4 ms·

This is a blunt warning to anyone who ever purchased, or is thinking about purchasing, FileZilla Pro. I bought FileZilla Pro under a perpetual license - a one-

by lobito25 11mo ago

This is a blunt warning to anyone who ever purchased, or is thinking about purchasing, FileZilla Pro. I bought FileZilla Pro under a perpetual license - a one-time payment, lifetime right to use the version I purchased. After reinstalling my operating system, I simply needed to reinstall the software I already paid for. Here's what happened: - Support admitted I still have the legal right to use the old version of FileZilla Pro that I originally purchased. - Then they told me they refuse to provide the installer for that version. - Their excuse: “For security reasons we do not provide older versions.” The impact: If a customer cannot download the installer, the "perpetual license" is dead. It doesn’t matter what rights they acknowledge on paper - they are blocking any practical way to use the software unless you pay again under their new subscription model. There is no way to reinstall. There is no way to access the product you bought. Your "perpetual license" effectively becomes worthless the moment you reinstall your OS or lose the installer. Full text on link.

whatevaa 11mo ago
Lifetime licenses are basically a scam these days. Don't trust any of them.
- willis936 11mo ago
  And instead trust that subscription prices will stay constant and that the company will always stay in business and support the product you purchase? The root issue is trust, not a lifetime license. In fact, a lifetime license is a good predictor of trust because users prefer it to subscriptions and it indicates that the company at least pretends to be interested in the customer's wants. Trust can always be abused, as in this case. Trust is gone everywhere. That doesn't mean it can't be rebuilt. It won't be rebuilt on a subscription model that no one asked for.
  - buildfocus 11mo ago
    This makes no sense. A lifetime license is convenient conceptually, but it completely detaches your goals (working software) from a company's incentives (provide absolutely zero after initial delivery - everything afterwards is cost without upside). Lifetime licenses are bad for users (cf this post, as just one example). Subscriptions are incentives for companies to keep doing what you want, along with direct consequences (everybody will cancel) to penalise them for ignoring their core user base. Don't let the awkwardness of the system (fully agree modern banking is shit at letting you manage recurring bills) distract from the underlying user-beneficial dynamics.
    - willis936 11mo ago
      These are all problems for companies, not users. Edit: let me give you an example. How much do you pay Valve for a Steam subscription? Zero, because they don't offer one, because that isn't what their customers want. This is Valve, who offers perpetual licenses exclusively, offers steep discounts often, and is worth 10s of billions of dollars. The excuses for why it doesn't work are bullshit peddled by middlemen mouthpieces for suits who believe in nothing. They are redundant leeches. Ignore them and make it work.
  - lobito25 11mo ago
    I agree with you completely. For me, this is a matter of trust and principle, not the cost of the software. I see this as a questionable practice aimed at pushing long-time supporters to spend more money. After this experience, I would never consider purchasing anything from them again.
didibus 11mo ago
I admit it's a bit shitty, but I can also understand. You could have saved the installer, put it on disk, you could find a copy of it elsewhere, etc. I don't think it makes the idea of the license void, but it's for sure not the nicest customer move.
- grugagag 11mo ago
  Sounds like piracy may solve such problems (of course just for the binaries)
- Dylan16807 11mo ago
  You can understand what? You're listing workarounds, not justifications. Since it would cost them roughly nothing to keep old installers around forever for paid users, it's really hard to imagine a justification.
  - didibus 11mo ago
    The justification is that they sold you a copy of the software with a lifetime license to use that copy. Not a lifetime license to download the installer from them. It's not customer friendly, but it doesn't seem like it's going back on a promise, unless the license especially called for it.
    - Dylan16807 11mo ago
      That's a reason they're not legally obligated. It doesn't make me understand their actions in the sympathetic sense, and the sympathetic sense is how I interpreted "but I can also understand". It doesn't explain the choice they made. "Legally they could" applies equally to removing the download and keeping the download. The only reason I can think of, to make me understand in a much more derogatory sense, is they want to give a deliberately bad experience to customers that didn't give them money recently enough, trying to make them buy again to keep using the software.
  - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
    Just like it would cost you roughly nothing to keep exactly the same copy in your own backups. So why didn't you if it was so effortless and free?
jay_kyburz 11mo ago
Why did they not mention what the operating system is? I don't think it unreasonable for a company to no longer support operating systems that are also unsupported.
tim-- 11mo ago
So, going to https://filezilla-project.org/prodownload.php?beta=0 https://filezilla-project.org/prodownload.php?beta=0 and entering your email address and order number doesn't work?
- lobito25 11mo ago
  No, it says expired.
  - tim-- 11mo ago
    So then you didn't buy a lifetime subscription? Why would you get access to the software for lifetime, if you ordered only a 1, 3 or 5 year license? Your right to receive updates is limited to the time that you selected when you ordered FileZilla Pro. If you have, infact, ordered a "Perpetual License", then you would have agreed to the Terms and Conditions when ordering FileZilla (here's a random old copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20211128083132/https://store.filezillapro.com/order/terms_conditions.php?CART_ID=fb8a31bfec1615af191201ba66a26b4f https://web.archive.org/web/20211128083132/https://store.fil...) It clearly says in the T&C that you agreed to: > All risk of loss for the Products shall pass to You upon delivery of the Products to the location specified in Your Order (even if no signature is required for delivery). For the avoidance of doubt, the delivery of downloaded Products occurs when the Products are downloaded. What you are saying is that you ordered FileZilla (agreeing to the T&C as part of payment). The T&C said once you downloaded the product, you were required to keep the software yourself. FileZilla's Terms and Conditions are a mess. https://filezillapro.com/terms-and-conditions/ https://filezillapro.com/terms-and-conditions/ It does say: > In a one-off purchase you will have a right to receive services or other rights for the maximum period of time indicated in the package you have purchased or ‒ missing that indication ‒ for up to five years. It also says: > Unless registered, your copy will not receive updates and will not exploit the services of the Software. So, I would assume that if you purchased the Lifetime license, and you registered the software within the 4 required weeks, then they are infact breaking their contract with you.
    - Dylan16807 11mo ago
nightfly 11mo ago
If you bought something from a physical store and lose it doesn't entitle you to go get another one for free...
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- ryanmcbride 11mo ago
  That's the difference between a license and a product my friend
  - nothrabannosir 11mo ago
    Exactly. OP bought a lifetime license but expects a lifetime product.
- gruez 11mo ago
  But we're not discussing an item from a physical store? We're discussing software sold online.
  - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
    Why do you think there is any difference? Did servers and backups and data centers and electricity and cooling and ups batteries and generators and facility operators and banwidth all become free while I wasn't looking?
    - gruez 11mo ago
      They're going to need "servers and backups and data centers and electricity and cooling and ups batteries and generators and facility operators and banwidth" regardless, because they're still selling licenses. The cost of providing downloads to existing owners is marginal.
      - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
Brian_K_White 11mo ago
Buddy. "This is a blunt warning", the reasonable and unreasonable parties in this story are not what you seem to think. No one owes you a perpetual backup. Not even the people who sold you the first copy. You are not prevented from reinstalling your os or filezilla by anything but your own apparent dipshittery. You bought something and then threw it away, and now you cry that you don't have it, and then as if that wasn't ridiculous enough already, you then try to blame this on the vendor.

