On Sync 2.0's Pricing Model

[youlied]

From the start, we did not want to pursue an ad-based model. And our mission is to not require the collection of user information to be used for financial benefit. Indirect monetization models may sometimes seem like a great deal on the surface, but it means you have to give up a part of your life. Unlike many internet companies, with Sync, you are fully in control and the required relationship you have to have with the company is minimal.

Sure, using software that is funded through ads comes at a cost.  That cost is privacy.  But is that expense any more than what we're "paying" now?  We're supposed to trust a company with keeping the transmission of our data safe from prying eyes.  All we have to go on is your word that privacy is your number one concern.  The code isn't open source, which already makes us suspicious, and you've gone back on what you said about not removing features which makes you completely untrustworthy.  (I like how you didn't address that in your original post there, Pounds.) 

 

We have no reason to believe that you have any concern for keeping our data safe.  In fact, BitTorrent is under a lot of heat right now about the bitcoin miner you smuggled into your bittorrent client, uTorrent.  With shady moves like that, you have a lot to learn about gaining peoples' confidence.  All this to say that the privacy lost from a few ads in the software is the least of our concern, and should be the least of yours.

 

Start addressing the real issues.

[jdevora]

This one post per day limit is really annoying (and apparently, doesn't really help shutting out spammers).

 

 

That is how it works. Say you have two nodes that are associated to your identity, but are behind (different) firewalls doing NAT where:

 

- There is no port forwarding set up.

- uPnP is not possible.

 

there is no way for the nodes to contact each other directly (there are other situations, such as some VPNs and DS-Lite, where relaying can kick in). Also, a thing such as:

If you don't believe me and want it from the horse's mouth, here you have it:

 

http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/34509-use-over-internet-without-relay-server/?p=101168

 

(Of course, this does not apply when direct peer to peer connections can be established, such as on a local network or when port forwarding can be set up on one of the two ends.)

 

Hi,

That is not how it normally works either...

You don't have to allways open the ports to stablish a P2P connection, there are many tricks to avoid to have to open the ports for having  a "direct connection". 

 

For example if  both systems have an "outgoing connection" to the "Tracker server"  most of the time you could exchange this outgoing connection details (hole in the router) for stablish directly between those two systems

Cheers

 JD

 

PS: Meaning... the use of the relay servers is not as huge as you might think.

[iswrong]

For example if  both systems have an "outgoing connection" to the "Tracker server"  most of the time you could exchange this outgoing connection details (hole in the router) for stablish directly between those two systems

 

Indeed, you are right:

http://www.h-online.com/security/features/How-Skype-Co-get-round-firewalls-747314.html

 

But it doesn't work with all NAT'ing firewalls. But I may indeed be overestimating the amount of traffic relay servers receive (based on my own situation). It would be nice to find some statistics on the percentage of cases UDP hole punching works.

Edited April 16, 2015 by iswrong

[zbigb69]

hello,

i pay backblaze for unlimited backup storage, i use about 2 to. It's about $50 a year

 

how to explain btsync is quite the same price just to use a software ? Pretty expensive as i use my own bandwith and storage.

Backblaze has lot's of servers and needs lots of hard drives to save lots of bytes.

 

I would pay a pro btsync license, but not as this price. It's just a sync tools, nothing more. So ok to pay, but in a raisonnable price, for public users.

Maybe for pro it's ok, not to expensive for a company, even for a small one.

[iswrong]

i pay backblaze for unlimited backup storage, i use about 2 to. It's about $50 a year

 

But it's $50 per year per machine. Also, it's not unlimited, because it removed deleted files from backups after 30 days (which makes it kind of pointless for backups).

 

I find Office 365 a more apt example. Not only does it give you 1TB of Onedrive storage, but also Microsoft Office, and Skype credit, for ~70 per year, or $99.99 for 5 users (a household).

 

I think $40 would be a great price, if you would actually get a software license that you could (in principle) infinitely. Then maybe $20 for updates thereafter. But sadly the industry is moving to subscription pricing to have a reliable and fatter revenue stream.

[zbigb69]

yes per machine, but for unlimited storage for each. Price is understandable.

 

for btsync, honnestly i don't understand the price and why pay $40 each year, maybe for unlimited machine, but nothing else than software.

 

Really, as public user, i would pay but for a more reasonnable price considering that it's just a soft and nothing more, no data space.

It's a dropbox like but you have to get your own space, so it's not really a cloud, just a soft leave you the possibility of sync files.

[mexter]

But it's $50 per year per machine. Also, it's not unlimited, because it removed deleted files from backups after 30 days (which makes it kind of pointless for backups).

