If you’re using a remote access product that is as water right as a fishing net, and have years of history of them fucking around with security (account takeover controversy in 2016, didn’t have default 2fa until 2018), you’re kinda in the neighborhood of getting what you deserve. This is like being on Facebook and complaining that fuckerberg is spying on you and using your data to feed their AI.
If this was still the mid teens, I’d give people a pass. But TeamViewer has been a trash product for longer than my kid has been alive, and anyone still using it should have done their due diligence on the software they chose (negligence doesn’t mean they deserve it, but it’s hard to feel sympathy when they chose to not do the research on a service that has direct access to your systems), or already accepted the risks of using it (so they absolutely deserve it)
This is why I asked in the first place; negligence == they deserve it seems to be the basis of everyone who has replied to me lol.
It’s also weird to me because everyone is citing awful data protection (numerous data breaches, and even your link to easily compromised credentials) as the reason end users deserves their Licenses being revoked.
I’d agree if this post was about Teamviewer being breached once again. In that case, yes the end users who have stuck with them throughout numerous data breaches have very little room to complain when it happens again. But this is a Licensing change. It has nothing to do with their shitty data protection practices.
Further, these are perpetual licenses. It’s very likely that many of them were purchased years ago when Teamviewer was a lot more popular. To say that people deserve their perpetual licenses getting revoked because a company enshittified over time is silly buddy.
It’s not really about the data breaches themselves but rather the way the company responded to them. The fact they tried to cover it up and gaslight their customers about it shows how terrible they are, and remote access is a highly sensitive thing that should be treated the same as handing the keys to your house over to someone. Anyone that isn’t deeply investigating the company or individual making a remote access product prior to using it does deserve what they get in the same way someone handing the keys to their house to a complete stranger they know nothing about would deserve whatever happened to them.
At the end of the day Teamviewer has a history of screwing over their customers for their own profit and in that regard this move is very much on brand for them and entirely predictable. Nobody that has looked into the company’s history should be surprised that they’ve done this at all.
Anyone that isn’t deeply investigating the company or individual making a remote access product prior to using it does deserve what they get in the same way someone handing the keys to their house to a complete stranger they know nothing about would deserve whatever happened to the
I’ve already agreed with this opinion:
I’d agree if this post was about Teamviewer being breached once again. In that case, yes the end users who have stuck with them throughout numerous data breaches have very little room to complain when it happens again.
But it feels like you may have missed my actual point. Again, this post is about a change to perpetual licensing. People that purchased their license back when TeamViewer was a proprietary alternative to VNC, long before it became obvious that TeamViewer wasn’t a great company, (think 2008), don’t suddenly deserve licensing changes. Hard stop. These are the users that are affected the most by this change because they’ve held their perpetual licenses the longest. In addition, TeamViewer stopped selling perpetual licenses years ago, so the bulk of users with one today are likely to be older users. Why do they suddenly deserve this?
And you missed my actual point. It doesn’t matter when they purchased the license because the fact they’re still using it means they deserve it. Nobody should be using Teamviewer today because they’re a terrible company, and if you aren’t then this license change doesn’t impact you at all.
It doesn’t matter when they purchased the license because the fact they’re still using it means they deserve it
Sure it does. I have a Jetbrains perpetual license that I use daily. If they suddenly started enshittifying, and then decided to revoke my fallback licenses in 10 years, they’d be up for a number of lawsuits because that’s illegal.
End users don’t deserve to have their licenses revoked because a company went to shit over time. They’re in no control of that. And I made 0 arguments about people using Teamviewer today because that was never part of my point.
If they’re not using it, why does it matter what happens to the license? There’s a “it’s the principle of the thing” argument sure, but practically speaking this is irrelevant. Shitty company does shitty thing that should have no practical impact on anyone because nobody should be using their product. What exactly would change for people not using TeamViewer if they hadn’t revoked those licences? The argument is that anyone still using TeamViewer deserves this, and anyone who isn’t isn’t actually impacted by this change so it’s irrelevant.
