Future pricing plan

[robinabo]

It's probably not my position to say this but I'd like to offer the suggestion that a pricing plan be similar to teamviewer where bittorent charges a one time price for small businesses to corporations. My primary reason for needing sync is due to a large amount of documents to keep available across my devices, and a charge for a data cap or syncing limit for free users would defeat the purpose of sync for me at least.

[GreatMarko]

I personally hope that SyncApp remains free.

Obviously if they at some stage add some sort of cloud storage option onto SyncApp to allow you to still sync when devices are down, I'd expect their to be an associated cost which this, but for syncing directly across my own LAN, I would hope this functionality remains free and BitTorrent don't go down the same silly route that Cubby went down recently (http://help.cubby.com/forums/169907-general/suggestions/3465259-add-directsync-to-basic-version) which resulted in users leaving Cubby in their thousands in favor for AeroFS

[kos13]

We know the Cubby story, as well as Mesh story. We see SyncApp as long term product, invest a lot of development resources, so we don't want to screw it by some "smart" decision.

But let me tell you one thing, that we know for sure. Beauty of real p2p solution, in opposed to marketed p2p solution (you name the company that claims they have p2p), is that we can't control it. If tomorrow we want to charge you $100 for 10Kb transferred, will stop everything related to the app or will try to force you not to use the SyncApp, we just physically can't achieve that.

SyncApp will work tomorrow exactly like it works today, no matter what we will do. And it will work exactly like today even 10 years from now, of course, if we will have computers in future

[GreatMarko]

We know the Cubby story, as well as Mesh story. We see SyncApp as long term product, invest a lot of development resources, so we don't want to screw it by some "smart" decision.

But let me tell you one thing, that we know for sure. Beauty of real p2p solution, in opposed to marketed p2p solution (you name the company that claims they have p2p), is that we can't control it. If tomorrow we want to charge you $100 for 10Kb transferred, will stop everything related to the app or will try to force you not to use the SyncApp, we just physically can't achieve that.

SyncApp will work tomorrow exactly like it works today, no matter what we will do. And it will work exactly like today even 10 years from now, of course, if we will have computers in future

Kos, you, my friend, rock!!

[MRACHINI]

does shutting down all tracker servers disables SyncApp from working ?

[upcboy]

I believe in the newest

does shutting down all tracker servers disables SyncApp from working ?

Not sure the post but I believe Kos Mentioned that the Tracker will be released. there are already options in the client to use the Tracker server and also to set it up with Predefined Hosts.

[GreatMarko]

does shutting down all tracker servers disables SyncApp from working ?

The "tracker" is used to sync devices that SyncApp cannot establish a connection to directly (i.e. devices outside your local LAN/behind firewalls, etc). So, if Bittorrent were to shut down their servers, SyncApp would continue to work - at least for direct syncing that doesn't require a tracker/relay server!

[Stryker]

We know the Cubby story, as well as Mesh story. We see SyncApp as long term product, invest a lot of development resources, so we don't want to screw it by some "smart" decision.

But let me tell you one thing, that we know for sure. Beauty of real p2p solution, in opposed to marketed p2p solution (you name the company that claims they have p2p), is that we can't control it. If tomorrow we want to charge you $100 for 10Kb transferred, will stop everything related to the app or will try to force you not to use the SyncApp, we just physically can't achieve that.

SyncApp will work tomorrow exactly like it works today, no matter what we will do. And it will work exactly like today even 10 years from now, of course, if we will have computers in future

This is precisely why I expressed interest in the BitTorrent technology. I don't really have a need for a cloud storage, but I did get hooked on the sync function of Mesh because I travel a lot and like my laptop and desktop files to remain in sync. When Mesh got shut down, I shelled out a year-long subscription to Cubby for the same functionality that was once free, and shortly thereafter heard about the BT alpha. I applied immediately, and just received the invitation to join the alpha today. I am already liking what I am seeing, and I'm encouraged to see such a great technology as BT being put to use in a true p2p that the end user controls. Bravo!

[rstarkov]

Kos, this sounds fantastic but is it really completely true?

Take μTorrent, for example. For the sake of the argument, forget about trackers (since BTSync doesn't have them). The DHT is bootstrapped using the bittorrent.com and utorrent.com domains. What, exactly, makes it impossible for you to shut down the entire DHT?

Doesn't the same thing apply to BTSync? Couldn't you just shut down whatever URL is used for bootstrap and have the network shrink and die over time?

[GreatMarko]

Couldn't you just shut down whatever URL is used for bootstrap and have the network shrink and die over time?

An excellent question, and it'd be interesting to hear the official answer!

On a related thought though, if SyncApp is "hard coded" to use specific relay servers/tracker URLs, and those URLs/server are ever shut down/blocked, etc at some stage in the future... it may be possible to use your system's "Hosts" file to redirect traffic destined for defunct URLs to alternative, active, tracker URLs instead?

Whilst not an elegant solution, it could potentially be a work around to keep SyncApp working in the event current tracker URLs/relay servers were to ever become unreachable?

[kos13]

Kos, this sounds fantastic but is it really completely true?