 

Whereas Sync doesn't offer unlimited anything with regard to storage. You get "unlimited" in the sense that you can connect as many of your own machines and your own hard drives as you want. 

 

Part of the problem is that Bittorrent Inc is under the mistaken impression that they are competing with the likes of Dropbox, Onedrive, etc. They aren't. Those are services that constantly hold onto your data / guarantee server uptime, etc. Sync is basically a conduit between two or more endpoints that the end user controls. The software was certainly worth paying for, but they do nothing to warrant a subscription, or even a $40 one time price. (I would have grudgingly paid $40 for a one time purchase before this fiasco. Now I've had too long to see how they do things.)

 

Anyway, tl;dr Sync shouldn't be compared to cloud file hosting services. They're nothing alike. 

[zkyevolved]

Hmm... I see both points of view. I for one don't mind the 40 dollars a year charge for one simple reason: the ability to get files on demand. This is VERY useful from my Surface Pro, tablet and phone. I run a Raspberry and Banana Pi server. So being able to grab all my data on the go (for example, 65gb of pictures, or 15gb of documents) when I need it is just awesome. I found it really creepy to host my data in the cloud (dropbox, onedrive) so I searched and searched and found BTSync a while back. I had several different folders, like "Pictures for all devices" which synced the pictures I wanted on every device. I couldn't have all my pictures on my Surface Pro because of limited space. But now, with 2.0, I can! I can pick any picture I want, and it'll download it off from my Banana Pi and tada!!! downloaded and ready to be downloaded! I really REALLY hope they allow thumbnail syncing.... That would make it AWESOME.

 

So, to sum up... I would MUCH rather pay 40 for the software permanently... but 40 a year isn't too bad. Plus, I'll give it a try for one year. If there isn't sufficient development to merit clients paying 40 a year for tiny bug fixes rather than actually meriting the money for features and upgrades, then that would be the end of my subscription... Syncthing has been improving. So who knows, maybe in a year they'll be far ahead of BTSync if BTSync doesn't work to earn our hard earned cash...  

[Catsrules]

I am very surprised by this I didn't get a warning or anything. Just updated all of my phones and computers one day and boom. 30 day count down tell dooms day. I am partialy to blame for not researching this myself, I just honestly didn’t have time.  With work and school being so crazy, I honestly don’t know what I am going to do about this. I don’t really have time anymore to deal with this when my syncing system totally dies. So that is awesome. (15days left)
 

I don't think a subscription really fits the BTsync model. Subscription is really for if I am renting or buying a service from you or if I am getting support. I don’t consider BTsync any of those things. I am using your program that I host myself.

 

 

But my real concern is per device cost problem.

It is my understanding this is 40 dollars per device, correct? Because I personally have 2 phones, 1 laptop, 3 desktops and 2 servers all running BTSync. That I personally use. I can tell you right now I am not paying $320 a year so I can sync my files. Honestly I love BTSync, but I don’t think you’re going a direction that I like, and I really can’t afford it.

The only ways I could consider BTsync is
 

If the price per device was lowered per device, or the 10 folder limit was removed, or if the pricing was change to be an overall account. Like a linked account, or something.

I am totally fine for paying for BTsync, but $320 a year is way too expensive and I really can’t afford it, especially for only a year of Service. It make no sence considering there are others services out there that offer a better deal. L

 

I really love BTsync, I hope you reconsider and change your current modal.

[mexter]

If the price per device was lowered per device, or the 10 folder limit was removed, or if the pricing was change to be an overall account. Like a linked account, or something.

 

It's not per device, it's per identity. You can use that identity on as many devices as you want. I still personally think that the model is wrong and overpriced, but in your case it's $40 per year. 

There are instructions in the forum on how to downgrade back to version 1.4 should you prefer to go that route.

[jalcide]

This software subscription model frenzy is getting out of hand. There is no way I'm adding local file syncing software to my monthly budget alongside Adobe and others.

 

The growing trend of essentially renting software and losing control of when, why and how one decides to upgrade to new versions, is extremely troubling.

 

It's why many of us were attracted to BTS to begin with; to avoid the cloud subscription model.

 

How ironic that BTS's first monetization should be so cloud-like.

 

I understand the need to monetize and might be willing to pay a good amount (more than 40.00, even) for the Pro version if the software were guaranteed to continue working on the version I decided to purchase and perhaps stay with, bugs and all (no software is bug-free) until I decide to upgrade.

 

I think you may be underestimating what people would pay to "own" a major version of BTS (i.e. 2.x) with small maintenance updates until the next version (which you then charge an upgrade fee for).

 

You should provide the option and find out. Charge what you want. You have nothing to lose, but revenue.

