3 ms·

Sure they could've communicated better/found better ways to raise money. Someone needs to host the servers and if they aren't making enough to support it then y

Sure they could've communicated better/found better ways to raise money. Someone needs to host the servers and if they aren't making enough to support it then you (the consumer) lose the app's services. What is lifetime license worth then? They've probably spend enough of their own money supporting it already that it came to this (Wish businesses were more transparent about it). Startups and small companies are hard things to support with hard (sometimes unsavory) decisions to make.

wirrbel 7y ago
It's not a consumer's job to validate whether the license model of a company is sustainable for the company. IMHO courts should force the vendor to honor the contracts or as a compromise refund the money payed initially when people bought the license If the company goes bankrupt so be it, no one forced them to give out lifetime licenses.
- excerionsforte 7y ago
  If a business took away a free service (referring to the free lifetime users) that they gave me a license for and said pay nominal amount. Go to court and spend tons of time and money litigating or just pay the money? Think I'll pay the money as I value my time. It is your choice. If there are other services to switch to then this is the time to re-evaluate choice. IANAL, but what would you go to court for? Deceptive practice? This is an app, nothing important that caused me undue harm. Just find alternatives. > If the company goes bankrupt so be it, no one forced them to give out lifetime licenses. Seriously, you would rather an app you found useful to go bankrupt and forced to find alternatives than to pay to support it and not find alternatives? Sheesh.
  - maehwasu 7y ago
    > IANAL Yes, that is abundantly clear from your post.
    - excerionsforte 7y ago
      Save your emotions for someone else man. At least, I can express my opinions in a non personal attack manner thanks very much. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't be a jerk on HN, or cross into getting personal. We're trying for a bit better than that on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - MereInterest 7y ago
    Reframing a paid service (lifetime service, paid for up front) as a free service is a marvelously deceptive description. Please tell me how you justify making that description. False advertising and breach of contract sound like the first reasonable steps. Yes, it would be more time than it is worth for a single user. This is exactly why class action lawsuits exist.
    - excerionsforte 7y ago
      I did not justify anything. Can you point out to me where I justified these actions? I expressed my preference to pay if I were in the same situation as it is not worth my time. If it is something that causes me harm and/or disproportionate burden then it is worth going to court.
      - MereInterest 7y ago
        You are the one who reframed a paid service as a free service. Rather than calling it an outright lie, I am curious as to what reasoning led you to believe that it is an accurate description.
        excerionsforte 7y ago
        Reframing when my one comment referred to free lifetime users due to the first few lines in the article. > Four years after Cerberus made headlines when it invalidated free lifetime licenses, the device security app is back in the spotlight for the same questionable business practices. I get it that you want to reframe my comment so you have something to bash at, but the fact is I referred to a portion of the article. Not only did I say I value my time, I made no value judgement on your beliefs or how you spend your time. If something is not worth my time (harm/disproportionate burden), then I will not pursue it and will look for alternatives. What is so unreasonable about that? That I don't want to be negative as you said here? Not interested.
        MereInterest 7y ago
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    By the same argument I don't have to pay for a bar of chocolate. The investment in time and money to do something about it far outweighs the value of the chocolate, so you should just let me get away with it. It's also nothing important, and no undue amount of harm is caused.
    - excerionsforte 7y ago
      Funny you mention that given shops have to deal with it and not every case is worth pursuing for time benefit. Amazon Go stores are an example of stores that will take the hit if it is not worth it. Anyway, like I said I value my time and lots of others do too. I never made a value judgement on your beliefs or time.

wirrbel 7y ago

It's not a consumer's job to validate whether the license model of a company is sustainable for the company. IMHO courts should force the vendor to honor the contracts or as a compromise refund the money payed initially when people bought the license If the company goes bankrupt so be it, no one forced them to give out lifetime licenses.

excerionsforte 7y ago
If a business took away a free service (referring to the free lifetime users) that they gave me a license for and said pay nominal amount. Go to court and spend tons of time and money litigating or just pay the money? Think I'll pay the money as I value my time. It is your choice. If there are other services to switch to then this is the time to re-evaluate choice. IANAL, but what would you go to court for? Deceptive practice? This is an app, nothing important that caused me undue harm. Just find alternatives. > If the company goes bankrupt so be it, no one forced them to give out lifetime licenses. Seriously, you would rather an app you found useful to go bankrupt and forced to find alternatives than to pay to support it and not find alternatives? Sheesh.
- maehwasu 7y ago
  > IANAL Yes, that is abundantly clear from your post.
  - excerionsforte 7y ago
    Save your emotions for someone else man. At least, I can express my opinions in a non personal attack manner thanks very much. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't be a jerk on HN, or cross into getting personal. We're trying for a bit better than that on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- MereInterest 7y ago
  Reframing a paid service (lifetime service, paid for up front) as a free service is a marvelously deceptive description. Please tell me how you justify making that description. False advertising and breach of contract sound like the first reasonable steps. Yes, it would be more time than it is worth for a single user. This is exactly why class action lawsuits exist.
  - excerionsforte 7y ago
    I did not justify anything. Can you point out to me where I justified these actions? I expressed my preference to pay if I were in the same situation as it is not worth my time. If it is something that causes me harm and/or disproportionate burden then it is worth going to court.
    - MereInterest 7y ago
      You are the one who reframed a paid service as a free service. Rather than calling it an outright lie, I am curious as to what reasoning led you to believe that it is an accurate description.
      - excerionsforte 7y ago
        Reframing when my one comment referred to free lifetime users due to the first few lines in the article. > Four years after Cerberus made headlines when it invalidated free lifetime licenses, the device security app is back in the spotlight for the same questionable business practices. I get it that you want to reframe my comment so you have something to bash at, but the fact is I referred to a portion of the article. Not only did I say I value my time, I made no value judgement on your beliefs or how you spend your time. If something is not worth my time (harm/disproportionate burden), then I will not pursue it and will look for alternatives. What is so unreasonable about that? That I don't want to be negative as you said here? Not interested.
        MereInterest 7y ago
- wongarsu 7y ago
  By the same argument I don't have to pay for a bar of chocolate. The investment in time and money to do something about it far outweighs the value of the chocolate, so you should just let me get away with it. It's also nothing important, and no undue amount of harm is caused.
  - excerionsforte 7y ago
    Funny you mention that given shops have to deal with it and not every case is worth pursuing for time benefit. Amazon Go stores are an example of stores that will take the hit if it is not worth it. Anyway, like I said I value my time and lots of others do too. I never made a value judgement on your beliefs or time.