Yes. This is completely true.

Take μTorrent, for example. For the sake of the argument, forget about trackers (since BTSync doesn't have them). The DHT is bootstrapped using the bittorrent.com and utorrent.com domains. What, exactly, makes it impossible for you to shut down the entire DHT?

Keep in mind that DHT is just one of the options you have. Inside LAN peers will be discovered without DHT or trackers. If you spend few minutes to setup peer with public IP:port (you could do this by using plain port mapping) and configure predefined hosts, then peers will be discovered using this static peer. Not mentioning that if you will use cheap VPS with installed Sync/Linux you will get peer with static ip:port, but also cloud storage.

These options you have now. And we don't plan to shutdown development so more options will come.

[Seán]

At least this confirms one thing on my wishlist.

I'm also sure glad to see it does not depend on user accounts. For example, to set up Dropbox, Google Drive, etc. with a team of users, every user requires their own account first, then sharing a folder between users and of course a hefty purchase for a team account.

Where as with BitTorrent Sync, just install BT Sync and create a shared folder on each user PC with the matching shared secret. So much easier to set up and no ridiculously priced team account required either.

[m1bxd]

I personally hope that SyncApp remains free.

Obviously if they at some stage add some sort of cloud storage option onto SyncApp to allow you to still sync when devices are down, I'd expect their to be an associated cost which this, but for syncing directly across my own LAN, I would hope this functionality remains free and BitTorrent don't go down the same silly route that Cubby went down recently (http://help.cubby.co...o-basic-version) which resulted in users leaving Cubby in their thousands in favor for AeroFS

Reading that link from the "Product Manager", "As product developers, we’re passionate about providing affordable, elegant solutions for our customers" - HE isn't a developer - HE'S a suit. I laughed my head off reading that reply!

[gurkesaft]

I would guess there is plenty of money to be made without changing the P2P functionality. For example, paying for integrated 100% up-time cloud storage with public links to files, a web interface, etc.

Once we're all hooked on this beautiful (lightweight!) app, add a few GB of cloud and there would be no reason for dropbox anymore. I currently have 4 sync apps running right now, all serving different purposes:

Dropbox = fast & free but small

Cubby = slower stopgap solution for my large, less-changing data, no delta transfer

aerofs = incredibly slow, with no information about sync status, no delta transfer, but infinite storage

btsync = Trying it out. Hopefully will replace AeroFS and Cubby, but I'll need dropbox for public links and 100% uptime web access. I can't ask collaborators to install software when I send them large files.

So, I won't be upset if btsync eliminates the need for all others.

(And at some point, I want to pay someone for solving my problems anyway. You guys ought to have a donation link in case this works for me!)

Edited July 28, 2013 by gurkesaft

[btusername]

I think the more important, and accurate question to ask is;

1. How does BT plan to monetize their heavy investment of BT Sync.

....

any guesses

[GreatMarko]

1. How does BT plan to monetize their heavy investment of BT Sync.

...any guesses

At present, Sync is a "pure consumer product that might be used in some business cases" - which the developers have confirmed will remain free (see "Will BitTorrent Sync remain free, or will they start charging for it once it comes out of beta?" in the Unofficial FAQ).

In the future, we will likely also see a "business-orientated" edition of Sync emerging, with additional "specific features required by enterprises and SMB" over that of the free "consumer" edition.

Now, don't ask me questions about this, as I have no further information I can impart at this time!!!

...but if you're wondering how "BT plan to monetize their heavy investment of BT Sync".... I'd say that should offer some clues!

[MRACHINI]

anyway they wont do anything stupid or take any "Smart" decisions even if they want to, and if they do, some open source project will be developed, to do the same, probably, and we all know open source is more trusted.

Also, the fact that they are not making it open source tell you that its not gonna be totally free in the end, probably optional cloud storage subscription. nothing clear still

[Varnagas]

While I really hope this current solution will remain free for personal and even business useage, I also hope BT Sync to have paid features too. So folks can support the project if they choose. And for BT Sync to have some advanced storage-hosting-management tools needed by advanced users, companies. Tools that are essential and well developed for users to be glad to pay for those non-owner-based features.

Would gladly subscribe myself for have some gigs of 100% online hosting storage with public links, remote access, maybe even media streaming capabilities.

Keep up good work

Edit: Server (cloud or whatever that be called) storage could be just as simple as app itself. Simple folders added by very same secrets, reachable by web client, mobile app and if desired - public link. Limited only by storage space.

One should be able to add secrets from wherever one desires: public secrets for distributing, friend's share for photos, personal folders for backup, folders to host and whatever one may come up with. Not restricted to local client syncs or other bounds with logins. Would pay

[ChrisH]

Simple folders added by very same secrets, reachable by web client, mobile app and if desired - public link.

As soon as you want web clients or public links the server has to have your secret (either permanently or transmitted on request) in order to decrypt your files, so the only advantage of BTSync is gone and you can just use Dropbox or whatever.

Also I would never use BTSync storage provided by any third party as long as there is no option to give storage providers a read-encrypted-only secret. What would be the point?

[btusername]

Chris is spot on.