7 ms·

Tell HN: Never Trust 'Lifetime' Licenses

88 points by sixhobbits 4y ago

I guess a lot of people here already know this, and in general I don't expect a lifetime license to be actually 'lifetime', but I saw the worst example I've seen so far today. Just over a year ago I bought an emojipicker for mac (getmumu.com) that claimed to have a 'lifetime license'. It's a neat little tool and I've used it daily. Now I got a new mac and I tried to transfer it over, only to find out that it's rebranded from "Mumu" to "Mumu X" and 5x'd in price. After hunting through the website I found the tiny "get old version" in the footer. I entered my license key and was told it was already used. I wrote to the support email and was told that "Mumu" was discontinued and "Mumu X" was a new app that I'd have to buy it again. > And note that “lifetime” means it would work on the lifetime of the app, not the lifetime of the customer. Yeah, I understand it's "lifetime of the app" but adding an "X" to the name and a few minor features and then not letting me transfer my old app to a new machine leaves a really bad taste. /rant.

DocTomoe 4y ago
You are aware of Control-Command-Space, right?
- cipritom 4y ago
  it's the exact thing that Mumu seeks to replace, since the search in Ctrl-Cmd-Space sucks terribly
- sixhobbits 4y ago
  yeah, but it's a bit slower and clunky in general (doesn't auto focus search, can't select top search result with enter, etc). I want keyboard shortcut, type 'laugh' or whatever keyword, hit 'enter', continue typing.
  - alphalima 4y ago
    Hah, that's a case where Windows wins out. Win + . is a great little utility ♥
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - new_user_final 4y ago
      wow ♥ This is a special emoji supported by HN
john_the_writer 4y ago
You could treat it like the lifetime supply of shoes in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium. When he was on his last pair he prepared for death, and when it wore out he died.
dontbenebby 4y ago
I got into a flame war with a developer once who added a subscription model and wouldn't let me use the old version of their app. The entire software industry payment culture went to shit around when Adobe stopped letting people pirate so they'd choose their software in enterprise and shifted to a subscription-in-perpetuity model.
- cosmodisk 4y ago
  It went to shit but also enabled astronomical salaries for a lot of devs. There are tons of SaaS solutions out there that back in the day would have been downloaded once but now it's a never-ending stream of $5,10,15,50/month.
  - elashri 4y ago
    Never ending stream of "for a price of one/two coffee per month".
- bluescrn 4y ago
  The thing is, subscriptions for 'big expensive software' like Adobe/Autodesk stuff makes sense in a lot of cases. Avoids a huge up-front cost, and gives everyone access to the latest version. (Having said that, I bought a copy of Photoshop CS5 outright about 10 years ago, and I still use that version. Would have paid a lot more if I was on a subscription for 10 years, and I don't use it frequently or skillfully enough to need the latest+greatest version) But we've got to a point now where the tiniest little utility wants a subscription rather than a one-off payment. And I'd blame it more on Apple than Adobe for creating the App Store model and then pushing subscriptions. Apple have also created the requirement (and cost) for developers of having to constantly update their software (just to support new OS versions or new hardware), whereas Microsoft's focus on backwards-compatibility enables a lot of software a decade or two old to still run on the latest Windows and latest hardware.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Yeah, I have an Adobe Photo subscription and that's mostly fine. I'd be upgrading Lightroom anyway and, if I did stop upgrading, it would presumably break at some point with newer OSs. But as you say it's a big nope for little utilities and/or other programs that I rarely use. Fortunately, it tends to at least be easier these days to export into a standard format for programs that have data locked into them.
marban 4y ago
I once bought a LT lic. for serpstat.com and after a while they gradually reduced features for those users and more or less feature-freezed it. LL: Don't buy, and don't offer LT — It's just a poison pill for both parties.
tomerv 4y ago
This can happen anywhere, not only on software. I once bought a set of 10 or so entries to a climbing wall. Some time later I wanted to use it and was told that it was no longer valid. There was no "valid by" date on the card, but I was told that the place transfered ownership and that this decision to not accept the old card was ok'ed by the lawyers. At least for software you can keep a copy of the installer. Unless it checks the license with the server, then you're screwed...
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Pretty dumb of the climbing wall. They will just lose repeat business. I wouldn’t go back if any business did that to me. Letting you in costs nothing by comparison! And you’d probably buy a drink each time or bring a friend who has not yet been.
  - michaelt 4y ago
