> And consumers are not thinking in terms of encrypted sync, they're just thinking in terms of "I just want to do X, why is it so hard", and so I can't see this (very nice) solution really solving the problems that consumers have, that will make them prioritise security.
I have a use case that is pretty common among my peer group and BT Sync has been the best solution I've been able to find. In a nutshell, I need to sync large datasets across multiple computers.
Dropbox: expensive
AeroFS: buggy, used too much bandwidth, and slow
Sparkleshare: uses git which chokes on large files
Git Annex Assistant: didn't work reliably on mac
rsync/duplicity/unison: needs extra logic for detecting file changes
I also think the "Dropbox replacement" idea is a strawman created by the TorrentFreak article. I've never had the impression that BT Sync is trying to replace Dropbox. It is just trying to do p2p sync with a great interface and some nice features such as read-only and one-time secrets.
I have a use case that is pretty common among my peer group and BT Sync has been the best solution I've been able to find. In a nutshell, I need to sync large datasets across multiple computers.
Dropbox: expensive
AeroFS: buggy, used too much bandwidth, and slow
Sparkleshare: uses git which chokes on large files
Git Annex Assistant: didn't work reliably on mac
rsync/duplicity/unison: needs extra logic for detecting file changes
I also think the "Dropbox replacement" idea is a strawman created by the TorrentFreak article. I've never had the impression that BT Sync is trying to replace Dropbox. It is just trying to do p2p sync with a great interface and some nice features such as read-only and one-time secrets.