 

You're in control of when your software gets bumped to the next major (pay for) version, after all.

[zkyevolved]

I am very surprised by this I didn't get a warning or anything. Just updated all of my phones and computers one day and boom. 30 day count down tell dooms day. I am partialy to blame for not researching this myself, I just honestly didn’t have time.  With work and school being so crazy, I honestly don’t know what I am going to do about this. I don’t really have time anymore to deal with this when my syncing system totally dies. So that is awesome. (15days left)

 

I don't think a subscription really fits the BTsync model. Subscription is really for if I am renting or buying a service from you or if I am getting support. I don’t consider BTsync any of those things. I am using your program that I host myself.

 

 

But my real concern is per device cost problem.

It is my understanding this is 40 dollars per device, correct? Because I personally have 2 phones, 1 laptop, 3 desktops and 2 servers all running BTSync. That I personally use. I can tell you right now I am not paying $320 a year so I can sync my files. Honestly I love BTSync, but I don’t think you’re going a direction that I like, and I really can’t afford it.

The only ways I could consider BTsync is

 

If the price per device was lowered per device, or the 10 folder limit was removed, or if the pricing was change to be an overall account. Like a linked account, or something.

I am totally fine for paying for BTsync, but $320 a year is way too expensive and I really can’t afford it, especially for only a year of Service. It make no sence considering there are others services out there that offer a better deal. L

 

I really love BTsync, I hope you reconsider and change your current modal.

 

No, it's 40 a year per person. So, if you have 1 device it's 40. If you have 20 devices, it's the same 40.  But, as you can see with this new model, if you add a folder to one of your devices; the ABILITY to see the folder is loaded on ALL devices... You'd need to connect of course, but the ability to see the folder is there. So you can't give your key to EVERYONE under your 40. So if you have 400 devices yourself, you'd still only pay 40 a year. 

[eldrin]

I agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread. I'd be willing to pay for a license for perpetual use, but I'm not willing to pay a subscription fee for synchronization software that uses my own, local storage. Therefore, for now, BitTorrent gets no revenue from me.

[Catsrules]

It's not per device, it's per identity. You can use that identity on as many devices as you want. I still personally think that the model is wrong and overpriced, but in your case it's $40 per year. 

There are instructions in the forum on how to downgrade back to version 1.4 should you prefer to go that route.

 

 

No, it's 40 a year per person. So, if you have 1 device it's 40. If you have 20 devices, it's the same 40.  But, as you can see with this new model, if you add a folder to one of your devices; the ABILITY to see the folder is loaded on ALL devices... You'd need to connect of course, but the ability to see the folder is there. So you can't give your key to EVERYONE under your 40. So if you have 400 devices yourself, you'd still only pay 40 a year. 

 

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up, I missunderstood the website, when it talked about volume licencing sounded like it is 40 per device. Yes I agree, subscption modle is wrong for what they are selling, I hope they see the light on that.

I would love to go back to 1.4. I have screwed my self by updating to v2. Because I have a few IPhones I use BTsync to backup photos. No way to downgrade apps on iphones as far as I know . But I may just setup a compleat seperate BTsync server for the apple stuff and downgrade everything elce. 

 

[zkyevolved]

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up, I missunderstood the website, when it talked about volume licencing sounded like it is 40 per device. Yes I agree, subscption modle is wrong for what they are selling, I hope they see the light on that.

I would love to go back to 1.4. I have screwed my self by updating to v2. Because I have a few IPhones I use BTsync to backup photos. No way to downgrade apps on iphones as far as I know . But I may just setup a compleat seperate BTsync server for the apple stuff and downgrade everything elce.

Why would you need to downgrade an iPhone? V2 is backwards compatible with 1.4. Keep updating on mobile devices but keep your main devices as 1.4.

[zbigb69]

i do not agree when you say "now i can have all my file everywhere on my tablet".

 

No you can't, if all your computers are down, and have just your tablet you can't. With dropbox you can. It is not a cloud service.

 

I really like btsync, it open solutions of lots of problems i had, but it doen't deliver anything else than sync your own device, nothing more. When i leave home or office for a long time, i take my backup disc, where i sync with btsync. If my computer is down i can't sync anything else. If my home and office burn in the same time, well i've lost everything. Nothing compare to a cloud service or a backup service.

I use btsync everydays, with 7 folders and about 2To in total. But for me the price is not equal to the job btsync does.

As i said, maybe we pay for dev work, i understand, but for me it is to expensive for what it does compare to other service which needs lots of investment

[mexter]

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up, I missunderstood the website, when it talked about volume licencing sounded like it is 40 per device. Yes I agree, subscption modle is wrong for what they are selling, I hope they see the light on that.

