First of all let me tell you that I am not criticizing you, and that I really love ffs and use it daily. I am a volunteer for the past 15 years and I create a lot of stuff for free (see tromsite.com and tromsite.com/tools).
So.
At first I thought FreeFileSync is "free" as the name implies. I saw a "donate" button and I wanted to donate a few bucks because I sometimes do that with such wonderful projects that are free. But then I saw that donations come with perks, and thus they are not really donations, but subscriptions. If I am poor, or choose not to donate, I get a lesser version of FFS. Send you money = get a better version of FFS. Not sending you money = get lesser version of FFS. This is called freemium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemium
And I 100% hate freemiums. I totally understand you need funds, but I got put off by your "donation" strategy so much so that I didn't want to donate anymore since I realized it is not a donation, but a payment for premium features.
Second "impediment" is that I use Linux and via Pacman (pakcge manager) I can super-easily install FFS and keep it updated. So I don't need auto-updater or silent installation. Parallel file copy could be useful, but if I pay for the premium FFS version then how can I install it on Linux and auto-update like I do with all my apps? In other words, I feel like even if I accept your "donation" strategy and I buy the premium FFS version, it could be more complicated on Linux for me with the install and updates.
All in all, we live in a world where the word "free" has lost all of its meaning. Free should mean you do not ask anything in return from me. If you make a piece of software and limit its features, unless I pay you to unlock them, then I can't consider that as free. Because of that we came up with the notion of trade-free - see https://www.trade-free.org/
Honestly it is a confusing world out there with so many pretending to offer "free" stuff, but they are not. They hide features to make you pay for them, they insert ads, or collect your data. They are not free at all. You pay with your money, attention, or data.
In any case, I'd love to support FFS but I do not agree at all with the "donation" strategy that is really a premium subscription masked as a "donation". It also hurts projects like mine that are truly reliant on donations and not provide "perks". That's what donations should be. Finally, even if I would be ok with your "donation" strategy, using Arch Linux + Pacman, so installing apps from repositories, makes it more difficult to ask you for a premium FFS version that I perhaps have to manually install on my Arch.
I kindly ask you to reconsider your "donation" strategy. I would love to see Free+File+Sync, be Trullyfree+File+Sync, and let people like me help you with donations, not subscriptions.
I thank you for your work! ;)
FreeFileSync is not free.
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 6 Dec 2020
-
- Posts: 4056
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
When are you releasing you free and fully featured syncing utility then?
You could just keep the donation edition that you acquired and not update it, and the features will still work forever, besides email of course, sounds free to me!
The features added from a donation are pretty niche features and don't really affect most users.
To me, "freemium" is more applicable to games that are 'free' but you run out of their rechargeable "energy" and have to wait or pay to play further. Or software that is basically useless without a monetary transaction. FFS works the same in the free and donation versions besides a few quality-of-life features. The dev is also very receptive of feedback and is great about fixing/updating the software.
Just use the free version if it makes your use-case easier. Using Linux adds so many complications to software, that's why almost no one chooses to daily drive it as their main OS.
You could just keep the donation edition that you acquired and not update it, and the features will still work forever, besides email of course, sounds free to me!
The features added from a donation are pretty niche features and don't really affect most users.
To me, "freemium" is more applicable to games that are 'free' but you run out of their rechargeable "energy" and have to wait or pay to play further. Or software that is basically useless without a monetary transaction. FFS works the same in the free and donation versions besides a few quality-of-life features. The dev is also very receptive of feedback and is great about fixing/updating the software.
Just use the free version if it makes your use-case easier. Using Linux adds so many complications to software, that's why almost no one chooses to daily drive it as their main OS.
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 6 Dec 2020
That's besides the point, of course. Deviates from my message entirely. If I were to make one, I won't be writing here, and it will be truly free. I do a lot of other things that are free for you and anyone else.When are you releasing you free and fully featured syncing utility then?
Doesn't sound good to me to have a program that is not updated (bug fixes, security fixes, etc.).You could just keep the donation edition that you acquired and not update it
But this is still a freemium model. From Wikipedia:The features added from a donation are pretty niche features and don't really affect most users.
Also:"Freemium, a portmanteau of the words "free" and "premium", is a pricing strategy by which a basic product or service is provided free of charge, but money (a premium) is charged for additional features, services, or virtual (online) or physical (offline) goods that expand the functionality of the free version of the software."
100% disagree. I and millions of others use Linux on a daily basis - we even have a custom Linux maintained by us (tromjaro.com) + most servers use Linux. The reason Windows and MacOS are the most popular is because they are the richest companies in the world selling computers with these OSes installed. But again, that's besides the point.Using Linux adds so many complications to software, that's why almost no one chooses to daily drive it as their main OS.
My point was simple: FreeFileSync asks for donations, but in truth they ask for premium subscriptions thus making it NotFreeFileSync. So I wish they will either accept donations (not subscriptions), and therefore not remove any feature from its main software; or replace the strategy and be honest and call it a premium subscription.
- Posts: 309
- Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Hm, what I am interested in is if a donator who gets the version of FreeFileSync with extra features, also gets a copy of the source code? It appears FreeFileSync is licensed under the GPLv3, which requires that whoever gets the binary is also allowed to receive a copy of the source code that corresponds to the distributed binary. Perhaps the donation version is not licensed as GPLv3. As I understand it, the copyright holder is free to release a thing under multiple licenses.
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 6 Dec 2020
That's also an interesting point since FFY says: " FreeFileSync is Open Source software". If they use GPL as a license, then whatever is built on top of it (new features) shouldn't also be under GPL? And thus, whoever gets the premium FFY version, is allowed to distribute it as such?
