In the past it has meant that you continue to get updates, but new features will not be available to you on your current license. I imagine it’ll be the same in this case.
Thanks for being open about this. That is really challenging to do, because it is not surprising to see negative feedback about possible outcomes you never suggested.
Your pricing is pretty expensive for a utility product, if i was expecting to pay that amount on an annual basis, I probably would have experimented with other software solutions longer before settling on InSync.
If I am going to spend this much, I would expect the software to continue to work at least on the version of the OS I initially installed it on. And I would also expect to be able to reinstall new versions.
I would also be able to get security/bug fixes for free for as long as that version of the software was receiving bug fixes. Which I would expect to be 3-5 years.
Paying for a new version that is on newer OS would be consistent with how software is often sold.
Having new features only in new versions of the software that I would have to pay to upgrade to also seems reasonable.
Having an annual subscription that gave access to all new releases seems reasonable. But the price needs to make sense. I would expect that an annual subscription price to be attractive enough to me that I would not just buy a new version once every three years.
Some examples of this. Wine/CrossOver is the only software that I pay for a subscription to. It gets regular enough updates and it is priced reasonably enough that it makes sense to me.
The only Windows Software I buy is NitroPDF. I do not have a subscription. I do not use the vast majority of its features, and the newest version does not have any features I want. The version I have now, works fine on the Windows machine I use it on.
Having clearer explanation of pricing would be nice too. I find the current model pretty confusing. and I think I finally understand it, but it took me a while to understand why my current license only allowed one Google Account. I did get the right edition, but the way the features are divided up, is confusing.
I understand that finding substantiable revenue is important. And that selling software for a one time fee, can be limiting. But you might want to consider some kind of incentive for folks to trade in our lifetime support licenses to move to a new reoccurring cost model. I can see myself trading in my lifetime license for an annual subscription, if I got some kind of preferential rate (i.e. meaningfully large discount (well above 5% or 10%; I would not be attracted to discounts that small) and an update to a feature I don’t have yet. For example multiple accounts, or headless mode, or machine backup are three features, I don’t have now, that I have considered paying for in the past. They might tempt me to switching licensing models.
I would also check the forums to see what people asked for on a reoccurring basis. For instance the Ubuntu 22.04 I think showed a fair number of people who felt entitled/valued getting solid support of InSync even when 22.04 was in beta. So having early release/support for some platforms, might be an attractive reason for people to pay a reoccurring price. Or to buy repeatedly buy new versions every 1-3 years.
Please dont get stuck in the mindset that you have to keep adding features for the sake of adding features though. This might be obvious, but I do not value features that I do not use. And in fact sometimes the new features, just make it more confusing/harder for me to keep using the software the way I always wanted to.
You might want to create a “classic” version of the software as well, as a way to continue to support legacy one time pricing customers. Not sure how well that would work with your code basis. But I have seen other companies do that. Where the classic version had a feature freeze, and a focus on keeping the original deal in place, but not going beyond that, even as the tech world and your company evolves.
1 Like
You should keep in mind though that Ubuntu’s OS development cycle is primarily focused on supporting its LTS versions which are supported for 10 years.
If you are using the non-LTS versions, then you expecting to encounter problems with third party software, and have experiments be run. Just like there has been some flipflopping around Wayland and Gnome with Ubuntu releases in the past. The LTS releases are meant to be more stable. The intervening releases are working towards finding out what they can expect to be stable the next time they do an LTS.
Even with the non-LTS releases, the lifetime of it is not 6 months. You can choose to upgrade after 6 months, but rushing to upgrade the day software is released, or to upgrade to the beta weeks before the release, does not mean the lifetime is only 6 months. The non-LTS releases are supported for 9 months. Is that much longer? No (unless you count 50% longer as much longer). Does that change your point? No, probably not. But one is an accurate description of the Ubuntu non-LTS release lifetime and one is not.
