Update on FolderSync

[Anders]

Hi everyone

A little update on the status of FolderSync.

Because I have a full-time job as a software developer, in addition to developing FolderSync, and I also like to have a life outside the world of software development, I haven't been able to support FolderSync to the extent I would like. 

So I apologize to anyone who emails me or writes in this forum. I simply cannot respond to every support request, in fact only very few will ever get an answer. With the price point of FolderSync being what it is, support is not included. :-)

That being said, I still work to improve on the app from time to time, and will of course work to iron out any errors that are found.

The next version will be released using the Google Play Beta feature, so I hope somebody will help test it. It will have support for the new drawer menu layout, some GUI changes and support for Copy.com cloud provider. It will also include a new sync-engine which might or might not be faster depending on your usage.

To be able to try it out, whether you have the full or lite version, you will have to join the FolderSync Google+ community. 

When the beta is released, I will post a link to a page where users can opt in. Some might not want to join a Google+ community but this is unfortunately how it works to get access to the beta. Any feedback to the beta should then be posted in the community page.

There is also a FolderSync Google+ page available. It already has some screenshots from the upcoming version.

Also a big thanks to those on this forum who has helped other users with their problems, your help is greatly appreciated. 

Best regards

Anders

[Marco]

Thanks for your feedback, Anders. Thumbs up for 2.5.0! 

[JNavas]

On Monday, September 23, 2013 12:10:15 PM UTC-7, Anders wrote:

Because I have a full-time job as a software developer, in addition to developing FolderSync, and I also like to have a life outside the world of software development, I haven't been able to support FolderSync to the extent I would like. 

So I apologize to anyone who emails me or writes in this forum. I simply cannot respond to every support request, in fact only very few will ever get an answer. With the price point of FolderSync being what it is, support is not included. :-)

With respect, I think you have more responsibility to those of us paying for your app.

If the price is insufficient, then you should raise it, or consider a "premium" option.

And the lack of any answer to email is disrespectful -- you should at least have an 

auto-responder that warns people not to expect a response even to legitimate bug reports.

Thank you for listening,

John Navas

software professional

[JNavas]

On Monday, September 23, 2013 12:10:15 PM UTC-7, Anders wrote:

The next version will be released using the Google Play Beta feature, so I hope somebody will help test it. It will have support for the new drawer menu layout, some GUI changes and support for Copy.com cloud provider. It will also include a new sync-engine which might or might not be faster depending on your usage.

To be able to try it out, whether you have the full or lite version, you will have to join the FolderSync Google+ community. 

When the beta is released, I will post a link to a page where users can opt in. Some might not want to join a Google+ community but this is unfortunately how it works to get access to the beta. Any feedback to the beta should then be posted in the community page.

Count me as one unwilling to sacrifice my privacy to Google+ just to get access to betas.

BeyondPod (Android app) instead uses a beta Google Group.

Please consider that option/alternative. Thank you.

[Alex Berg]

I think this stems from a misunderstanding of what you have purchased. A Google Play store purchase in-my-view is a purchase as it is as the time of purchase. If (and only if) the developer sees fit you may receive suppport and/or future versions. The developer may choose to grant support/future versions as I see it due to 1) making enough money to pay the expense or 2) because its a hobby or 3) because the developer suck at calculating reward/expense factor (I don't recall the exact business term for this). Another avenue for gathering insigt might be to try to put the purchase in perspective to other real-life non-digital purchases you make: How much do you pay for those. What do you get? What agreement does the seller and the buyer enter into by the transaction of money?

I think it would be totally different had Anders used a subscription based premium payment plan.

Best Alex

[JNavas]

As a software business professional, I think I actually do understand the issues,
which pertain not only to me personally, but also to those currently purchasing the app,
based on implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness. The app is
still available on Play, with support, and without disclaimer of warranties.
The developer could set a time limit on support, but has not done so.