    I agree that in principle companies ought to honour their commitments, even through changes in ownership. But without knowing what tomerv means by "Some time later I wanted to use it" it's hard to say if refusing is all that bad for business. You don't want to upset regular customers or active members of the local climbing community - but regular customers don't take years to use up a 10-entry voucher. If tomerv's voucher was 5-10 years old, the threat that someone who hadn't brought anything in years would start a boycott wouldn't exactly have them quaking in their boots.
  - julianlam 4y ago
    > Letting you in costs nothing by comparison! If we look at the per-use cost to the climbing gym, then there is a definite cost. The main contributor to that overhead is insurance. My understanding is that it is very difficult and very expensive to insure a climbing gym, hence the rather high rates. Divided at the per-visit or per-customer level, you can see then that every single visitor incurs some cost. If it were me I'd just have them sign a liability waiver (the legal effectiveness of which is already dubious) and climb, but I'm not them.
lapcat 4y ago
> After hunting through the website I found the tiny "get old version" in the footer. I entered my license key and was told it was already used. I wrote to the support email and was told that "Mumu" was discontinued and "Mumu X" was a new app that I'd have to buy it again. The "already used" message sounds to me like maybe the app has an online license check that's still registered to your old Mac. If you still have the old Mac, it might be possible to unregister the app on there. Otherwise, it sounds like support might be confused about your situation. Any app that has a license check like this ought to have a way to migrate to a new Mac.
al_borland 4y ago
If you still have the old Mac, generally the info for the license file will be stored in your ~/Library somewhere. Probably ~/Library/Application Data/<App Name>. Copy it over to the new system in the same spot and it generally works. You can also just search with Finder (specially in the ~/Library folder as it doesn't search there by default) for the app name and see all the related files. Copy that stuff over. I got a copy of OmniOutliner pre-installed on a new Mac (back when Apple did stuff like that). I found that file and copied it to my next several Macs. There are some cases where companies have activation servers and once they shut those down, it's all over. How their app is checking to see that your license is already used is a bit unknown. Moving the license might work, it might not... but it's worth a shot.
- sixhobbits 4y ago
  thanks, that worked!
- iKlsR 4y ago
  This is why I like electron applications at times. Bought a php helper application that "upgraded" to a major version, doubled the price and had an annoying popup and just plain started behaving wonky. Spent several minutes with the asar file, unpacked everything, stripped all the api calls and swapped a few binaries with newer versions, repackaged and good as new.
ghaff 4y ago
New versions of licensed proprietary software that you have to pay if you want to upgrade to a new version long predate subscription models and doesn't seem unreasonable in general. (Whether it really is justified for some little utility is another matter.) The complaint I do buy here is that the OP can't transfer their old piece of software and license to a new system. Which they should be able to do--at least so long as an operating system upgrade doesn't break it. (i.e. I wouldn't expect old versions of software to be upgraded to run on new hardware and software except for some cases like OS security patches.)
- deepsun 4y ago
  Yes, although the new system might require some non-trivial changes to the software, e.g. new OS version is very different from the old version. That should have been covered in software requirements section. Also, the software distributors are not obliged to _distribute_ the old software versions, just like car manufacturers don't distribute or support an old car models, even though owner have "lifetime license" to use the car.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    It's one thing to be allowed to run the old version (and in general you should be allowed to transfer software to a new system--so there should be some mechanism to do so). It's another for the software to work when it gets there. A lot of Mac software was broken by the, I think, Mojave transition, and I wouldn't expect a software vendor to make changes to an old version of software so it would run. >car manufacturers don't distribute or support an old car models Car manufacturers do support old models up to a point. (Parts, recalls, etc.) But analogies to software are imperfect anyway.
    - bruce511 4y ago
      You are completely right - software should be transferable from one machine to another (and usually is). It pretty much only works though if you assume your customer is honest, and don't spend too much time fighting it. Which means yes, some dishonest customers will buy once and use on multiple machines. If you go the other way - assume the customer is dishonest - then you need "transfer checking" which in turn means external servers (at best) or staff (at worst). But a model where you get one-time revenue, but monthly-reoccurring cost (for life no less) is not sustainable. Reoccurring revenue to match reoccurring cost is sustainable - hence subscriptions are popular with products that have reoccurring cost (development, support etc.) Version upgrades were popular, but that is an "optional subscription" which works only as long as you keep adding things existing customers actually want. This was masked behind new sales, but once there's some market saturation this becomes a bigger problem. Lifetime licenses should only apply to software that will be completely abandoned when sales dry up. Which means no online infrastructure etc. I've seen other "lifetime" products "change name" to side-step the lifetime free upgrades license, and it leaves a very sour taste with customers.