But if you are running 22.04 today, you can run that as a supported OS for 10 years without having to upgrade to a new version of the OS. Granted that is 10 years of security fixes, but you even get mainline support for 5 years. 6 months is not the lifetime for any Ubuntu release; 6 months is a choice that many people (including myself) make about when we swap out our OS version.
It would be interesting to know why the one time pricing not cutting it? Once the Sync feature was developed, what are the extra costs are you incurring and relative %? I can think of
a) FIXING old
- bug fixes
- Some changes in Drive, OneDrive or Dropbox api that are beyond your control and needs changes from your side.
b) Support
c) NEW features
d) Server and maintenance
Is there anything else?
For a1) I find that Insync has a lots of bugs in its CORE functionality, I have to be extremely careful when moving files. Extremely careful that no upload is happening before renaming or moving files and folders. There are instances when files are showing in multiple folder; files showing in the Insync GUI but missing in filesystem and vice-versa. It has come to a point where I only use insync for long term storage and files I don’t need to change regularly. Sometimes I have even lost files, although was able to recover from cloud bin. Sometimes you are breaking your own code, i think a recent release that you had to undo. Then there is persistent memory leakage as I see in the forum. Now compare this to dropbox linux client, not once it has done anything unexpected. No matter what actions I do, renaming, moving etc or how fast I do it, it maintains the integrity of the filesystem. Sorry to say this, but for me, Insync = terrible user experience; dropbox client = peace of mind; and I stick with Insync only because of lack of alternatives and the amount of features it provide. But those features shouldnt be at the cost of broken software. Solely from my experience, i would assume fixing bugs is causing high costs for you. So fixing these core issue will reduce dev and support time I think
For a2) Point (a1) might be difficult when the apis are out of your hand;
For b) more bugs => more support => more cost; You can have a separate subscription addons for people who need support via chat or email.
For c) new features as addons or upgrades! Just like i am on developer sync; you provide an option to upgrade to backup.
For d) For the company sync, you need to provide a dashboard, so certainly doesnt makes sense for one-time payment; can have recurring pricing like server pricing.
I personally think would not be willing to pay a recurring cost for core sync function for reason (a1) + as @Jamie_Browning mentioned that it is not a cloud solution.
It would actually be more helpful if we know what are the reasons for high cost for you.
2 Likes
You do know that this does not reflect reality, so why argue that way. “10 years support for LTS” is what might be a target for a Linux server in a confined and dedicated environment like regulating a power station without human intervention. This is not the scenario for an average InSync installation. Most hardware will crumble away in half the time nowadays.
And if you hope using an installation for more than 2 years you better don’t skip the update to the next LTS as otherwise you can essentially throw away the entire installation at the end of the support cycle and start with a fresh installation of everything.
Even in Windows you have to fear every patch-day and look what it will break now. On the other hand, you cannot simply deny updates and patches as this is even more dangerous.
I’ve been tricked several times by “lifetime” promises in the past, just to quickly get noted that “we already used up your money so we redefinded the meaning of the terms ‘lifetime’ and ‘support’”.
I do see the same pattern emerge here: How to force a customer out of a valid contract that is unfavorable for us.
Btw. “If in the past” it was meant that one still gets updates, then I don’t want to “imagine” that it might be the same here. The developers are pretty shy making a clear statement about this. Doesn’t convince me.
I have a lifetime license but, because I want Insync to survive and continue innovating, if you changed the pricing to a yearly subscription, I would ask you to “ungrandfather” my license, and I’d happily pay the yearly amount. I don’t know how many others would do the same. It would be quite the problem for me if Insync discontinued because it was no longer a profitable business. I upgraded to the Developer license, not because I really needed it, but because I felt I paid too little for what I was already using.
For pricing, $25/year would be fine by me. $20/year might seem better.
3 Likes
I agree with Jerry; if a couple of new features were added to the Linux client (flatpak version and selective sync), I would be willing to pay the $20-25 annual fee to help the company while allowing me to get upgrades and support for newer versions of Linux distros.
1 Like
The pricing page needs to be open in its disclosure of the limitations in the 1-way sync functionality. Simply stating 1-way sync is supported leaves out a lot of important detail. As a new/trial customer, it feels like a bait & switch.
