this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
630 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
69999 readers
4427 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The new owners mentioned that in the article. They said it would cost more to do than it would to just shut the business down.
What good outcome do you think the lifetime license owners would get in that situation?
I have no idea, but the end users should not get fucked because the new owners didn't know what they were buying. In many countries it is illegal for the old owners to not let the new owners know of such things.
Without being able to offer any idea of a solution though, saying that means nothing. The company either gets shut down and those users get fucked and have no VPN, or the company stays alive and the users have no VPN but have the option to get one again.
The point is there’s no real way the lifetime licenses get honoured.
Just honor them and take the loss. The new owners did a bad deal. In many countries it would be highly illegal to cancel these contracts while continuing the business. Either liquidate the company or honor the deals. Fuck capitalism.
So you’d rather they just close the company down, so then no one can use their VPN. Big brain move.
The people operating the company do not deserve to run it. Maybe they should declare bankruptcy and let somebody who will honor the contracts buy it.
Allowing this kind of anti-consumer behaviour just allows them to juggle the company around to get out of contracts.
OK so you’re against the sale of the company in the first place? That’s a different story.
Yes I think they should just honor the contracts and make a tiny bit less profit.
They could even just add some sane limits if those were not present yet.
You have no idea about why they sold or how the financials of the business were.
Of the contracts stated that the offer could be changed at the company’s choosing, are you ok with it then?
Sorry bud but I'm not going to continue replying to you because of your condescending tone. Are you ok with that?
I call bullshit. I bet they knew, but saw it as an opportunity for profit and this is all PR spin.