss of functionality, only an imposition of numeric limits. You can still use all the features from version 1.4, but you can't use them on unlimited folders. As for the question of open source, if you truly consider that to be important, you should not have been using Sync at all, since there has never been any indiction that the product would be made open source. To describe these as trust issues just smacks of trolling.

[fdbryant3]

 

This is incorrect. First, there is infrastructure to support, in the form of tracker and relay servers. You can argue over relative costs and reasonable pricing, but don't claim there's no infrastructure to support. Second, Sync has always used those servers (at least as long as I've been running it), so if the company disappears and takes those servers with them, it will affect all versions equally. Remember, a subscription only pays for additional features, the base product requires no activation, nor even any internet connection.

 

First I am reiterating the argument others are making as to why they do not think that Sync does not deserve subscription pricing second.  No one says that Sync has no infrastructure however that infrastructure is minimal compared to Dropbox and the heavy part of the infrastructure requirements (things like hard drives, computers, and bandwidth) are actually placed the use.  Third the tracker, relay servers, and even DHT are more for making things easier for the user - Sync though can function without them, although you will have to do more of you own configuration

 

This is a specious argument. There has been no loss of functionality, only an imposition of numeric limits. You can still use all the features from version 1.4, but you can't use them on unlimited folders. As for the question of open source, if you truly consider that to be important, you should not have been using Sync at all, since there has never been any indiction that the product would be made open source. To describe these as trust issues just smacks of trolling.

 

 

Really, you can't see that in one version you have unlimited folder for without having to pay a dime is different and more functional than a version that has a folder 10 limit?  I get loving Sync.  I get we may disagree on how important this difference is.  I even get that it doesn't affect you, but that doesn't mean it isn't affecting somebody.  How about a little intellectual honesty here though. 

 

More importantly you are ignoring the larger issue which is one of trust.  They said none of the features of 1.4 would be put behind a pay wall.  Regardless of how important you think unlimited folders is, they have gone back on their word, and they did it to make money.  I don't know about you but in my world when someone doesn't do what they say they will, that erodes my trust in them.  When it is a company to whom I am entrusting my data going back on their word because they think it will yield more money - well we may disagree, but I am seriously going reconsider whether I want to do business with that company because who knows what other promises they think are worth breaking.  If a suitable alternative is available - it is certainly grounds for switching.

[trevellyan]

First I am reiterating the argument others are making as to why they do not think that Sync does not deserve subscription pricing second.  No one says that Sync has no infrastructure however that infrastructure is minimal compared to Dropbox and the heavy part of the infrastructure requirements (things like hard drives, computers, and bandwidth) are actually placed the use.  Third the tracker, relay servers, and even DHT are more for making things easier for the user - Sync though can function without them, although you will have to do more of you own configuration

 

When you said "Sync is simply a program that provides functionality and does not have the infrastructure that needs to supported like Dropbox many people feel that a reoccurring charge is unjustified" I misunderstood "does not have the infrastructure" to mean "does not have infrastructure". Fair enough.

 

 

Really, you can't see that in one version you have unlimited folder for without having to pay a dime is different and more functional than a version that has a folder 10 limit?  I get loving Sync.  I get we may disagree on how important this difference is.  I even get that it doesn't affect you, but that doesn't mean it isn't affecting somebody.  How about a little intellectual honesty here though.

 

How about a little realism here though? I guess when you're stuck on semantics, the argument will never be settled.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

s/'is'/functionality/

 

Besides, whether the 10-folder limit affects you or me or "somebody" doesn't answer the question of whether it represents a broken promise about functionality.

 

More importantly you are ignoring the larger issue which is one of trust.  They said none of the features of 1.4 would be put behind a pay wall.  Regardless of how important you think unlimited folders is, they have gone back on their word, and they did it to make money.  I don't know about you but in my world when someone doesn't do what they say they will, that erodes my trust in them.  When it is a company to whom I am entrusting my data going back on their word because they think it will yield more money - well we may disagree, but I am seriously going reconsider whether I want to do business with that company because who knows what other promises they think are worth breaking.  If a suitable alternative is available - it is certainly grounds for switching.

 

 

No, I'm not ignoring the issue of trust. Clearly I must choose to trust any vendor of a closed-source product when I choose to use that product. You said "They already have an issue by not being open source", and I asked why, if you really believe that, were you using Sync at any stage in its development?

