We need your help on pricing!

Hey guys,

Since the beginning, our one-time per account pricing has never changed while usage around data and multiple accounts have. And with many of you having multiple accounts (personal, work, school, etc.), buying Insync for all of those accounts is just too expensive. It’s becoming clear that our one-time per account pricing is no longer relevant.

So, we want to hear from you…how do you think we should price?

Thanks!

I regularly use several computers with several accounts. The ideal for me would be a personal licence.

Having said that, I am avoiding using Insync as much as possible and no longer recommend it. You used to have a really excellent and robust product, but you’ve broken it and there’s no sign of it getting fixed anytime soon.

Make it robust and reliable and I’d pay $100 in a heartbeat.

3 Likes

I am willing to pay an annual usage fee for the software, but only if the product runs stable and data integrity is guaranteed at all times

1 Like

Just throwing out something.

Regular price for ONE account - keep it the same.
Then $10 each account after that up to 4
Then a $99 unlimited for personal, $150 for Teams.

Now, the question is, how do you keep that unlimited account version from being wide spread and abused and undercutting your sales and profit?

In the interest of disclosure here’s my usage and opnion on the matter. : Personally I have 2 accounts, personal Google and work OneDrive for Business. I have no desire or pressing need to use Insync on my Work account. My company wouldn’t buy it and I am loath to pay for it myself. So I wouldn’t be interested in purchasing anything but the single personal version I already have.

A few apps I have bought and used went subscription and on 2 occasions I’ve dropped them completely. I want to BUY the software one time and use it legally. To have monthly or ongoing payments for such a narrow app just does not hold much value for me. So if you DO offer subscription I would recommend that you stlil offer the stand alone single account version.

1 Like

So there are 3 problems here;

  • You need a way to ensure that accounts belong to one another, otherwise license keys could just be shared around.
  • Turning the application into a subscription model is problematic, as many people (including myself) wouldn’t exactly like the idea of having to pay a subscription for the storage itself, and then a separate subscription for the software to use said storage with.
  • For the application to be turned into a subscription model, there would need to be some proper guarantees and liability in place for data integrity. There is a big difference in what people expect from a once-off €25 application, and what they expect from a service that charges them a monthly/annual fee. Because of this, from a legal costs and liability point of view, I wouldn’t recommend a subscription model for a piece of software of this kind, especially for a smaller company.

I think there’s possibly quite a simple solution to this; When someone buys InSync, they already get an account, where they assign their license key to a single Google account.

  • Allow people to add multiple accounts in the same way and assign them to a single license.
  • To prevent people from adding random people to their subscription, give the added accounts access to one another’s data in some way. This doesn’t mean synchronising data from all accounts to all machines, but perhaps a simple checkbox or a very simplistic web UI that allows files to be downloaded would suffice. This is kind of like what Amazon does with its Prime family sharing option; give all members of an account access to all payment methods – it’s a very effective way of making sure people don’t just share accounts with random friends or strangers as a cost saving measure. You want it to be convenient to have several of your own accounts on a single license, but you want it to be risky to share a license with other people. Giving access to all accounts’ data through every client that is connected to the same license would just be one way of achieving this outcome.
2 Likes

It’s good to hear you’re thinking about this. Even though I like the program, I never use Insync for anything but a single Google Drive on Linux, because the additional cost doesn’t seem worth it for my little bit of personal use.

If the product goes to a subscription model, I’ll definitely just switch my Linux desktop to OverGrive (which I’ve tested recently) and keep using the other less polished solutions for OneDrive access. I just don’t do a lot with these cloud folders or make use of enough of Insync’s power to make a subscription worthwhile.

2 Likes

As InSync stands right now I would not pay any more for it. Other than a few types of files that perform better through InSync than other solutions I’ve tested, I’ve tried to get away from it over the past year due to the reliability & design issues I’ve had with v3.

That being said, InSync is still the best version of what it does in some ways and I was a huge promoter of v1.5 so if more money gets us back to where things were 2 years ago (that’s a ridiculous statement, but here we are) then I would be happy to pay a little more in some ways.

One idea is maybe a concurrent machine limit? Most of the “indie” software (i.e. not for enterprise or SMB) licenses in the film & VFX industry where I work have a limit of 2 simultaneous activations. So possibly you could have a machine limit per license and a “pro” tier that unlocks unlimited active sync locations?

3 Likes

I think current one-time payment is inadequate for software like Insync which postulate long-time use. Google Drive pricing is subscription based in the first place. I should Insync adopt subscription-based pricing to improve support and development.
Of course, many of Insync users are multi-account based. So, pricing should not be based on number of accounts tied with Insync, but other index, such as number of installed instance (like Dropbox which should pay for more than three linked computers) or per type (Windows / Linux, GD / OneDrive).

Also, please consider freemium model for Insync. Despite difficulty for drawing boundary between free and paid, this model can accelerate development and bug fixing more rapidly. Also I think more user may be attracted to Insync if it can be used as free even in the limited condition because there are small number of competitors in this region, particularly in Linux domain.