causi 4y ago
Whenever I buy I lifetime license that stops working I just start pirating the application. Happened to me with AVS Media Converter over a decade ago. "Lifetime" turned out to be about three years.
BraverHeart 4y ago
The same thing happened for old lifetime Team Viewer licenses, they force you to stay with the old version and use dark patterns to force you to update to new versions. :/
wccrawford 4y ago
Devs that nickle-and-dime like that have absolutely no respect or empathy for their customers. They're all about making money, and not at all about helping people. There are quite a few things that I've decided not to buy because the company acted like this. Sadly, it's still too hard for people to know about this kind of behavior ahead of experiencing it themselves.
flatiron 4y ago
Shout out to plex for the lifetime pass I bought 9 years ago for $75 that’s still kicking.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  Came here to say the same thing. That and my Alfred lifetime mega supporter licence have been two bright spots in an otherwise bleak landscape. But overall I avoid them since I don't trust the company to be around long enough to get the value or I don't trust the company not to pull something like what happened to OP.
theandrewbailey 4y ago
Always back up your installers and license keys.
jmyeet 4y ago
I realize this isn't your specific problem but whenever I download any software, particularly software I paid for, I put a copy of the install package/executable somewhere where I can get it again (eg Google Drive, Dropbox) along with any license files associated. I've been burned too many times on not being able to find old copies of software I've actually paid for. The issue here is that the license is tied to the computer not the user and isn't necessarily transferable (within the ToS at least). I did take a quick look at the site and it does say "1 Mac" not "1 user". Is that not 100% clear? Maybe. But it's not a lie. Also, there is no non-lifetime option on that website so it's not like you went for a more premium license FWIW. Pretty much any version licenses (lifetime or otherwise) create a financial incentive to create a new version. This is kind of what Adobe did with Photoshop (pre-subscription). This was particularly noticeable with the RAW plugin. Whenever a new camera is added they just bumped the minimum version to force you to upgrade. I'm actually not fundamentally opposed to subscription models for software as there's no disincentive for bug-fixing and constant improvement. I mean how Adobe does it is terrible (eg dark patterns around resubscription, only annual pricing). But compare that to Jetbrains who has an outstanding subscription model.
richliss 4y ago
This isn't about lifetime licences but more untrustworthy companies and clearly unsustainable business models in the LT deal. You have to think critically. I've bought quite a few lifetime licences from AppSumo etc. over the years the vast majority have been above board, and some have even given extra bonuses years down the line as a thank you for supporting them in the early days. Some get bought by bigger companies and you can flip a coin what happens - shout out to MooSend and Archbee as they're remained great after being bought out/got investment. Some companies also respond to bad PR when they bait and switch; Miro killed my LT licence until I complained and referenced contracts, BotStar is persisting after AppSumo kicked up a fuss and another whose name escaped me backed out of bait and switch after PR threats. Some do just sadly die though.
- worker_person 4y ago
  I had a paper with my key from http://kali.net/ http://kali.net/ for a couple of decades 1995 or so. Eventually lost the paper in a move. Was awesome for Warcraft 2. Back before battle.net
deepsun 4y ago
I believe software licenser is right and you (the user) is wrong: 1. Licenser is typically not obliged to _support_ the software for eternity. It may require a lot of work to support the old software versions (security patches / new OS compatibility updates). All the software requirements should have been covered in its requirements section. They clearly sold you the right to use the software forever, but if you want to get updates or support -- that's what support contracts are for. 2. Also, the software distributors are not obliged to _distribute_ the old software versions. Let's make analogy with bicycle manufacturers -- they don't distribute or support an old bike models, even though you have a "lifetime license" to _use_ the bike. PS: Personal story: I've dealt with a good amount of software and support licenses from the seller side, and savvy buyers know to add a provision in our Agreement that if we agree on a longer-term contract, we (seller) cannot rename the product in order to push price increases. But our case is different than yours -- we specifically sell the updates and support, not just the right to use.