If anyone is still using teamviewer after the many breaches they had, they deserve this ;-)
Not only because of the breaches they had, We knew they were breached, they lied about it. Fuck them.
Yeah even Windows has Quick Assist built in.
Why would they deserve this?
Not necessarily the users, per sé, but the corporations who refuse to learn from mistakes.
If you’re using a remote access product that is as water right as a fishing net, and have years of history of them fucking around with security (account takeover controversy in 2016, didn’t have default 2fa until 2018), you’re kinda in the neighborhood of getting what you deserve. This is like being on Facebook and complaining that fuckerberg is spying on you and using your data to feed their AI.
If this was still the mid teens, I’d give people a pass. But TeamViewer has been a trash product for longer than my kid has been alive, and anyone still using it should have done their due diligence on the software they chose (negligence doesn’t mean they deserve it, but it’s hard to feel sympathy when they chose to not do the research on a service that has direct access to your systems), or already accepted the risks of using it (so they absolutely deserve it)
This is why I asked in the first place; negligence == they deserve it seems to be the basis of everyone who has replied to me lol.
It’s also weird to me because everyone is citing awful data protection (numerous data breaches, and even your link to easily compromised credentials) as the reason end users deserves their Licenses being revoked.
I’d agree if this post was about Teamviewer being breached once again. In that case, yes the end users who have stuck with them throughout numerous data breaches have very little room to complain when it happens again. But this is a Licensing change. It has nothing to do with their shitty data protection practices.
Further, these are perpetual licenses. It’s very likely that many of them were purchased years ago when Teamviewer was a lot more popular. To say that people deserve their perpetual licenses getting revoked because a company enshittified over time is silly buddy.
It’s not really about the data breaches themselves but rather the way the company responded to them. The fact they tried to cover it up and gaslight their customers about it shows how terrible they are, and remote access is a highly sensitive thing that should be treated the same as handing the keys to your house over to someone. Anyone that isn’t deeply investigating the company or individual making a remote access product prior to using it does deserve what they get in the same way someone handing the keys to their house to a complete stranger they know nothing about would deserve whatever happened to them.
At the end of the day Teamviewer has a history of screwing over their customers for their own profit and in that regard this move is very much on brand for them and entirely predictable. Nobody that has looked into the company’s history should be surprised that they’ve done this at all.
I’ve already agreed with this opinion:
But it feels like you may have missed my actual point. Again, this post is about a change to perpetual licensing. People that purchased their license back when TeamViewer was a proprietary alternative to VNC, long before it became obvious that TeamViewer wasn’t a great company, (think 2008), don’t suddenly deserve licensing changes. Hard stop. These are the users that are affected the most by this change because they’ve held their perpetual licenses the longest. In addition, TeamViewer stopped selling perpetual licenses years ago, so the bulk of users with one today are likely to be older users. Why do they suddenly deserve this?
And you missed my actual point. It doesn’t matter when they purchased the license because the fact they’re still using it means they deserve it. Nobody should be using Teamviewer today because they’re a terrible company, and if you aren’t then this license change doesn’t impact you at all.
Sure it does. I have a Jetbrains perpetual license that I use daily. If they suddenly started enshittifying, and then decided to revoke my fallback licenses in 10 years, they’d be up for a number of lawsuits because that’s illegal.
End users don’t deserve to have their licenses revoked because a company went to shit over time. They’re in no control of that. And I made 0 arguments about people using Teamviewer today because that was never part of my point.
If they’re not using it, why does it matter what happens to the license? There’s a “it’s the principle of the thing” argument sure, but practically speaking this is irrelevant. Shitty company does shitty thing that should have no practical impact on anyone because nobody should be using their product. What exactly would change for people not using TeamViewer if they hadn’t revoked those licences? The argument is that anyone still using TeamViewer deserves this, and anyone who isn’t isn’t actually impacted by this change so it’s irrelevant.