I would love to go back to 1.4. I have screwed my self by updating to v2. Because I have a few IPhones I use BTsync to backup photos. No way to downgrade apps on iphones as far as I know . But I may just setup a compleat seperate BTsync server for the apple stuff and downgrade everything elce. 

 

 

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to downgrade the iPhone app or if it's possible at all. On Android it's a bit of a pain since you have to install it and then disable auto updates for that app (or for those of us who are rooted, delink it from the Play store). I do seem to recall reading that the 2.0 iPhone app was backward compatible, but I'm not sure. Perhaps somebody else here has better advice. I've abandoned Sync on my phone and am switching to SyncThing (which has its own headaches, but does pretty much the same thing). 

 

I think so long as you don't upgrade to 2.0 folders on your iPhone it may work. Don't quote me on that.

[smajor]

Erik, you again did not address the 10 folder limit that I think has most of us really annoyed. You didn't even side step it, you completely ignored it.  If you and the team have really read every single message, that is one of the top concerns.  [Removed - RomanZ]

 

At least for anyone that is left.

 

I've moved on, uninstalled all copies to BT Sync, and only return here on occasion to see if anyone has seen the light. Maybe in leu of a subscription I can send you some batteries for your flashlights.

Edited April 22, 2015 by RomanZ
Removed offensive & desctructive criticism

[redbird71]

Hello Everyone.

 

Maybe I'm just too silly but I do NOT understand the pricing model. I'm running Bittorrent Sync in my office. There are 1 File Server and 3 Workstations. Aditionally I've got a desktop and a laptop at home and a mobil phone. I share 1 (ONE) huge folder between all of them (13Gb, 2500+ subfolders).

 

If I update to Sync 2.x will this folder still sync automatically?

 

If I want to subscribe - do I have to subscribe 1x, 6x or 7x?

 

If I only subscribe for my Main File Server - can I use access restrictions for other devices conected?

 

The discription of the pro service seams confusing to me which makes it more dificult do decide in favour of doing it!!

 

Thanks for a detailed answer.

 

 

 

[RomanZ]

@redbird71

It depends on users amount & usage of your big folder.

 

1. If you use it for personal use and only for yourself - you don't need a license (unless you want to use PRO features).

2. If you use it alone for business use or want PRO features - you'll need 1 Pro license. EULA allows only Sync Pro for business use.

3. If several users use it for business use / or require PRO features - you'll need amount of licenses equal to your users amount.

 

You can read more in this article on our Help Center.

[yidengchn]

A donation model might work better than subscription at the end of the day. You would be surprised. But now, it's obviously too late after the trust is all gone.

[iswrong]

A donation model might work better than subscription at the end of the day. You would be surprised. But now, it's obviously too late after the trust is all gone.

 

Even high-profile open source projects (e.g. GnuPG and OpenSSL) have/had extreme difficulties to get funding for even a single developer. And these are projects that drive the infrastructure of multi-billion corporations. Most people will never donate to a free (as in beer or freedom) project, because there is little incentive.

 

So, I think it is naive to think it would work in the case of Bittorrent Sync. Selling BTSync as a traditional software package would probably work. Maybe even better than the subscription model, since so many people are principally opposed to software subscriptions.

[MisterRider]

What I find disingenuous about 2.0 is the lack of CLARITY surrounding the pricing model and subscription service. Nowhere does it *clearly* state the options, the repercussions of upgrading, etc. It's a shame because my perception of 2.0 is that BTsync is... a little less honest, and has somehow partially tricked its user base into trying 2.0 by accident or obfuscation - not by curiosity and clarity.

 

Too bad guys! Who made this call? Obviously something at the company has changed...

 

Personally, I much prefer the one-time purchase model. If this software is to be running on my remote systems, I don't want to be questioning if my subscription is up or not.

Why not give a lifetime purchase option as well?

Also... licences... seats... users...identities... it's very confusing! I entered a different "identity" on my desktop and laptop when installing - now I need to reinstall to fix that problem! Again, the installation procedure is unclear, as is the nomenclature and vocabulary.

 

Sync 2.0 is the Vista release... wtf ...I should have stuck with 1.4!

[alin]

http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/24/bittorrent-reportedly-laid-off-dozens-of-employees/

[eldrin]

http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/24/bittorrent-reportedly-laid-off-dozens-of-employees/

 

In my opinion they'll either admit they've made a mistake with this subscription pricing strategy and then change course, or they'll continue losing money and staff until they reach a headcount of 0. In my experience upper management rarely admit making mistakes and the lower-down staff end up paying the price.

 

Which way do you think they'll go?