- II2II 4y ago
  On the otherhand, that bike won't disappear in a puff of smoke. Break, sure. In that case, you can replace the broken components. In most cases you can buy the parts from any shop, but there is also the possibility even of buying a parts bike to scavenge components if you cannot find parts. Yes, software is fundamentally different. On the other hand, selling perpetual licenses for software that cannot be used perpetually (e.g. because it requires activation servers) should be considered misleading advertising.
  - deepsun 4y ago
    Well, activation servers would definitely be a breach of the sale agreement. But it's nowhere in OP post.
- sixhobbits 4y ago
  I mean there is the law which gets complicated and then there is "how things are usually done". In my experience creators usually try to show some kind of 'good faith' when it comes to this -- grandfathering in old plans, or offering a discount on whatever new pricing model they have. This case is just so blatant though. I don't need support, I can find the right files etc, but if you're gonna kill the old version, allow the license key to be used on a new machine..
II2II 4y ago
I ran into a similar situation with a perpetual licence. Tried to reactivate after a couple of years, and was told to upgrade to their new and improved subscription plan. I shrugged my shoulders and life went on. The thing is, I have been mostly in the open source world for decades. All their actions did was reaffirm my use of open source and make it even less likely that commercial software vendors will see a dime of my money in the future. It hurts everyone, unfortunately. Alas, it is difficult to figure out which vendors will actually honour their licenses.
- scarface74 4y ago
  If the maintainers abandon the open source project you are using and no one else is willing to maintain it, are you going to make the changes to make it compatible with newer operating systems and fix security issues? If not, you’re still not much better off by using open source software.
  - II2II 4y ago
    Of course you're still better off. If we were talking about software created a quarter century ago, there would not be much of a difference. You had the distribution media. You had a license key. You could continue to use that software with a perpetual license indefinitely. It may mean keeping old hardware around, isolating the software from the network, or dealing with bugs indefinitely, but at least you had that option. (For the most part.) Contrast that to today. Consumers have virtually no control over the software they licensed. In the worse case scenario, the vendor can prevent its use at any time. A more typical situation involves the user losing access sometime after the vendor dropping support (even if it is unintentional, say due to them going out of business). That is far worse than the original scenario, the scenario of dealing with unsupported software, since access is lost altogether. As for having access to the source, it can help in some situations. I have certainly made (very minor) tweaks to programs to get it running. But another scenario would relate to the question, "how important is it to keep the software running?" With open source software, you could hire someone to maintain it if it was important enough. With restrictive licensing, the best case scenario is dealing with extortion. (And yes, I would call it extortion if a company changes the terms of the license to extract revenue.) The worse case scenario is losing access altogether, either due to a product being dropped or a company going under.
joshstrange 4y ago
Rocket ($10) [0] is my current favorite emoji picker though sometimes it does drive me crazy (css properties in chrome dev tools and the like, I understand it's impossible to avoid, it still drives me crazy). Also there are emojis with spaces in the name but the picker just closes if you type a space so you have to add aliases to make them searchable. But overall it's a great tool and you can also use it to insert gifs which is cool. [0] https://matthewpalmer.net/rocket/ https://matthewpalmer.net/rocket/
BizarroLand 4y ago
I bought a lifetime license to a server at cloudatcost, just a cheap little thing for me to run experiments on. It was never used for webhosting or anything that was mission-related in the slightest. It was a hundred bucks, one time only fee, so even with low resources and minimum reliability it was worth it to me because of the one time only fee. 2 years in, they sent me a bill for $90, saying that if I didn't pay it they would cancel the service. I showed them my receipt for unlimited lifetime access, and they came back with "well, you still have to pay". I said "I paid for lifetime access" and they gave me the, "we have altered the deal, pray we don't alter it any further" line so I canceled the service and smack talk them every chance I get. If you sell something under a specific license you shouldn't be allowed to change your mind after the fact. If I wanted to pay $90 a year for a cheap VPS I would have gone with a reputable company.
eska 4y ago
1. Rip off paying customers 2. Customers pirate your software 3. surprisedpikachu.gif

