It’s a really negative PR move.įurthermore, why would anyone pay to be able to receive updates to 3.x when the newer versions perform much, much worse, are less stable, and have worse workflow than the previous version? Another video software company got into trouble recently for pulling a similar stunt, faced a lot of backlash, got a ton of bad PR, and lost a ton of goodwill/loyalty from their customers in the process.Īll it takes is a Youtube channel with a decent audience to bring light to this sort of thing and it really hurts the reputation of the company.
If I was entitled to version 3, but not 3.1, why was I prompted to update without a warning that I wasn’t entitled to that update? Why was I offered the update at all? Why wouldn’t users entitled to version 3 receive all update to version 3? Especially given the poor state that version 3 released in, and is still in!
0 kommentar(er)