Current case in point is the new very serious OneDrive problem of
inability to create a OneDrive Account or even to access OneDrive, a major cloud service.
This is apparently a FolderSync problem because other apps (e.g., ES File Explorer)
do not have problems with OneDrive, and it's a huge problem for me personally,
because I use OneDrive for my mobile backup and sync.

The developer has the alternatives of

1. releasing an update (promptly) that fixes the problem,
2. releasing a new app that works properly, or
   
3. dropping support for OneDrive and refunding purchases
   (the only question being how far back in time that should go).

For what it's worth, I would be happy to buy a license for a new app that fixes the problem
(if that's what it takes). In the meantime, I'm not happy with a purchased app that's
no longer able to do what I purchased it to do.

Hope that helps,
John

[Nat Gross]

Sometimes companies charge developers per requests made using the key assigned. Now that Microsoft is giving terabytes of storage to office 365 customers, many more people are likely using this program, causing the key limit to be reached rather quickly.
I don't know if this is the case here, but if so, it is simply a money issue between Microsoft and the developer.
Nat

[JNavas]

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 3:49:41 AM UTC-7, Nat Gross wrote:

Sometimes companies charge developers per requests made using the key assigned. Now that Microsoft is giving terabytes of storage to office 365 customers, many more people are likely using this program, causing the key limit to be reached rather quickly.
I don't know if this is the case here, but if so, it is simply a money issue between Microsoft and the developer.

Not the issue. Live SDK for Android README:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so... [emphasis added]

[Sancho Virág Attila]

Oh, no! ★☆☆☆☆

Please, repair the OneDrive connection! :(

[JNavas]

I've now tried to contact the developer twice, but without response, so I think we have to assume OneDrive is off the table indefinitely.

I've considered switching to Google Drive, but that would be painful and time-consuming, and with the risk of something like this happening to Google Drive as well, I may just have to abandon FolderSync entirely. That would be a pity, but backup is just too critical.

[choo divine]

On the same line, I take the dev. your word would hold true about fixing the issue with OneDrive because I don't have this issue with FX File Explorer for instance.

[JNavas]

Google Play now requires devs to make their home address public

Communication between developers and users is an important thing these days. Users want to feel like they can easily ask questions or make requests...

The Google Play Developer Console is alerting devs to “Add a physical contact address” to their account beginning September 30th. This address will be publicly visible on the dev’s app detail page in the Play Store. It will be mandatory for paid apps or apps with in-app purchases to provide a physical address. If a dev fails to provide their address it could result in their app being removed from the Play Store. [emphasis added]

The obvious reason is that take the money and run (sound familiar?) has become too big a problem for Google to ignore. Small publishers are understandably upset, but users deserve to know more about publishers before purchase, and this will help to weed the bad apples out.

It's one thing to provide little or not support for free apps, but another thing entirely for paid apps.

[choo divine]

+1 there.
I'm so fed up about this state of things and glad to see that something is being done to remedy to this situation. Although, I'm doubtful it'll be enough though.

[M J]

"Nothing has changed. FolderSync has always been unsupported."

Sound familiar? (hint: John Navas, July 3)

Suddenly you no longer think you got your money's worth and want to know where Anders lives. What do you want to do, rock his roof? Or should he expect heavies at his door demanding immediate repayment of $3?

[JNavas]

On Friday, September 19, 2014 10:44:20 PM UTC-7, M J wrote:

"Nothing has changed. FolderSync has always been unsupported."
Sound familiar? (hint: John Navas, July 3)
Suddenly you no longer think you got your money's worth and want to know where Anders lives.

What do you want to do, rock his roof? Or should he expect heavies at his door demanding immediate repayment of $3?

That was an observation, not an excuse or pass. I've never been OK with this.

(12/30/2013):

With respect, I think you have more responsibility to those of us paying for your app.

If the price is insufficient, then you should raise it, or consider a "premium" option.

And the lack of any answer to email is disrespectful -- you should at least have an 

auto-responder that warns people not to expect a response even to legitimate bug reports.

