Well, I really do understand your initial 'shock'. Yet, that also implies that the one expressing such shock perhaps does not think through the period of shock; objectively as a business person would.
While we may never know the real reason for the demise of SlySoft, the lack of a renewable license may very well have been a contributor to our loss.
For any business to survive, there must be a revenue stream. As difficulties increase to provide such capability as the product provided (servers, staffing, decoding technology, etc.) costs increase. Forever licenses fail to provide that revenue stream that insures such an infrastructure exists. Remember too, that all license provisions normally include a statement which essentially means, "Terms and Conditions may change with or without notice." I acquired AnyDVD long before HD came along. I found it to be a robust, trustworthy product, with a staff diligent in making sure the product operated correctly before we-the-customer obtained any new release. It maintained its connection to the real-world, developed needed technologies to address changes in the marketplace, and provided those solutions to their customer base in a timely and efficient distribution. It really is unknown at this point how many users of the original SlySoft AnyDVD HD (or family of products) have obtained that use w/o properly ensuring that the authors received their compensation for the work performed (this may very well be a contributor to SlySoft's demise) and to maintain their business structure to support such activity.
Had SlySoft published a notice to their loyal customers outlining the change in licensing, I would have been on the bandwagon the second it was published. It is an integral component to the needs of my environment. I have found nothing else on the market that was as easily installed, worked and so well supported by a Customer Centric staff. So, yes, an annual renewal is needed. I for one want RedFox to far outlast SlySoft; and revenue is required to do that.
Jim
Your logic is 'interesting', but one of your statements is more interesting than the rest, to me.
"...While we may never know the real reason for the demise of SlySoft, the lack of a renewable license may very well have been a contributor to our loss. ..."
1--- So it's OK to sell something that they know they have no intention of honoring, for the lifetime promised?
( Yes I know a corporation can 'legally' do this, but it doesn't make it right, does it? )
2--- Or, is what you're saying, ...that SlySoft went out of business to possibly nullify all the LifeTime Licenses, so that 2 Million Euros can be quickly made with each new 40,000 yearly licenses sold, at 49 Euro each?
(There are roughly near 40,000 members here, and I'm just using that number as an example)
Either of those two above scenarios are really upsetting to me, but the second one suggests the original CEO (whatever his name was (is) ... ) may actually still be running things, and just made-up the story of being forced-shutdown, only to startup newly named, and have everyone need to pay again for yearly (non-LTL) licenses.
It's always been strange to me, that the old boss just 'ran away' and left all the servers running, or intact, or accessible by his team, without shutting everything down, destroying it all, or at least kept it for himself and not just gave it up.
He didn't give me the impression he was that kind of generous guy with his 'toys' ...let alone his million euro business venture.
Hmmmm...maybe this is why RedFox now says "no old database access after May 31st 2016"
Why not? ... If new customers will come to them no matter what, for the new v2 OPD access of new titles, why be so much like the OLD boss, that they won't allow v1 OPD access for the lifetime of that old lifetime license?
Maybe also why no new CEO is responding to this other post...
https://forum.redfox.bz/threads/2-q...n-file-and-about-opd-v1-v2-w-ltl.69041/page-2
Maybe he's not actually gone, and they must still listen to him...because it still sounds as if they're following the same policies as when he ran things as SlySoft.
This is of course all speculation on my part, but still very possible given some actions recently experienced on here.
...thanks for this bit of insight to corporate greed. ...
I'd hope it's not the actual facts, and not true, because, if it is true, in that case the customer has no assurance they won't try this again.
Putting their credibility in very bad danger...world-wide..!!
...And as you said, below, ... I too agree...
"... Had SlySoft published a notice to their loyal customers outlining the change in licensing, I would have been on the bandwagon the second it was published. ..."