While I’m at it, I’ll add that not being able to remove files from being managed by Insync without them being deleted locally is very difficult to understand. Others have raised this here in the forum, and I’ve not seen a single reasonable response to it from the company. It suggests that either you don’t understand your users or you do but you’re keeping it as-is because it creates a strong incentive against moving off Insync. Either way, not good.
+1 I can’t agree enough with JB’s recommendation to make the app more intuitive and reliable. This would both reduce support costs and increase conversion & retention of trial users like myself.
I’m about 5 days into a trial, and between the several non-trivial bugs I’ve encountered and the significant limitations of some of the functionality promised in the feature list, I’m ~95% sure I’m going to find a different solution. The only reason I haven’t abandoned already is the considerable amount of time already sunk into trying to make it work.
I’ve had a poor experience with support. Requests for assistance have received slow, unhelpful replies. I was clear that I’ve done my homework reading the documentation and forums, yet my inquiries still get copy-paste replies that don’t shed any light or help me resolve my issues. I have also reported a couple clear bugs, taking the time to repro and provide screenshots, and these were met with either denial & rationalizations or completely ignored. When it takes ~1 day for a reply, and then they’re not helpful or comprehensive, it’s deeply frustrating. Finally, Support seems to automatically ask for the logs.db file, which suggests a troubling lack of concern for customers’ privacy, given the very sensitive information they can contain.
As I see it, Insync has two paths to choose from:
Path 1: Continue to be unresponsive to clear customer feedback, build new apps instead of making the core app tight and compelling, leave new user onboarding arduous and confusing -> high support costs, prospective customers walk away, customer base growth stalls, you resort to milking existing users for more revenue to make up for lack of growth -> customer base and revenue shrink, operating costs are flat or increase, fewer resources for development -> downward spiral.
Path 2: Focus dev exclusively on making the core app intuitive and robust, internalize and act on feedback, invest in making the onboarding process easy and smooth, ensure you have enough support capacity for reps to read problem reports in detail -> more trial conversions, happy customer base, more referrals, fewer & shorter support cases -> customer base and revenue growth, reduced operating costs -> virtuous cycle.
3 Likes
I personally agree about making InSync better, more robust and advanced.
I love InSync, I like it’s capabilities, but its lead is eroding, esp. on Linux. KDE provides a native Google Drive layer now. There are already tools to backup some of the major cloud providers. rclone provides most of the functionality, and a knowledgeable person can assemble such a system, sans a catchy GUI.
I’d love to properly support InSync, its development and build a dependable workflow around it, but it’s getting harder from my perspective. Due to some circumstances, my primary workstation is going to be MacBook. This means macOS, and this means memory leaks, which needs continuous tending. I’ll still have Linux machines, but the usage of InSync will reduce if the memory leaks won’t be fixed.
Bobby can be integrated into InSync, and can be another subscription. We have been teased about Google Photos sync, Smart Sync-like functionality. Instead we’re getting new apps.
I understand the need for a sustained revenue, and we want to provide this to you, but we can provide you through InSync, because this is what we need and use.
Seeing other apps and radio silence on the problems we report is really heartbreaking sometimes.
I don’t know whether I can continue recommending InSync to people I know anymore.
3 Likes
sorry for delay in reply.
grandfathered means that you will get regular updates and you get to keep using, thanks.
let me know if you need more clarification.
I think one of the issues here is that InSync has 3 different user markets who have slightly different attitudes to pricing. From a quick scan read of this thread, I’m guessing that the majority of posters are Linux users who are likely to be more tech savvy that their Windows/Mac counterparts and are also, if I’m anything to go by, price sensitive because of the Linux/freeware mentality (apologies if this isn’t you!). Windows and Mac users are much more used to paying for updates/upgrades. One of the reasons why I moved my company over from Windows to Linux back in 2000 was because the annual upgrade costs for the OS and key bits of software we used was becoming a serious drain on resources.