88 points by sixhobbits 4y ago

DocTomoe 4y ago

You are aware of Control-Command-Space, right?

cipritom 4y ago
it's the exact thing that Mumu seeks to replace, since the search in Ctrl-Cmd-Space sucks terribly
sixhobbits 4y ago
yeah, but it's a bit slower and clunky in general (doesn't auto focus search, can't select top search result with enter, etc). I want keyboard shortcut, type 'laugh' or whatever keyword, hit 'enter', continue typing.
- alphalima 4y ago
  Hah, that's a case where Windows wins out. Win + . is a great little utility ♥
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - new_user_final 4y ago
    wow ♥ This is a special emoji supported by HN

john_the_writer 4y ago

You could treat it like the lifetime supply of shoes in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium. When he was on his last pair he prepared for death, and when it wore out he died.

dontbenebby 4y ago

I got into a flame war with a developer once who added a subscription model and wouldn't let me use the old version of their app. The entire software industry payment culture went to shit around when Adobe stopped letting people pirate so they'd choose their software in enterprise and shifted to a subscription-in-perpetuity model.

cosmodisk 4y ago
It went to shit but also enabled astronomical salaries for a lot of devs. There are tons of SaaS solutions out there that back in the day would have been downloaded once but now it's a never-ending stream of $5,10,15,50/month.
- elashri 4y ago
  Never ending stream of "for a price of one/two coffee per month".
bluescrn 4y ago
The thing is, subscriptions for 'big expensive software' like Adobe/Autodesk stuff makes sense in a lot of cases. Avoids a huge up-front cost, and gives everyone access to the latest version. (Having said that, I bought a copy of Photoshop CS5 outright about 10 years ago, and I still use that version. Would have paid a lot more if I was on a subscription for 10 years, and I don't use it frequently or skillfully enough to need the latest+greatest version) But we've got to a point now where the tiniest little utility wants a subscription rather than a one-off payment. And I'd blame it more on Apple than Adobe for creating the App Store model and then pushing subscriptions. Apple have also created the requirement (and cost) for developers of having to constantly update their software (just to support new OS versions or new hardware), whereas Microsoft's focus on backwards-compatibility enables a lot of software a decade or two old to still run on the latest Windows and latest hardware.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Yeah, I have an Adobe Photo subscription and that's mostly fine. I'd be upgrading Lightroom anyway and, if I did stop upgrading, it would presumably break at some point with newer OSs. But as you say it's a big nope for little utilities and/or other programs that I rarely use. Fortunately, it tends to at least be easier these days to export into a standard format for programs that have data locked into them.

marban 4y ago

I once bought a LT lic. for serpstat.com and after a while they gradually reduced features for those users and more or less feature-freezed it. LL: Don't buy, and don't offer LT — It's just a poison pill for both parties.

tomerv 4y ago

This can happen anywhere, not only on software. I once bought a set of 10 or so entries to a climbing wall. Some time later I wanted to use it and was told that it was no longer valid. There was no "valid by" date on the card, but I was told that the place transfered ownership and that this decision to not accept the old card was ok'ed by the lawyers. At least for software you can keep a copy of the installer. Unless it checks the license with the server, then you're screwed...