Thanks,

4 Likes

My situation is a bit situational, but I’ll provide my thoughts anyway. I have Insync and use it mainly on Linux, but have a W10 PC too. I chose Insync simply because it was way better than the Google app. I did the upgrade from 1.5 to 3 because I needed to sync a sharepoint drive for work.

I have to say all the controversy over v3 passed me by, never had an issue with it, but my usage is probably pretty ‘default’ by nature.

So, I have a google account and I wanted to add a Onedrive (teams) account as I need to access the work’s sharepoint. Now, my problem is that the new license for teams isn’t transferable, so whatever account I sign up with, I’d have to buy another license if it ever changes.

This is likely to happen within the next 3-9 months due to IT restructuring, but as its stands, I’d have to buy another license when this happens, even though I wouldn’t be using the old one anymore as the account I was using would no longer exist.

What I would suggest is that if it’s a personal license (I.e. I’m buying it personally, not the company) you should be able to move it around as you see fit when you change jobs. If it’s a corporate license then it should be fixed to the account you buy it with, perhaps with an unwritten allowance to change it once.

I know you may get some companies playing the system and registering personal accounts and then using them for work, but perhaps limit the changes to 1 per year, unless you get a Personal+ version or something. Really personal license people shouldn’t be changing their accounts frequently, if its linked to a work account, it would only change when they change jobs. If its a personal account (such as a one drive or Google Drive account), then they more than likely won’t change ever.

Likewise, if you ever switched to a subscription service, I’d look elsewhere. I get why some companies want subscriptions - its easy monthly money, but when you’ve actually got no costs incurred when people are using your products, its a massive turn off, imo.

Its not like we’re storing files on your hardware, its a program than syncs other provider’s cloud data to our PCs.

A traditional purchase & upgrade cost structure for me is most appropriate. I was surprised to be honest, when the upgrade was free…

btw, this is based upon a license being for Google or OneDrive. If you’re like to add more providers (Google Photos PLEASE!) then I’d perhaps be flexible with the license type. Perhaps offer a cheaper level license which is fixed to a type - GDrive / OneDrive / Photos and then offer a flex license which can be changed between them as desired, perhaps limited to one change per month to prevent abuse.

Then for those who want extra licenses, offer a 50% discount for additional licenses, so you’d still buy two licenses for say GDrive & OneDrive.

Then you could do specials where if you buy one flex license you get another for half price or something. That way you have simple product offering and anyone can assign any license to whatever they want.

  • Simple License (fixed to one provider) $29.99
  • Simple Teams License (fixed to one provider) $49.99
  • Flex License Upgrade, allows to change provider, once a month $19.99
  • Existing License Holder, you get a 50% discount on any additional licenses.

Version Upgrade prices are fixed, no matter how many accounts you have - $29.99
(minor & point releases are free, only major version updates are chargeable).

anyone wants my google drive and onedrive licence?

When I was looking for my files and turns out they are gone.

Immediately ditched the app. Once is enough.

How much labor does one account takes on your side? Does it requires a continual use of resources? Or the cost you take is limited to software development and maintenance? I think these are the questions you should ask yourself that will help deciding the pricing model. I would not pay a subscription fee for a software that just run on my machine, while I would pay for a storage service.

I would gladly take it. I did a trial years ago, and don’t qualify for another one. Would like to see if it works in Big Sur beta, while the official client doesn’t work yet

I’ve been a user since 2014 or earlier - and the comment above is wrong. I am charged a yearly fee to use the product. I really like the idea of this product but since the version 2 debacle I feel like we are going one step forward, 2 steps back - at least much of the time. I wouldn’t be keen to pay more than the annual fee I’m already paying.

I dropped Nextcloud over reliability issues (deleted all my documents). I dropped Dropbox over the “can’t use NTFS on Linux” issue which was very good for dual booting - and dropping it saved me a couple of hundred dollars a year. Currently it’s looking like Synology Drive is leading in my race.

The best thing for customers like us is a one time fee.

The best thing for you, Insync, the business is an ongoing license fee.

Adobe (Photoshop etc) increase revenue from $200million to $5billion by doing that.

So you already have the answer,
the question is how to implement it in a balanced way & not upset existing customers.
I wouldn’t mind a small amount yearly eg. $7. You could make it optional.

You currently charge $29 for license.
$7 a year would be fair. Takes you 3 years longer to get the payoff but past that you’re earning.

Good luck!

Big Sur not working still. Have not been able to use it since first beta…

1 Like

I installed it last night on Big Sur Beta 6. It seems to work - I can choose folders to sync, and uploads do seem to appear on the Google Drive website

Hi @sheng!

The fix was deployed on 3.2.6 as shown here: New Insync version: 3.2.6

Could you let me know if you’re on that version?

3.2.7 works great on big sur latest beta. All good.

1 Like

Ah yes, you’re right. We did have Pro, Plus, and Business during the early days of 1.x. My mistake.

We’re discussing how we should change our pricing internally, taking into consideration everyone’s comments and suggestions. Once we figure something out, we’ll let you guys know.

1 Like