So why am I saying all this? Because I think, if I’m right, that the Linux posters here might not be a true representation of InSync’s client base. If for example it is a 70/30 split between Windows/Mac and Linux users, then InSync can and probably should charge for upgrades because they will move onto a more sustainable footing even if they lose market share in the Linux world.
I bought InSync because it saved my time for a small outlay. If it would have been an ongoing update fee model, I’d have spent a couple of hours knocking up an rclone script run as a cronjob. I also bought Expandrive years ago for the same reason as I needed to access systems not supported by InSync, but as it’s performance isn’t as great as I would like, I’m now migrating that to rclone!
In conclusion, as a Linux user, I don’t think I’m the prime focus for InSync and I’m OK with that. If existing users are properly grandfathered, that’s a bonus to me. If we are not, I’ll move to an rclone solution but I won’t be blaming InSync nor will I bad mouth them as I understand their rationale.
1 Like
Just wanted to do a polite and friendly counterpoint.
As a Linux and macOS user, I pay for a lot of software which works on Linux, and I pay them for to make their software work on Linux like they work on other operating systems.
Yes, I try to avoid buying software as much as I can because, I support FLOSS from a philosophical perspective (and I develop FLOSS code), however this doesn’t entitle me to any licensing model for any software running on Linux.
InSync was the only reliable Google Drive provider and is still one of the best cloud clients for extra features which are not provided by official clients. However, this lead is being eroded by both FLOSS solutions and competitor cloud providers to Big Three (Dropbox, Google, Microsoft). PCloud has a great cloud offering right now. It’s not trouble free, but it’s awesome in many regards.
I for one can pay a yearly fee for a feature-rich InSync which works reliably, so I can use it as a building block for my workflows.
If a software is worthy of its asking price on any platform, it deserves to be bought and used if the user has the need.
@bayindirh I couldn’t agree with you more. I happily pay for my “mission critical” stuff. InSync isn’t mission critical for me - I probably move files between my PC and Google Drive 4 or 5 times a month at the most.
Don’t get me wrong. I think InSync should change it’s model if that’s what it needs to do to survive and thrive.
thank you all for your comments.
you guys are spot on…we need to fix the core experience. i know that it maybe hard to believe (based on your bad experiences) but we really do care about every insync customer.
along the journey, sometimes one gets lost and perhaps that’s what happened to us.
we still want to improve insync, especially the onboarding, simplifying the app experience and coming up with a sustainable business model.
the first step is changing our current business model, which you guys have shared, because any major change in the app needs to be accompanied with a sustainable business model (our current business model is not sustainable). otherwise, we are just throwing bad money, investing in a new major app release accompanied by a non-sustainable business model.
we are working towards that.
thanks for reading and your continued support.
t
2 Likes
I agree with many of the comments here. As I’ve shared with Mia, I would definitely pay for better support. As a few people have noted here, there are different user bases. Let’s agree all lifetime licenses stay and nothing changes (I assumed this anyway).
I think there’s opportunity to change the license pricing up front to an annual fee. Honestly, if I paid you $10/year, you’d already be making a bunch more money than the $10 I paid you over a decade ago. And I’d be fine with that.
But I think even if nothing changed on the up front pricing, you could easily add premium support for a fee. You could even outsource this if you needed to, which is much easier when you’ve got corresponding revenue coming in. Whether it’s a per-incident fee (which I would be ok with but it’s difficult to price), or an annual subscription.
Anyway, I’m piling on - I think changes are needed and I fully support whatever additional fees I’d need to pay. Insync IS mission-critical for me and I’m willing to pay to support that.
2 Likes
hello folks!
we are in the process of simplifying our pricing and at the same time, looking to crowdfunding for continued Insync development with a Linux focus.
more details – https://gofund.me/eac7b6c2
thanks!
2 Likes
I think the problem you have is you are doing what every other company is doing. You are continually trying to innovate.
But you are doing this within 1 product, unfortunately there are some fundamental things you have done in your sync stack that have been wrong and it means that you have created a bigger and bigger problem, and you are trying to code your way out of it.