quickthrower2 4y ago
Pretty dumb of the climbing wall. They will just lose repeat business. I wouldn’t go back if any business did that to me. Letting you in costs nothing by comparison! And you’d probably buy a drink each time or bring a friend who has not yet been.
- michaelt 4y ago
  I agree that in principle companies ought to honour their commitments, even through changes in ownership. But without knowing what tomerv means by "Some time later I wanted to use it" it's hard to say if refusing is all that bad for business. You don't want to upset regular customers or active members of the local climbing community - but regular customers don't take years to use up a 10-entry voucher. If tomerv's voucher was 5-10 years old, the threat that someone who hadn't brought anything in years would start a boycott wouldn't exactly have them quaking in their boots.
- julianlam 4y ago
  > Letting you in costs nothing by comparison! If we look at the per-use cost to the climbing gym, then there is a definite cost. The main contributor to that overhead is insurance. My understanding is that it is very difficult and very expensive to insure a climbing gym, hence the rather high rates. Divided at the per-visit or per-customer level, you can see then that every single visitor incurs some cost. If it were me I'd just have them sign a liability waiver (the legal effectiveness of which is already dubious) and climb, but I'm not them.

lapcat 4y ago

> After hunting through the website I found the tiny "get old version" in the footer. I entered my license key and was told it was already used. I wrote to the support email and was told that "Mumu" was discontinued and "Mumu X" was a new app that I'd have to buy it again. The "already used" message sounds to me like maybe the app has an online license check that's still registered to your old Mac. If you still have the old Mac, it might be possible to unregister the app on there. Otherwise, it sounds like support might be confused about your situation. Any app that has a license check like this ought to have a way to migrate to a new Mac.

al_borland 4y ago

If you still have the old Mac, generally the info for the license file will be stored in your ~/Library somewhere. Probably ~/Library/Application Data/<App Name>. Copy it over to the new system in the same spot and it generally works. You can also just search with Finder (specially in the ~/Library folder as it doesn't search there by default) for the app name and see all the related files. Copy that stuff over. I got a copy of OmniOutliner pre-installed on a new Mac (back when Apple did stuff like that). I found that file and copied it to my next several Macs. There are some cases where companies have activation servers and once they shut those down, it's all over. How their app is checking to see that your license is already used is a bit unknown. Moving the license might work, it might not... but it's worth a shot.

sixhobbits 4y ago
thanks, that worked!
iKlsR 4y ago
This is why I like electron applications at times. Bought a php helper application that "upgraded" to a major version, doubled the price and had an annoying popup and just plain started behaving wonky. Spent several minutes with the asar file, unpacked everything, stripped all the api calls and swapped a few binaries with newer versions, repackaged and good as new.

ghaff 4y ago

New versions of licensed proprietary software that you have to pay if you want to upgrade to a new version long predate subscription models and doesn't seem unreasonable in general. (Whether it really is justified for some little utility is another matter.) The complaint I do buy here is that the OP can't transfer their old piece of software and license to a new system. Which they should be able to do--at least so long as an operating system upgrade doesn't break it. (i.e. I wouldn't expect old versions of software to be upgraded to run on new hardware and software except for some cases like OS security patches.)

deepsun 4y ago
Yes, although the new system might require some non-trivial changes to the software, e.g. new OS version is very different from the old version. That should have been covered in software requirements section. Also, the software distributors are not obliged to _distribute_ the old software versions, just like car manufacturers don't distribute or support an old car models, even though owner have "lifetime license" to use the car.
- ghaff 4y ago
  It's one thing to be allowed to run the old version (and in general you should be allowed to transfer software to a new system--so there should be some mechanism to do so). It's another for the software to work when it gets there. A lot of Mac software was broken by the, I think, Mojave transition, and I wouldn't expect a software vendor to make changes to an old version of software so it would run. >car manufacturers don't distribute or support an old car models Car manufacturers do support old models up to a point. (Parts, recalls, etc.) But analogies to software are imperfect anyway.
  - bruce511 4y ago
    You are completely right - software should be transferable from one machine to another (and usually is). It pretty much only works though if you assume your customer is honest, and don't spend too much time fighting it. Which means yes, some dishonest customers will buy once and use on multiple machines. If you go the other way - assume the customer is dishonest - then you need "transfer checking" which in turn means external servers (at best) or staff (at worst). But a model where you get one-time revenue, but monthly-reoccurring cost (for life no less) is not sustainable. Reoccurring revenue to match reoccurring cost is sustainable - hence subscriptions are popular with products that have reoccurring cost (development, support etc.) Version upgrades were popular, but that is an "optional subscription" which works only as long as you keep adding things existing customers actually want. This was masked behind new sales, but once there's some market saturation this becomes a bigger problem. Lifetime licenses should only apply to software that will be completely abandoned when sales dry up. Which means no online infrastructure etc. I've seen other "lifetime" products "change name" to side-step the lifetime free upgrades license, and it leaves a very sour taste with customers.

causi 4y ago

Whenever I buy I lifetime license that stops working I just start pirating the application. Happened to me with AVS Media Converter over a decade ago. "Lifetime" turned out to be about three years.