(09/05/2014):

As a software business professional, I think I actually do understand the issues,
which pertain not only to me personally, but also to those currently purchasing the app,
based on implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness. The app is
still available on Play, with support, and without disclaimer of warranties.
The developer could set a time limit on support, but has not done so.

Current case in point is the new very serious OneDrive problem of
inability to create a OneDrive Account or even to access OneDrive, a major cloud service.
This is apparently a FolderSync problem because other apps (e.g., ES File Explorer)
do not have problems with OneDrive, and it's a huge problem for me personally,
because I use OneDrive for my mobile backup and sync.

The developer has the alternatives of

1. releasing an update (promptly) that fixes the problem,
2. releasing a new app that works properly, or
3. dropping support for OneDrive and refunding purchases

(the only question being how far back in time that should go).

For what it's worth, I would be happy to buy a license for a new app that fixes the problem
(if that's what it takes). In the meantime, I'm not happy with a purchased app that's
no longer able to do what I purchased it to do.

What Anders should expect if he continues this way is issues with Google and the State of California.
He's trying to have his cake (not deliver) and eat it too (sell it anyway), which isn't OK.

[Nat Gross]

I am also very much hurt due to OneDrive sync problems, BUT.. I think Google is CRAZY for requiring developers to publicize their home address!

Huge mistake on google's part. 

[JNavas]

Strongly disagree. The address requirement just applies to paid apps, and when you demand payment, you assume responsibility, not only to purchasers, but also to prospective purchasers. Take-the-money-and-run is too big a problem.

[Nat Gross]

There will always be unhappy customers. In our case we are justified, in other cases not so. In EITHER case, the developer must worry that a disgruntled customer will show up at his door with a gun! (Ok a bit extreme.) Heckling, and a couple of punches, some broken windows , because "YOUR APP STOLE MY GIRLFRIEND" or whatever some drunk might think of. There is NO WAY a developer should live in [any type of] fear due to his app. Of course Google should have the address and establish different ways of 'punishing' a developer if necessary. A simple red flag on his page, in addition to some other penalties, whatever (many ideas), but to invite potential idiots to my door? For a $1-$5 app? No way. If Google doesn't retract this policy, MY next app in on Amazon!

nat

[JNavas]

Play is a marketplace. Google policies do not protect purchasers after sale (warranty and support), and there's also the issue of prospective purchasers who may simply not wish to deal with publishers in certain locales.

Play can be a great opportunity for small publishers, but only if they are willing and able to meet reasonable requirements, which now include a public business address for paid publishing.

I think you're wildly exaggerating the risk. Yes, there will always be some unhappy customers, but the number will be small if you treat customers well, and the genuinely dangerous crazies in your local area will almost certainly be zero.

If that nonetheless worries you, then either (a) don't charge or (b) get a business address. If those options aren't sufficient for you, then (with respect) you don't belong in the business (on Play or otherwise); i.e., you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Nat Gross]

I google'd a bit on this issue, and surprise the vast majority have my opinion: (but I respect yours:)

https://www.change.org/p/google-remove-the-need-for-developers-to-reveal-their-physical-addresses-publicly-on-google-play

http://androidandme.com/2014/09/news/googles-insane-new-requirement-forces-app-developers-to-list-a-physical-address/

http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/09/18/google-will-now-require-all-app-publishers-with-paid-apps-or-in-app-purchases-to-have-an-address-on-file-in-google-play/

http://www.androidauthority.com/google-forcing-developers-to-publish-home-addresses-527772/

http://forums.androidcentral.com/general-news-discussion/438651-google-play-requires-developers-make-home-address-public.html

[JNavas]

On Monday, September 22, 2014 1:31:37 PM UTC-7, Nat Gross wrote:
> I google'd a bit on this issue, and surprise the vast majority have my opinion: (but I respect yours:)
>
>
> https://www.change.org/p/google-remove-the-need-for-developers-to-reveal-their-physical-addresses-publicly-on-google-play

> ...

1. That's not a scientific sample.

2. A certain amount of negative feedback is to be expected.

3. 94 supporters (as of this writing) isn't a terribly large number.