Seems like you need a focused engineering lead, that can guide product dev.
An example, you have included file conversion in your sync product, this is buggy created extra files due to incorrect naming, which then creates further problems.
File conversions should be a separate workflow/process/product from sync. They do not work well in the same process, yes they go together. But the customer must drive this.
You are trying to be a Swiss Army knife.
Instead just be a bunch of knives.
The product you have built is really good and that’s why we all comment as we want it to be better, and work reliably.
But every time you try to add a new function to the Swiss Army knife you will be breaking other functions and making it harder to support, and turning it into a beast, that is no longer controllable.
Great to go after funding. But the question is how are you going to use it. Are you going to fix support, fix those broken features, fix supportability.
No you are only talking about changing the business model. Sorry but that is not the lever you need to pull.
Great make it subscription based, but that is not going to fix the problem. Why would people keep paying if you do not fix the underlying issues. No they will stop paying and find a different product.
I don’t know how many customers you have but if you’re product really was great maybe you would be able to attract more customers.
Remember your product is not sticky, I can turn it off tomorrow and find a new one. Only sticky products can charge subscription.
There is no way you have a large percentage of the market, so much that you want to focus getting more money from existing customers, if you had products that were easier to use and did what they were supposed to.
so this suggests you don’t want more customers, and the reason why is because you then have to support them. Instead you want more from less, and I get it.
Instead why not do less work for more customers. This means improve your product.
So your only course of action is
Rebuild your product (version x) to be more user friendly, less broken etc, then as you acquire more customers, they can support each other, and are willing to. Then you can actually earn money. Going subscription based is not going to fix this problem, finding round it is going to dilute your holdings, and tie you up in knots (another feature to build). And give reason for your biggest supporters to leave.
Fix the other things first. Then your worst supporters will want to pay monthly.
I am grandfathered in at the original price, but I’d like to give my thoughts on your new subscription system. I personally would be happy to pay $20-30/year for the subscription if it was not per account-based. As much as I love this software, I’m not about to pay that subscription cost for multiple accounts (only using 2 atm, but it’s the principle that counts).
I’ve been using Insync for serveral years. When I first bought it, it was a pay-by-account model though for lifetime. Purchased sevearl account licensing. I thought then the cost was high, but the program worked great, specifically in Linux.
Then again ExpanDrive is $50 for a perpetual license and you can keep receiving updates after a year for $25/yr. Maybe you can try something like that?
Before coming over to InSync I used expandrive, for about one month. There were so many issues with it not syncing files, saving files and then not having them upload, and more. I have an email chain with ExpanDrive trying to sort things out. They couldn’t, and eventually just stopped responding to my support requests. I filed a chargeback for the software (through PayPal) and won the dispute. They didn’t even reply to the PayPal dispute in the 30 day time frame. ExpanDrive is trash. I purchased it first because I didn’t want to buy multiple licenses for Insync. Well, I ended up buying insync after.
One reason I got it, though pay by license, it was lifetime. ExpanDrive also if I recall was lifetime back then. Then things got upgraded to Developer Lifetime, and life was good, grand even!. It’s one of the first things I install when setting up a new OS install.
Wanted to get a license for a friend, so I went to the pricing page today, and it was back to the pay by account model. Thought it was a mistake. And yearly. I do not own nor use a single program that uses the subscription model, I refuse, consider it a personal choice. Won’t touch Office 365, prefer to pay the high price for Office 2021. If Insync had been that way originally, I never would have paid for it, would have found an alternative one way or another. So going to a subscription model now concerns me. Yes I’ve read that there’s a grandfather clause for us older license holders, but things tend to change, and that concerns me also.
Anyways, my point, it appears you’ve already gone to a subscription model, though you can still buy legacy accounts (why wouldn’t you buy legacy?). If you’re going full subscription model, sell a lifetime version for those like me who won’t do subs. Charge three years worth, or four, but make it an option.
3 Likes