BraverHeart 4y ago

The same thing happened for old lifetime Team Viewer licenses, they force you to stay with the old version and use dark patterns to force you to update to new versions. :/

wccrawford 4y ago

Devs that nickle-and-dime like that have absolutely no respect or empathy for their customers. They're all about making money, and not at all about helping people. There are quite a few things that I've decided not to buy because the company acted like this. Sadly, it's still too hard for people to know about this kind of behavior ahead of experiencing it themselves.

flatiron 4y ago

Shout out to plex for the lifetime pass I bought 9 years ago for $75 that’s still kicking.

joshstrange 4y ago
Came here to say the same thing. That and my Alfred lifetime mega supporter licence have been two bright spots in an otherwise bleak landscape. But overall I avoid them since I don't trust the company to be around long enough to get the value or I don't trust the company not to pull something like what happened to OP.

theandrewbailey 4y ago

Always back up your installers and license keys.

jmyeet 4y ago

I realize this isn't your specific problem but whenever I download any software, particularly software I paid for, I put a copy of the install package/executable somewhere where I can get it again (eg Google Drive, Dropbox) along with any license files associated. I've been burned too many times on not being able to find old copies of software I've actually paid for. The issue here is that the license is tied to the computer not the user and isn't necessarily transferable (within the ToS at least). I did take a quick look at the site and it does say "1 Mac" not "1 user". Is that not 100% clear? Maybe. But it's not a lie. Also, there is no non-lifetime option on that website so it's not like you went for a more premium license FWIW. Pretty much any version licenses (lifetime or otherwise) create a financial incentive to create a new version. This is kind of what Adobe did with Photoshop (pre-subscription). This was particularly noticeable with the RAW plugin. Whenever a new camera is added they just bumped the minimum version to force you to upgrade. I'm actually not fundamentally opposed to subscription models for software as there's no disincentive for bug-fixing and constant improvement. I mean how Adobe does it is terrible (eg dark patterns around resubscription, only annual pricing). But compare that to Jetbrains who has an outstanding subscription model.

richliss 4y ago

This isn't about lifetime licences but more untrustworthy companies and clearly unsustainable business models in the LT deal. You have to think critically. I've bought quite a few lifetime licences from AppSumo etc. over the years the vast majority have been above board, and some have even given extra bonuses years down the line as a thank you for supporting them in the early days. Some get bought by bigger companies and you can flip a coin what happens - shout out to MooSend and Archbee as they're remained great after being bought out/got investment. Some companies also respond to bad PR when they bait and switch; Miro killed my LT licence until I complained and referenced contracts, BotStar is persisting after AppSumo kicked up a fuss and another whose name escaped me backed out of bait and switch after PR threats. Some do just sadly die though.

worker_person 4y ago
I had a paper with my key from http://kali.net/ http://kali.net/ for a couple of decades 1995 or so. Eventually lost the paper in a move. Was awesome for Warcraft 2. Back before battle.net

deepsun 4y ago

I believe software licenser is right and you (the user) is wrong: 1. Licenser is typically not obliged to _support_ the software for eternity. It may require a lot of work to support the old software versions (security patches / new OS compatibility updates). All the software requirements should have been covered in its requirements section. They clearly sold you the right to use the software forever, but if you want to get updates or support -- that's what support contracts are for. 2. Also, the software distributors are not obliged to _distribute_ the old software versions. Let's make analogy with bicycle manufacturers -- they don't distribute or support an old bike models, even though you have a "lifetime license" to _use_ the bike. PS: Personal story: I've dealt with a good amount of software and support licenses from the seller side, and savvy buyers know to add a provision in our Agreement that if we agree on a longer-term contract, we (seller) cannot rename the product in order to push price increases. But our case is different than yours -- we specifically sell the updates and support, not just the right to use.

