241–250 of 311 posts
I just want to state outright that OP was wronged, and I side with them. That being said; I dislike both full subscription (i.e. breaks on expiration) and lifetime licenses. Subscriptions are too expensive for software that rarely gets major investment and lifetime licenses are dishonest (e.g. company cannot work for free, so their funded is based on unlimited growth, which isn't realistic for most). My current favor…
* lifetime is __ years
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key for getting a refund is to not deal with the company at all but rather initiate a credit card chargeback.
Chargebacks can be challenged and challanges can be won by the merchants, in which case you will end up with an attempted fraud on your bank record.
I just want to state outright that OP was wronged, and I side with them. That being said; I dislike both full subscription (i.e. breaks on expiration) and lifetime licenses. Subscriptions are too expensive for software that rarely gets major investment and lifetime licenses are dishonest (e.g. company cannot work for free, so their funded is based on unlimited growth, which isn't realistic for most). My current favor…
+1 for naming jetbrains - I have always liked their way of doing business, including the substantial discount to renew each year - even in years when I don't use their tools much, I renew. Also specifically like how they remind me many times , and many months in advance that they are going to charge my credit card on my renewal date - unlike the scumbag companies that never want to draw attention to your upcoming ren…
I just want to state outright that OP was wronged, and I side with them. That being said; I dislike both full subscription (i.e. breaks on expiration) and lifetime licenses. Subscriptions are too expensive for software that rarely gets major investment and lifetime licenses are dishonest (e.g. company cannot work for free, so their funded is based on unlimited growth, which isn't realistic for most). My current favor…
+1 for naming jetbrains - I have always liked their way of doing business, including the substantial discount to renew each year - even in years when I don't use their tools much, I renew. Also specifically like how they remind me many times , and many months in advance that they are going to charge my credit card on my renewal date - unlike the scumbag companies that never want to draw attention to your upcoming ren…
What I thought I was buying was stop paying after a year and keep the current version.
I just want to state outright that OP was wronged, and I side with them. That being said; I dislike both full subscription (i.e. breaks on expiration) and lifetime licenses. Subscriptions are too expensive for software that rarely gets major investment and lifetime licenses are dishonest (e.g. company cannot work for free, so their funded is based on unlimited growth, which isn't realistic for most). My current favor…
Band in a Box has managed to make this model work for them for several decades now. Each version you buy does not expire, but only gets updates for about a year, and entitles you to an upgrade discount (slightly higher if you buy the next years' version, a little bit lower if you wait longer). The annual updates have both some new features and some new content, so there is always a bit of an incentive to upgrade, but no extreme pressure.
Neither the software nor the business model are perfect, but both are reasonable enough to retain a loyal customer base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Games still do it correctly. If you buy Spacewars you'll get patches and updates for a while, but you won't get Spacewars 2. Unfortunately, it is evident that the pay-once monetization model has been corrupted too. Many AAA game companies sell pre-orders and otherwise bet on people buying their games mostly on marketing and promises. Over the last decade in the AAA industry, marketing has steadily pushed out quality…
Games (at least AAA) have been moving towards live services where there is an ongoing reliance on the operator at least for multiplayer games. While often the main payment is still upfront there are typically ongoing revenue streams like batttle passes and other microtransactions. Thankfully this model has not yet been accepted for single player games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh, please don’t make it worse and escalate to “lie”. You’re blaming the wrong source, and have it backwards IMO. The previous owners weren’t lying, the new owners are the ones to blame for breaking a pre-existing contract with the company. Breaking this contract might not be legal, and in that sense they may be only the ones lying.
I don't think it's that anyone is lying as much as the concept of "lifetime licenses" is itself a lie. There is no such thing, as proven by all the various ways that such licenses have been voided.
Sure there is, there’s an entire thread here of people mentioning their faves.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35538466
It’s not proof or even true to claim that some examples mean all lifetime licenses will be voided. Like most things in life, it’s a distribution where some people behave well and some people don’t.
It’s valid to worry about whether a lifetime license will survive the future, whether you think any specific company is lying to you, and it’s worth estimating the risks of your purchase. But it’s not valid to conclude that the whole concept of this kind of license is a lie just because it doesn’t always work out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh, please don’t make it worse and escalate to “lie”. You’re blaming the wrong source, and have it backwards IMO. The previous owners weren’t lying, the new owners are the ones to blame for breaking a pre-existing contract with the company. Breaking this contract might not be legal, and in that sense they may be only the ones lying.
Right. Sell it and somehow you have no responsibility.
The company has the responsibility to honor its contracts before and after a sale, legally.
The relationship sounds more complicated for the article at the top, but since this sub thread detoured into abstract generalizations, and we’re now talking about responsibility categorically, a change of ownership of a company is transparent to the company’s legal responsibilities to its customers and contracts.
And yes, that’s what a sale legally means for the previous owner, generally speaking. They are transferring all control, profits, obligations, and debts to the new owner. It would be bad if that weren’t the case, because then company owners could weasel out of the company obligations by blaming someone else who no longer has any control.
The OP states “the reason I tell all my CTO coachees they need everything in writing from their boss in their contract, a new boss will probably only honor what is written down, not spoken promises.” However, he seems to have ignored his own advice and not understood the ManyCam EULA. “… This license is in effect until one of the parties terminates the license. You may terminate the license by no longer using the Man…
I don't know the contract law in the relevant (presumably US) jurisdiction, but surely an asterisk in the contract that's basically: Lifetime perpetual licence!* *but we can cancel any time without any penalty lol teehee is not enforceable? I don't think it would fly in court where I live, it doesn't matter if it was in a signed contract if it's preposterously unfair. edit: and I don't even necessarily think a lifeti…