2. You may be overestimating how much the average person cares about file storage size, 3rd party servers, or transferring large files.
Ubuntu is also available via official torrent releases: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/alternative-downloads
A few cloud companies use torrent to distribute images across servers (not really a proof, bu anyway: http://www.jcmartin.org/posts/large-scale-file-distribution-...)
Aren't Amazon, Canonical, and these cloud companies corporate entities?
Absolutely not true. Eg: I know film theaters use private Bittorrent networks to distribute the multi-GB master copies of their films to cinemas (yes, they have hardware DRM etc where you need a unique code to be able to play, but they have no problem using the best tool for the job).
@2. Indeed. To find broader adoption by private users it MUST be click and go. But I don't see a reason why BTSynch can't achieve that in the short term even.
2. It could, but BT isn't built around the idea of dead simplicity, like DropBox is. Perceived branding does matter.
I'm planning on using this to sync terrorbytes between london and LA. Why should I pay the ridiculous cost of a thinly wrapped rsync over UDP when I can have it for free? (the latency between the two means that the maximum throughput on tcp based protocols get about 2-3 megs a second tops)
I will be testing the throughput of torrentsync. Currently it appears to be painfully single threaded (it looks to be python)
You might be thinking about a publicly listed company, which is far from a typical company.