We need your help on pricing!

#8

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
#9

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
#10

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).

#11

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.

#12

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.

#13

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

#14

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.

#15

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!

#16

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

1 Like
#17

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

#18

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?

#19

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

1 Like
#20

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
#21

This!

I paid for inSync when it was a yearly fee (three google accounts, all paid) and I gave my very negative feedback when the price model changed, first of all because it was really difficilt to understand the new one (communication was terrible, sorry guys).

I wondered how could you bear with the future without a constant money stream and I was worried for the quality of the product. And man, I was right… inSync 3.x is unusable and dangerous and after pinning 1.5 for a while on my Linux PCs I decided last time NOT to reinstall the software anymore.

Too bad the only alternative is running everything in the browser, which is really unfortunate.

If I had to suggest a pricing model, well keep it simple: affordable per-cloud-account yearly fee.
Since many here said they would never go with an yearly fee, maybe a more expansive one-off option that covers one major release (need to pay more to upgrade from 3 to 4 for example).

About freemium, it can pay off, but if I had to decide, please concentrate on doing one-thing better and ensuring you have the resources to spend on a PREMIUM product. Data are vital and inSync quality sunk to abysmal levels.
That’s a shame… 2020 and there is no RELIABLE way to sync files to the cloud from Linux.

2 Likes
#22

Hi,
I only bought Insync because of Its one payment by account. I prefer having a license. I haven’t bought insync with a suscriptions model.

#23

I find it quite hard to talk about price when Insync is non-functional right now for many users. (See threads re: high cpu use and never-ending scanning.)

#24

You need to make it free for now, encourage users to help you debug it, - then when it works, I should think many people are happy to pay something.

At this stage, it is simply too glitchy and cannot be deployed in professional/work environments.

1 Like
#25

I welcome the idea of moving away from payments per account. The real potential of Insync actually lies in managing several accounts for some people, I guess.

Currently your licenses seem to be pretty much bound to accounts, so that would possibly require a new mechanism. Else one would always have to sign in with the “license” account even if one doesn’t want to use it anymore.

Thus I suggest to introduce some kind of normal Insync license account which is not bound to syncing. Existing licenses could then be transferred to that account.

An alternative model might be that as long as one account for syncing has a license then all other connected accounts also can use that license.

Personally I don’t want to pay recurring fees and also don’t want to pay something to upgrade to a new system. But I might not be your target group.

#26

I like the paying per account paradigm.

My only feedback would be to come up with a way for a user to switch the account they have licensed. Say for instance I currently sync with OnDrive, but in the future I decide to migrate to GDrive. As it is I’d have to buy a new license. It would be nice if there was a way to migrate my license from OneDrive to GDrive.

I personally choose not to subscribe to software - so at least for me, if InSync moved to a subscription it would no longer get my business.

#27

I think if we choose to think “Pay Once - Use Forever” (ie not a subscription model which I assume is how some/most people use Insync) we must, like any tool, accept the tool as is when we bought it. For example if I buy some tool or a car or whatever - I cannot expect the manufacturer to continue to upgrade that product I’ve taken forever, or any amount of time really. Not unless I pay a high premium on the purchase cost of the tool. I suggest if we want the product to improve we need to invest in that product.

Having said that, I’m currently trialling the use of “Cloud Sync” in my Synology NAS to sort out all this pesky cloud syncing. Now that DropBox are being very d!cky about how their product is used (limits on device counts and now very seriously CENSORSHIP of my files!) I’m being driven down this road. By the time my Insync subscription comes up for renewal next year I’ll have to chose one way or the other.

1 Like