Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Another 'Lifetime' license bites the dust
mwb1100:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is the problem with the "entitled generation".-Josh (April 17, 2009, 05:56 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'd say it's more a problem of unclear definitions, misunderstandings, or in a very few cases outright deception.
Nowadays, 'updates' generally means the release of something with a change only to the minor version number, while 'upgrades' means the release of something with a change to the major version number. However, the meanings of these terms are not set in stone, and some vendors make it clear what they mean, some don't. Even in the the case where they make it clear, it's usually up to the vendor what constitutes a major version change.
I know that years ago I would often misread 'lifetime updates' as 'lifetime upgrades' - it probably doesn't help that upgrade and update are rather similar words in form and meaning. Anyway, I've learned to read more carefully since then.
In AnyDVD's case, I'll admit I was a bit bummed when AnyDVD-HD wasn't an 'update', but after some thought I can see their position makes sense and I can live with it. But I can also see how some people might feel that the distinction between AnyDVD vs. AnyDVD-HD is arbitrary (although I don't agree).
raybeere:
I've never used Any-DVD, or any variant, so I'm basing my comments on what I've read here. First, I agree the company was not unethical in what they did; the new release was a new product. However, I think there is a lesson here for small companies, that while customers do expect ethical behaviour, they also expect to be treated well. If I'm reading it correctly, they sold the earlier program, then, in the case of one poster, days after he bought this earlier license, a new product came out, with new functionality but also with all the functions of the old. So I do think they erred in failing to treat their customers in the way most customers would like to be treated.
Look at that experience from the point of view of the customer: if he'd known the new product was coming out, and would be treated separately, he could have waited and obtained all the functions of both for the single price. Instead, they didn't make this plain, so to get both he needed to pay for both programs. (The amounts don't matter. Buying both would cost more than buying one. That is all that matters to make my point.) I'd be upset, not that designating new functionality as a new program was unethical, but simply because they withheld information about the upcoming release (presumably to gain a few more sales of the old one - who's going to buy it once they know it will be outdated?). I wouldn't want to do business with a company that treated me that way. High standards? Maybe, but customers have just as much right to insist on whatever standards they like as companies do to decide what standards they will follow.
So, to my mind, this company alienated a certain number of customers by the way they acted. To gain a limited amount of extra sales, they lost untold future sales. What would I suggest they could have done? Be honest, at the very beginning, about the new program they're developing, and the fact it will be treated as a new product. At that point, they might scare away a few sales, but most folks won't want to wait that long for the new product - and, since the old one is becoming outdated, they could encourage sales by cutting the price a bit. As time passed, they could announce that any purchaser of the old program after a specified date would qualify for a certain percentage discount off the price of the new one. Finally, they could announce that those who bought the old license after a specific date, close to the new release (say, within a month) would just get a free license to the new product. Yes, this would cost them a bit more - but I think it would earn them even more goodwill.
Am I saying they should be obligated to do this? No, I'm simply saying it seems like a policy that would have alienated a lot fewer customers, and would have more than paid for itself in the long run. I know there are a few small businesses I deal with that have gone the extra mile - and, when they show me they're willing to do that, I'm much more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in cases that aren't terribly clear. I've knowingly paid more, even when customer service wasn't a consideration - when I'm dealing with a business I know is generally willing to treat me as I'd like to be treated.
J-Mac:
I've never used Any-DVD, or any variant, so I'm basing my comments on what I've read here. First, I agree the company was not unethical in what they did; the new release was a new product. However, I think there is a lesson here for small companies, that while customers do expect ethical behaviour, they also expect to be treated well. If I'm reading it correctly, they sold the earlier program, then, in the case of one poster, days after he bought this earlier license, a new product came out, with new functionality but also with all the functions of the old. So I do think they erred in failing to treat their customers in the way most customers would like to be treated.
Look at that experience from the point of view of the customer: if he'd known the new product was coming out, and would be treated separately, he could have waited and obtained all the functions of both for the single price. Instead, they didn't make this plain, so to get both he needed to pay for both programs. (The amounts don't matter. Buying both would cost more than buying one. That is all that matters to make my point.) I'd be upset, not that designating new functionality as a new program was unethical, but simply because they withheld information about the upcoming release (presumably to gain a few more sales of the old one - who's going to buy it once they know it will be outdated?). I wouldn't want to do business with a company that treated me that way. High standards? Maybe, but customers have just as much right to insist on whatever standards they like as companies do to decide what standards they will follow.
