Yeah, maybe my price tag is too low. If people expect longer support, then I probably should add one or more digit to the price tag. Bring it to high-end audio figures.
You’re threatening to raise prices… because customers want access to software they already paid for?
This has nothing to do with “longer support” or pricing tiers.
I paid for v4 in 2021. I’m not asking for support. I’m asking for the installer file.
You keep reframing this as a support/pricing issue when it’s an access issue. It’s like a car dealer saying “maybe I should charge more if you expect replacement keys” - it completely misses the point.
Providing installer downloads doesn’t require ongoing support. It requires hosting static files, which costs essentially nothing at scale. Every other software company - from indie developers to enterprise vendors - manages this without adding “one more digit to the price tag.”
Your response reads like you’re deliberately avoiding the actual question: Why won’t you provide installer access to customers with valid licenses?
If the answer is “because it’s mildly inconvenient,” just say that. But threatening price increases while ignoring the core issue isn’t a justification - it’s deflection.
This is exactly why consumer protection laws like the UK’s Consumer Rights Act exist.
You’re saying that after the support period ends, customers with valid licenses lose access to installers entirely, and the expectation is they should have kept personal copies?
A few follow-up questions:
Was this policy disclosed at time of purchase? When I bought my license in 2021, were customers informed that installer access would be removed after the support period?
What about legitimate reinstall scenarios? Hardware failures, OS reinstalls, migration to new systems - these are normal computing situations where users need installers. Are you saying customers should have anticipated losing access?
Perpetual license definition: My understanding of a perpetual license is that I purchased the right to use v4 indefinitely. How can that be meaningful if I can’t actually obtain the software to use it?
I’m genuinely trying to understand the reasoning here. Most software vendors distinguish between “ending support” (no new updates) and “removing access to what was purchased” (can’t download installers).
Regarding notification via forums and social media:
With respect, expecting customers to monitor your forum or social media for material changes to their service is not adequate notice under UK consumer law principles.
Key points:
You have my email address - I’m a registered license holder. You have direct contact information for all your customers, as evidenced by the fact you can email us to sell new products or notify us of offers.
Material change to service - Removing installer access is a fundamental change that affects my ability to use software I purchased. When making material changes to terms or service, proper notice must be given to contracting parties - simply posting updates on websites or forums and hoping customers notice is not considered adequate notice.
Industry standards - In regulated sectors like telecommunications, Ofcom specifically requires providers to send direct notifications (by text, email or letter) to customers about material changes to their contracts, precisely because passive announcements are insufficient.
Consumer protection trend - The new DMCC Act 2024 specifically requires businesses to send reminder notices directly to consumers about material changes, reflecting the principle that customers should not be expected to actively monitor for changes that affect their rights.
The question for Trading Standards will be: Is it reasonable for a software vendor to remove access to installers for paying customers without directly notifying them, relying instead on forum posts and social media that most customers won’t see?
Given that you have customer email addresses and chose not to use them for this material change, I believe this will be viewed unfavorably.
Could you clarify: Did you send direct emails to all v4 license holders informing them that installer access would be removed after the support period? I did not receive any such notification.
Sorry for the confusion. I thought the discount was 10% but I had my V4 for a few years that’s why I was not aware about the deeper discount for people who joined within 3 months.
Anyhow, you had clearly stated on your website about V4 having a 2 year support period upon the launch of V5. I truly feel that the onus is on users to backup a copy of v4. And you had 2 years to do so!!!
A statement on a website about support ending is not the same as direct notification about installer access being removed. These are different things:
Support ending = No new updates, no bug fixes, no customer service
Installer access removal = Cannot download software you paid for
The website may have stated the first, but was the second explicitly disclosed? And more importantly, for material changes that affect customers’ ability to use what they purchased, passive website announcements are not considered adequate notice - direct customer notification is the standard.
Regarding “2 years to backup”:
This assumes customers:
Regularly check the website for policy changes
Understand that “support ending” means “installers will be removed”
Anticipate needing backup copies of software they have legitimate licenses for
Most customers reasonably expect that having a valid license means being able to download the software. That’s how nearly every other software vendor operates.
The core issue remains:
When you purchase a perpetual license for £300, the reasonable expectation is ongoing access to that version of the software. Case law has established that perpetual software licenses grant customers certain ongoing rights.
“You should have kept a backup” doesn’t address whether the practice itself is acceptable under consumer protection law. It’s a workaround for a problematic policy, not a justification for the policy.
The question for Trading Standards will be: Is it reasonable for a software vendor to remove installer access for perpetual licenses without direct customer notification, placing the burden entirely on customers to anticipate this?
I am sure you can find V4 over the internet in some third party repositories or could ask here, probably a lot of people still carry those files and willing to share, instead of wasting so much time flaming.