 

By the way, I have tried several alternatives. Syncthing is a wonderful project, except that it doesn't work very well, at least not for me. The flaw that I couldn't get past is its inability to delete a folder that contains ignored files. AeroFS seems to work pretty well, albeit rather slowly, at $10/month per user. Seafile is open source, but it needs a central server and the server update process kinda sucks. ownCloud requires a central server and is absurdly slow for lots of small files. Here I am, still using Sync - for $0!

 

Anyway, I feel like an idiot for getting involved here, but I'm just so tired of all the whining and complaining and bitching and moaning. I think I need to take a break from these forums.

[tjluoma]

 

I guess when you're stuck on semantics, the argument will never be settled.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

s/'is'/functionality/

 

Besides, whether the 10-folder limit affects you or me or "somebody" doesn't answer the question of whether it represents a broken promise about functionality.

 

 

Oh, come on. “There has been no loss of functionality, only an imposition of numeric limits” is a semantic dodge.

 

Syncing folders was unlimited in one version, and limited in the next, but somehow that is NOT a loss of functionality?

 

I mean… you can make whatever argument you want, but trying to claim that isn't a decrease in functionality is absurd.

 

The number of folders that you can sync is part of the functionality of the program.

 

You can argue all you want about sustainability and fair pricing, but you can't say “Well, it's the same system, they just imposed some limits on it” because the lack of limits was part of what defined the previous system.

 

I intend to pay for the subscription because I like some of the other features (especially the ability to pause individual folders, which wasn't in 1.x) so this isn't going to interfere with my ability to use the program, but I can't understand the people who keep trying to deny that something was taken away from 1.x to 2.0.

[trevellyan]

OK, you're right again, I was giving them a pass for not removing features, but limiting the number of folders does limit functionality.

 

The ironic part of this, to me at least, is that having just reread everything I could find about what would or wouldn't be in the free version of 2.0, I could only find one direct reference to functionality being on par with 1.4 (by GreatMarko, who is a forum moderator but as far as I know, not employed by BitTorrent):

 

"To the best of my understanding no current functionality will be "removed" from the Free version of Sync 2.0." (emphasis added)

 

I wouldn't exactly call that a promise from BitTorrent, but it does set expectations that are not being met.

 

[GreatMarko]

The ironic part of this, to me at least, is that having just reread everything I could find about what would or wouldn't be in the free version of 2.0, I could only find one direct reference to functionality being on par with 1.4 ...

 

You perhaps didn't read this blog post, by Erik Pounds, VP of Sync back in November, which stated:

 

"We’re improving the free edition over what’s available in version 1.4" (emphasis added!)

 

I therefore stand by my subsequent comment made after this public blog post (in fact, in the dedicated forum thread where it was being discussed!) that "To the best of my understanding no current functionality will be "removed" from the Free version of Sync 2.0.", as that was indeed my understanding at the time back in November - it was not a "promise" (it was, as stated, "to the best of my understanding"), nor was it "setting expectations" that hadn't already been set by Erik's original blog post!

[michaelk42]

 

You perhaps didn't read this blog post, by Erik Pounds, VP of Sync back in November, which stated:

 

"We’re improving the free edition over what’s available in version 1.4" (emphasis added!)

 

Oh look, weasel-words and excuses. They have altered the deal, and we just have to pray they don't alter it further.

 

Not the people I'm going to throw $40 at even once, much less on an annual rental basis.

[trevellyan]

 

You perhaps didn't read this blog post, by Erik Pounds, VP of Sync back in November, which stated:

 

"We’re improving the free edition over what’s available in version 1.4" (emphasis added!)

 

I therefore stand by my subsequent comment made after this public blog post (in fact, in the dedicated forum thread where it was being discussed!) that "To the best of my understanding no current functionality will be "removed" from the Free version of Sync 2.0.", as that was indeed my understanding at the time back in November - it was not a "promise" (it was, as stated, "to the best of my understanding"), nor was it "setting expectations" that hadn't already been set by Erik's original blog post!

 

You're right, I didn't reread that blog post, and I'm not arguing with your subsequent, qualified statement based on your understanding of it. Please don't think I'm here to pick a fight with you (or anyone).

 

It is a PR disaster, no matter how you parse the official statements.