So, to my mind, this company alienated a certain number of customers by the way they acted. To gain a limited amount of extra sales, they lost untold future sales. What would I suggest they could have done? Be honest, at the very beginning, about the new program they're developing, and the fact it will be treated as a new product. At that point, they might scare away a few sales, but most folks won't want to wait that long for the new product - and, since the old one is becoming outdated, they could encourage sales by cutting the price a bit. As time passed, they could announce that any purchaser of the old program after a specified date would qualify for a certain percentage discount off the price of the new one. Finally, they could announce that those who bought the old license after a specific date, close to the new release (say, within a month) would just get a free license to the new product. Yes, this would cost them a bit more - but I think it would earn them even more goodwill.
Am I saying they should be obligated to do this? No, I'm simply saying it seems like a policy that would have alienated a lot fewer customers, and would have more than paid for itself in the long run. I know there are a few small businesses I deal with that have gone the extra mile - and, when they show me they're willing to do that, I'm much more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in cases that aren't terribly clear. I've knowingly paid more, even when customer service wasn't a consideration - when I'm dealing with a business I know is generally willing to treat me as I'd like to be treated.
-raybeere (April 17, 2009, 03:27 PM)
--- End quote ---
I disagree with just about your entire post. And not having ever used or purchased their software is probably the cause of the misinformation.
If the user you refer to had purchased it only days before, he would have gotten the newer version free - or contacted Slysoft and it would be covered. I've seen this and been there myself. They have never been deceptive in their sales practices. I don't think Slysoft alienated many users at all, actually. What do you base that on? One or two comments here?
Though their HD product sells separately the original AnyDVD is still fully supported - a lot of users watch DVD's and not Blue Ray, myself included. And when Slysoft made the announcement that the selling of lifetime licenses was coming to an end, they delayed the cutoff date at least four times when asked by users. I don't think I have seen that before in the software industry.
IMO you are picking on the wrong developer. There are plenty who do it differently and deserve such wrath. :)
Jim
mwb1100:
in the case of one poster, days after he bought this earlier license, a new product came out, with new functionality but also with all the functions of the old. So I do think they erred in failing to treat their customers in the way most customers would like to be treated.
...
if he'd known the new product was coming out, and would be treated separately, he could have waited and obtained all the functions of both for the single price. Instead, they didn't make this plain, so to get both he needed to pay for both programs. (The amounts don't matter. Buying both would cost more than buying one. That is all that matters to make my point.)-raybeere (April 17, 2009, 03:27 PM)
--- End quote ---
Except that the amount kind of does matter in this case. When the AnyDVD-HD product was released, it cost more than the AnyDVD product (which was and is still offered). So even if he had waited until AnyDVD-HD was released, he would have had to pay more than he did for AnyDVD to get the HD functionality. Now, it's possible that AnyDVD+upgrade to AnyDVD-HD cost more than buying both at once, but I'm pretty sure the difference was minimal if anything (I think the cost was the same except if discount coupons were applied - since coupons don't work for the upgrade).
Part of the confusion in this matter is that while AnyDVD-HD is considered a different product than AnyDVD, it is a strict superset of AnyDVD (ie., you don't buy both AnyDVD and a separate AnyDVD-HD - you buy AnyDVD and an add-on for the AnyDVD-HD functions). I think that Slysoft have changed how AnyDVD/AnyDVD-HD is purchased to make them more 'separate' products when initially purchased. But in either case, there's no reason to have a separate license for AnyDVD and AnyDVD-HD (unless you need licenses for multiple machine - but that's a different issue).
Josh:
Actually, the cost of AnyDVD HD cost the same as buying AnyDVD and then the HD Upgrade. I did this and it cost me the exact same as a new license. Now that is not the case anymore, but users were given plenty of time and warning about the change in licensing systems. You cannot blame slysoft for user's waiting until after they had made the switch to a subscription model, that is solely on the user as they were given plenty of time.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version