whatevaa 11mo ago

Lifetime licenses are basically a scam these days. Don't trust any of them.

willis936 11mo ago
And instead trust that subscription prices will stay constant and that the company will always stay in business and support the product you purchase? The root issue is trust, not a lifetime license. In fact, a lifetime license is a good predictor of trust because users prefer it to subscriptions and it indicates that the company at least pretends to be interested in the customer's wants. Trust can always be abused, as in this case. Trust is gone everywhere. That doesn't mean it can't be rebuilt. It won't be rebuilt on a subscription model that no one asked for.
- buildfocus 11mo ago
  This makes no sense. A lifetime license is convenient conceptually, but it completely detaches your goals (working software) from a company's incentives (provide absolutely zero after initial delivery - everything afterwards is cost without upside). Lifetime licenses are bad for users (cf this post, as just one example). Subscriptions are incentives for companies to keep doing what you want, along with direct consequences (everybody will cancel) to penalise them for ignoring their core user base. Don't let the awkwardness of the system (fully agree modern banking is shit at letting you manage recurring bills) distract from the underlying user-beneficial dynamics.
  - willis936 11mo ago
    These are all problems for companies, not users. Edit: let me give you an example. How much do you pay Valve for a Steam subscription? Zero, because they don't offer one, because that isn't what their customers want. This is Valve, who offers perpetual licenses exclusively, offers steep discounts often, and is worth 10s of billions of dollars. The excuses for why it doesn't work are bullshit peddled by middlemen mouthpieces for suits who believe in nothing. They are redundant leeches. Ignore them and make it work.
- lobito25 11mo ago
  I agree with you completely. For me, this is a matter of trust and principle, not the cost of the software. I see this as a questionable practice aimed at pushing long-time supporters to spend more money. After this experience, I would never consider purchasing anything from them again.