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 2 Jun 2021
I completely agree with you. I would need the portable version since I do not have administrative permissions on my computer and I do not want to pay for something without knowing if it will work or not
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 13 Feb 2018
The difference between freemium and free is the demographic. FFS does the job perfectly for free, the premium extras are optional extras, they are not needed, but are nice to have if you want to move into a more “I use the heck out of this and it’s become an essential item”. Stop complaining that a few dollars for premium features is “confusing” and, “free” has lost its meaning. You hate “fremium” fine, move on. You don’t want to pay a few dollars, fine, move on.
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 6 Dec 2020
It is still freemium....you like it or not. If you sell features, then it is freemium.
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 14 Jun 2016
I hope the donation option remains in place because the adware solution that was used a while ago didn't work. Remembering to uncheck a checkbox during the setup process poses a challenge to most people, apparently. Unfortunately, animal pics don't pay anyone's bills either.
Freemium means they give you an umbrella for free when the sun is shining and make you pay for it when the rain comes. FFS is a far cry from that, reliable and versatile, simple enough for the faint of heart, yet very adaptable for the pros.
And it never crashed or lost a file in all those years I've been using it.
I'm itching to give a lecture about how nothing in life is truly free, but ... I'll just keep my fingers crossed that FFS is here to stay for a looooong time.
Freemium means they give you an umbrella for free when the sun is shining and make you pay for it when the rain comes. FFS is a far cry from that, reliable and versatile, simple enough for the faint of heart, yet very adaptable for the pros.
And it never crashed or lost a file in all those years I've been using it.
I'm itching to give a lecture about how nothing in life is truly free, but ... I'll just keep my fingers crossed that FFS is here to stay for a looooong time.
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 27 Nov 2022
I think it would be better to treat the freemium model as a spectrum, where on one side lies totally free, while on the other totally paid. With that, I would agree that FFS is freemium, but at the same time, it lies very near to the totally free side. Aside from being feature-packed and having superior error handling, the developer is also very responsive, something that even paid softwares struggle. The UI is also intuitive, where combined with the videos and manual present here, makes the app really easy to use.
However, I would also agree that calling it "donation edition" is a bit misleading. It's rather ironic to require a donation to use certain features. But I would disagree with the request to make this app fully free. Those bonus features included in the donation edition aren't really necessary, yet they still need time, effort and resources to maintain. Think of it this way: what if the developer decided to drop those features to make this app truly free, will there be a lost of functionality? None. For the same reason, I also don't have any issues with its name, as the entirety of the file sync function is still truly free.
Rather, I think a change in terminology would be more appropriate. Perhaps "professional" or "advanced" edition, since those bonus features are only useful for advanced users, or those who use it very frequently. But I would disagree with "subscription" as I only consider the app as such if their availability is limited by time. Updates are not as important as you think. I used to have the same obsession before, but after several years, noticed that a lot of my apps didn't encounter any issues even if I didn't update them for a long time. Actually, some are even better without updates, as some developers break features or introduce new bugs in later versions. So far, I only update them whenever I encounter a crippling bug (and yes, always manually, never automatically). You can do a similar system to drastically decrease the number of times you need to pay for the donation edition.
However, I would also agree that calling it "donation edition" is a bit misleading. It's rather ironic to require a donation to use certain features. But I would disagree with the request to make this app fully free. Those bonus features included in the donation edition aren't really necessary, yet they still need time, effort and resources to maintain. Think of it this way: what if the developer decided to drop those features to make this app truly free, will there be a lost of functionality? None. For the same reason, I also don't have any issues with its name, as the entirety of the file sync function is still truly free.
Rather, I think a change in terminology would be more appropriate. Perhaps "professional" or "advanced" edition, since those bonus features are only useful for advanced users, or those who use it very frequently. But I would disagree with "subscription" as I only consider the app as such if their availability is limited by time. Updates are not as important as you think. I used to have the same obsession before, but after several years, noticed that a lot of my apps didn't encounter any issues even if I didn't update them for a long time. Actually, some are even better without updates, as some developers break features or introduce new bugs in later versions. So far, I only update them whenever I encounter a crippling bug (and yes, always manually, never automatically). You can do a similar system to drastically decrease the number of times you need to pay for the donation edition.
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 31 Jan 2022
FFS is fine and so is the Donation Edition model it uses. You are not paying for the perks, your donating to the author, the perks (totally not needed for functionality) are his little thanks for the donation.
I have used FFS for many years its hands down the best sync tool out there. Sometimes when I get an update I donate, sometimes I don't -- I don't donate to get the perks, they really are not central to the product. If I really wanted them, then I'd just donate each time I updated.
Oh, and you don't need to update every new release, so you can regulate how often you donate at your own pace and the perks never expire withing the same version.
I have used FFS for many years its hands down the best sync tool out there. Sometimes when I get an update I donate, sometimes I don't -- I don't donate to get the perks, they really are not central to the product. If I really wanted them, then I'd just donate each time I updated.
Oh, and you don't need to update every new release, so you can regulate how often you donate at your own pace and the perks never expire withing the same version.
- Posts: 20
- Joined: 21 Sep 2019
I find it strange how people quickly jump to defend something that a) does not need a defense, and b) is not in their power to change anyway. Just because we are fine paying for the tool (I am, by the way) doesn't mean we have to take sides.
The point Tio is making is pretty clear and straightforward. It has nothing to do with how good the tool is, and everything to do with the distribution model.
This can be a healthy conversation if we do not start taking sides. Let Zenju reply if he wants to. My two cents.
The point Tio is making is pretty clear and straightforward. It has nothing to do with how good the tool is, and everything to do with the distribution model.
This can be a healthy conversation if we do not start taking sides. Let Zenju reply if he wants to. My two cents.