II2II 4y ago
On the otherhand, that bike won't disappear in a puff of smoke. Break, sure. In that case, you can replace the broken components. In most cases you can buy the parts from any shop, but there is also the possibility even of buying a parts bike to scavenge components if you cannot find parts. Yes, software is fundamentally different. On the other hand, selling perpetual licenses for software that cannot be used perpetually (e.g. because it requires activation servers) should be considered misleading advertising.
- deepsun 4y ago
  Well, activation servers would definitely be a breach of the sale agreement. But it's nowhere in OP post.
sixhobbits 4y ago
I mean there is the law which gets complicated and then there is "how things are usually done". In my experience creators usually try to show some kind of 'good faith' when it comes to this -- grandfathering in old plans, or offering a discount on whatever new pricing model they have. This case is just so blatant though. I don't need support, I can find the right files etc, but if you're gonna kill the old version, allow the license key to be used on a new machine..

II2II 4y ago

I ran into a similar situation with a perpetual licence. Tried to reactivate after a couple of years, and was told to upgrade to their new and improved subscription plan. I shrugged my shoulders and life went on. The thing is, I have been mostly in the open source world for decades. All their actions did was reaffirm my use of open source and make it even less likely that commercial software vendors will see a dime of my money in the future. It hurts everyone, unfortunately. Alas, it is difficult to figure out which vendors will actually honour their licenses.

scarface74 4y ago
If the maintainers abandon the open source project you are using and no one else is willing to maintain it, are you going to make the changes to make it compatible with newer operating systems and fix security issues? If not, you’re still not much better off by using open source software.
- II2II 4y ago
  Of course you're still better off. If we were talking about software created a quarter century ago, there would not be much of a difference. You had the distribution media. You had a license key. You could continue to use that software with a perpetual license indefinitely. It may mean keeping old hardware around, isolating the software from the network, or dealing with bugs indefinitely, but at least you had that option. (For the most part.) Contrast that to today. Consumers have virtually no control over the software they licensed. In the worse case scenario, the vendor can prevent its use at any time. A more typical situation involves the user losing access sometime after the vendor dropping support (even if it is unintentional, say due to them going out of business). That is far worse than the original scenario, the scenario of dealing with unsupported software, since access is lost altogether. As for having access to the source, it can help in some situations. I have certainly made (very minor) tweaks to programs to get it running. But another scenario would relate to the question, "how important is it to keep the software running?" With open source software, you could hire someone to maintain it if it was important enough. With restrictive licensing, the best case scenario is dealing with extortion. (And yes, I would call it extortion if a company changes the terms of the license to extract revenue.) The worse case scenario is losing access altogether, either due to a product being dropped or a company going under.

joshstrange 4y ago

Rocket ($10) [0] is my current favorite emoji picker though sometimes it does drive me crazy (css properties in chrome dev tools and the like, I understand it's impossible to avoid, it still drives me crazy). Also there are emojis with spaces in the name but the picker just closes if you type a space so you have to add aliases to make them searchable. But overall it's a great tool and you can also use it to insert gifs which is cool. [0] https://matthewpalmer.net/rocket/ https://matthewpalmer.net/rocket/

BizarroLand 4y ago

I bought a lifetime license to a server at cloudatcost, just a cheap little thing for me to run experiments on. It was never used for webhosting or anything that was mission-related in the slightest. It was a hundred bucks, one time only fee, so even with low resources and minimum reliability it was worth it to me because of the one time only fee. 2 years in, they sent me a bill for $90, saying that if I didn't pay it they would cancel the service. I showed them my receipt for unlimited lifetime access, and they came back with "well, you still have to pay". I said "I paid for lifetime access" and they gave me the, "we have altered the deal, pray we don't alter it any further" line so I canceled the service and smack talk them every chance I get. If you sell something under a specific license you shouldn't be allowed to change your mind after the fact. If I wanted to pay $90 a year for a cheap VPS I would have gone with a reputable company.

eska 4y ago

1. Rip off paying customers 2. Customers pirate your software 3. surprisedpikachu.gif