didibus 11mo ago

I admit it's a bit shitty, but I can also understand. You could have saved the installer, put it on disk, you could find a copy of it elsewhere, etc. I don't think it makes the idea of the license void, but it's for sure not the nicest customer move.

grugagag 11mo ago
Sounds like piracy may solve such problems (of course just for the binaries)
Dylan16807 11mo ago
You can understand what? You're listing workarounds, not justifications. Since it would cost them roughly nothing to keep old installers around forever for paid users, it's really hard to imagine a justification.
- didibus 11mo ago
  The justification is that they sold you a copy of the software with a lifetime license to use that copy. Not a lifetime license to download the installer from them. It's not customer friendly, but it doesn't seem like it's going back on a promise, unless the license especially called for it.
  - Dylan16807 11mo ago
    That's a reason they're not legally obligated. It doesn't make me understand their actions in the sympathetic sense, and the sympathetic sense is how I interpreted "but I can also understand". It doesn't explain the choice they made. "Legally they could" applies equally to removing the download and keeping the download. The only reason I can think of, to make me understand in a much more derogatory sense, is they want to give a deliberately bad experience to customers that didn't give them money recently enough, trying to make them buy again to keep using the software.
- Brian_K_White 11mo ago
  Just like it would cost you roughly nothing to keep exactly the same copy in your own backups. So why didn't you if it was so effortless and free?

jay_kyburz 11mo ago

Why did they not mention what the operating system is? I don't think it unreasonable for a company to no longer support operating systems that are also unsupported.

tim-- 11mo ago

So, going to https://filezilla-project.org/prodownload.php?beta=0 https://filezilla-project.org/prodownload.php?beta=0 and entering your email address and order number doesn't work?

lobito25 11mo ago
No, it says expired.
- tim-- 11mo ago
  So then you didn't buy a lifetime subscription? Why would you get access to the software for lifetime, if you ordered only a 1, 3 or 5 year license? Your right to receive updates is limited to the time that you selected when you ordered FileZilla Pro. If you have, infact, ordered a "Perpetual License", then you would have agreed to the Terms and Conditions when ordering FileZilla (here's a random old copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20211128083132/https://store.filezillapro.com/order/terms_conditions.php?CART_ID=fb8a31bfec1615af191201ba66a26b4f https://web.archive.org/web/20211128083132/https://store.fil...) It clearly says in the T&C that you agreed to: > All risk of loss for the Products shall pass to You upon delivery of the Products to the location specified in Your Order (even if no signature is required for delivery). For the avoidance of doubt, the delivery of downloaded Products occurs when the Products are downloaded. What you are saying is that you ordered FileZilla (agreeing to the T&C as part of payment). The T&C said once you downloaded the product, you were required to keep the software yourself. FileZilla's Terms and Conditions are a mess. https://filezillapro.com/terms-and-conditions/ https://filezillapro.com/terms-and-conditions/ It does say: > In a one-off purchase you will have a right to receive services or other rights for the maximum period of time indicated in the package you have purchased or ‒ missing that indication ‒ for up to five years. It also says: > Unless registered, your copy will not receive updates and will not exploit the services of the Software. So, I would assume that if you purchased the Lifetime license, and you registered the software within the 4 required weeks, then they are infact breaking their contract with you.
  - Dylan16807 11mo ago

nightfly 11mo ago

If you bought something from a physical store and lose it doesn't entitle you to go get another one for free...

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
ryanmcbride 11mo ago
That's the difference between a license and a product my friend
- nothrabannosir 11mo ago
  Exactly. OP bought a lifetime license but expects a lifetime product.
gruez 11mo ago
But we're not discussing an item from a physical store? We're discussing software sold online.
- Brian_K_White 11mo ago
  Why do you think there is any difference? Did servers and backups and data centers and electricity and cooling and ups batteries and generators and facility operators and banwidth all become free while I wasn't looking?
  - gruez 11mo ago
    They're going to need "servers and backups and data centers and electricity and cooling and ups batteries and generators and facility operators and banwidth" regardless, because they're still selling licenses. The cost of providing downloads to existing owners is marginal.
    - Brian_K_White 11mo ago

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

Brian_K_White 11mo ago

Buddy. "This is a blunt warning", the reasonable and unreasonable parties in this story are not what you seem to think. No one owes you a perpetual backup. Not even the people who sold you the first copy. You are not prevented from reinstalling your os or filezilla by anything but your own apparent dipshittery. You bought something and then threw it away, and now you cry that you don't have it, and then as if that wasn't ridiculous enough already, you then try to blame this on the vendor.