I paid £300 for a legitimate license in 2021. Your solution is that I should:
Find pirated copies on “third party repositories”
Ask strangers on forums to share files
Rely on the goodwill of other users
Risk downloading malware-infected installers from untrusted sources
Rather than the software vendor simply providing installer access to paying customers?
Do you not see how backwards this is? I shouldn’t need to resort to grey-area file sharing or piracy to use software I legitimately purchased. And I certainly shouldn’t have to expose my system to potential security risks by downloading installers from unverified sources.
This is a genuine security concern. When legitimate customers can’t get installers from the official vendor, they’re pushed toward potentially compromised files from unknown sources. That’s not just inconvenient - it’s dangerous.
The fact that your suggested “solution” is essentially “find it through unofficial channels and hope it’s not infected” rather than “the vendor should provide it to paying customers” proves that this policy is problematic.
And regarding “wasting time flaming” - I’m documenting a consumer rights issue. Jussi has engaged in this thread, which gives him the opportunity to get his policy positions on record. This discussion will be useful when I escalate to Trading Standards.
If pointing out that legitimate customers are being forced into piracy and security risks constitutes “flaming,” then perhaps the underlying business practice is the real issue.
False equivalence. Expecting access to software you paid for isn’t “drying a cat in a microwave.” It’s the industry standard that most software vendors follow.
If your position is that customers should just “know” installers will be removed despite holding perpetual licenses, you’re essentially arguing against the entire premise of perpetual licensing.
„I don’t need to act responsibly myself, I leave it all to the manufacturer“ is exactly like putting the cat in the microwave unless the manufacturers says not to.
You’re conflating two completely different concepts:
Physical safety hazard (obviously dangerous, common sense) vs. Industry-standard business practice (reasonable commercial expectation)
Expecting a software vendor to provide installers for valid perpetual licenses isn’t “refusing personal responsibility” - it’s how the software industry operates. It’s the baseline expectation.
If you genuinely believe customers should anticipate that perpetual licenses won’t include ongoing installer access, despite this being contrary to how most software vendors operate, then we simply disagree on what constitutes reasonable commercial practice.
If you can’t see through Jussie’s goal behind the only solution he offers: “Buy another license for v5” then you are being quite naive.
I would agree with you if the license was subscription based, how software industry operates these days.
Seriously, by paying ONCE, you can not expect the file to be hosted indefinitely. Hosting consumes elecricity and hdd space. Servers require maintenance, repairs and upgrades. It all costs money. If you were to buy MS-DOS and the floppy disk get unmagnetized over time, would you blame Microsoft ?
Interesting that you mention Microsoft and floppy disks, because:
This software was NEVER delivered on physical media. HQPlayer v4 was always digital distribution. There was never a floppy disk, DVD, or physical installer to “unmagnetise.” So your comparison is completely irrelevant to my situation.
But since you brought it up: When I DID have a Microsoft floppy disk fail years ago, Microsoft replaced it free of charge. So even your own example proves my point - Microsoft provided replacement access to software customers had paid for, at no additional cost. Thank you for making my argument for me.
Regarding hosting costs:
This is the weakest justification yet. We’re talking about static installer files, not active infrastructure:
Storage costs: A few GB of installer files costs literally pennies per month on modern hosting. You could host them on GitHub, archive.org, or dozens of other platforms - some completely free
Bandwidth: Minimal - only accessed when customers need to reinstall
Maintenance: Zero - these are static files, not services requiring ongoing support
If Signalyst genuinely can’t afford to host a few installer files while charging £300 per licence, that’s a business model problem, not a cost justification.
For context: I’m a professional software developer with 25 years of experience, and I currently specialise in building GOV.UK systems that help enforce government legislation. So when I tell you that hosting static installer files is trivially inexpensive and technically simple, I’m speaking from extensive professional experience in large-scale government and commercial systems. The cost argument simply doesn’t hold water.
Every other software vendor manages this. Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk, even small indie developers maintain installer archives for perpetual licences. The idea that this is financially or technically impossible is absurd.
Subscription vs perpetual licences:
You’ve got this backwards. With subscription licences, vendors can cut access when payments stop - that’s the deal. With perpetual licences, customers pay once for indefinite access to that version. That’s literally what “perpetual” means.
If Signalyst wanted subscription-style terms where access expires, they should have sold subscription licences, not perpetual ones.
I’m a real customer with a real complaint. If well-structured arguments seem “AI-generated” to you, perhaps that’s because the points are actually valid and difficult to refute.
The substance of the issue remains: paying customers are being denied installer access for software they legitimately purchased. That’s not AI, that’s a consumer rights problem.
