Parallels 11 susbscription clarifications

I think there is a bit of delusion about ownership of software, because if you read EULAs of commercial software, you don't own anything, you are licensed to use, under certain conditions.

 

No delusion, and that's a complete tangent.

As for ownership I really don't care, I want to continue using the software that I paid for. I completely understand that they can put whatever they like in the Eula, that's what lawyers do, I want them to pick a path that suits their customers and they don't like that.

 

It's a complete tangent just because you don't like the answer (the same way you appear not to like many other things!), I wasn't the one raising the issue of ownership.

You don't like my opinion and that's fine, you state your opinion and I state mine and that's it. Your opinion is based, from what you expressed, on what you want and like.

 

I'm really not trying to argue with you. I'm the customer, of course my opinion is based on what I want and like, that's sort of the point.

I completely get that Parallels can do whatever they like with their license, I'm just saying that the changes that they've made pushing my upgrade towards a time-bombed subscription don't suit me at all and are making my delay upgrading to P11.

VMWare don't have these restrictions - I don't particularly want to spend the time looking at it, but honestly I will if Parallels don't offer some alternative.

That said, I've got no idea if they care - I've seen some rather basic scripted replies from support but since all but one of those sort of missed the point I doubt that this is a useful forum for complaint.

 

You pretended "My posts are targeted at the benefit of users in general and I'm not interested in 1-to-1 debates...".
If it was the case, would you mind someone rectifies some of your misleading comments and would you provide 1-to-1 answers to people who complain about new policy?
Your play on words with software ownership story (writers just meant they are able to use their permanent version as long as it remains compatible mainly with their OS host & guest) is an exemple that tells us a good deal about your intentions.
So don't rely on me to ignore what you write since we obviously don't have the same view of what is "benefit of users in general".

 

Your expressed assumption of bad faith on my part is why I'm not debating anything with you.

Does anyone else feel 'mislead' by me?

 

You are the one who wrote: "I've said this before, if you are currently a Parallels 10 user there aren't many compelling reasons to upgrade to Parallels 11 Std.": this comment is misleading since it takes a very limited view of things, among others: not considering different user needs and the article content I reminded then*: http://arstechnica.com/information-...ware-software-wont-be-updated-for-windows-10/.

* (article extract): Decisions...
If you like keeping Windows separate from Mac, there's no problem. You can upgrade to Windows 10 without a second thought as it should work just fine on VirtualBox or previous versions of Parallels and VMware.

But if you like having Windows and Mac integrated, you have a decision to make. If you're happily using Windows 8.1 on last year's version of Parallels or VMware, there's nothing wrong with not upgrading. You'll still be able to use Microsoft Office and just about any other Windows applications you desire on your Mac.

If you want Windows 10 and that "new" Start Menu and integration with Microsoft's Cortana, maybe it's worth paying Parallels or VMware for their latest software. But if that's your plan, it's worth doing a free trial of the new software instead of paying to upgrade immediately, just in case you run into bugs.​

And I also added this "For users who can live running Windows in a restrictive way, the last version of PD 10 (supposed to be Windows 10 compatible) is buggy anyway: version 10.2.2-29105 even brought problems with Windows 8.1 VM (I had to revert to PD 10.2.1-29006 since at the moment Parallels didn't release a new build to fix problems)."

Considering elements above, you have a curious way to demonstrate what who wrote about yourself "I try to be fair and unbiased, I know I'm not like any other user here, I'm a Product Expert which, of course makes what I write being seen in a different perspective, but I have a responsibility mostly for being technically accurate and objective".

I don't feel to debate with you either but your insistent attitude may stop some people to express what they think and need from new policy for not having to argue with you "forever".

 

The only thing I would like to add is that this is really disappointing. Removing features everyone has been used to. But there are alternatives on the market so maybe this is the chance to change to a competitor.

 

I've used Parallels for many years now and I've always been able install it on my desktop+laptop. Now I chose "Pro" and Parallels 11 will only let me install on 1 computer. Adobe's subscription allows 2... why not you, Parallels? I'm not giving it away, I legitimately use 2 computers. If the price for that is doubled... I'm out. I'll find another solution.

 

I just want to weigh in as well and express my extreme disappointment at this decision. To remove features from existing products and move them to a "pro" version is just silly. You are forgetting that paying customers will expect that when they purchase an "upgrade" that it's an upgrade. What my team just paid for and got was a downgrade. I don't feel a difference in performance but i wanted to move to El Capitan, however i did feel a difference in the features i was using yesterday that now don't work. If you really wanted a "Pro" version you should have taken the tough pill and created NEW features that are only available in the "Pro" version. This does not mean stealing features from the current users and making them much more expensive. I get seperating developers from casual users but wow great way to piss developers off. Our team has always purchased the upgrades as they came out. Sometimes it was for new features and other times it was to allow us to move to more recent versions of the OS. This one will stick with me. I don't think i will make the mistake again. We will be moving to another product next year unless you figure out how to undo this mess. I would be ashamed if this was my customer service model (i hope someone there is). If you are reading this to determine if upgrading to P11 is worth it or you are thinking about a new VM product. Heed my words. Check the competition out as I think Parallels is now just in the money game (I understand you need to profit but compared to any other development tool we use this is by far the worst and now has dropped to the bottom for poor "upgrade" decisions)

 

I'm just going to echo what has already been said. I don't like upgrading and losing features then being forced to pay more. I have used Parallels for several years. I upgraded 2 days ago from 10 to 11 and now I see that I can't do certain things.

I'm asking for a refund on my upgrade and will be moving to another software next time I want to upgrade.

 

I'm considering asking for a refund on PD11 (std) too. Nowhere did I see all the limitations that have suddenly started coming to light. I'm certainly not upgrading my second PD licence - my other machine is now getting VMWare Fusion 8 and if that works out, along with the 40% discount for ditching PD, there'll be no more PD upgrades. Parallels IP Holdings seem to have lost the plot.

 

Surprised nobody in the room has hit home on PD10's inability to use USB devices within El Capitan. (EDIT: To be fair, REPEATED HOTPLUGGING MAY BE AN ACCEPTABLE WORKAROUND.) Not only have they forced us into a "Proscription" upgrade model by crippling the standard upgrade software (Rollback, Memory, CPU, Networking ...); they also have negligently let basic hardware compatibility lapse and called it "not fully optimized" to cover the truth: "INCOMPATIBLE." I paid for PD10 last year as a STUDENT. I upgraded to PRO because I use many of the more advanced features even though I'm not a developer. Now you want me to shell out money for a subscription model or else I lose features? And oh, by the way, when I have more student debt than I know what to do with in another year, you want me to continue to pay off this subscription model to continue to use your software at all? Screw you. You have successfully alienated some of your most loyal customers in this move. I hope you feel that.

Do we sound entitled? Yeah, maybe we do, a little bit. You know why? Because when we bought into your application a few years ago, we understood that you were not just selling software for right now: you were selling a package you would continue to develop and make better for us. We understood then that you were going to reward us for being loyal customers. We have enjoyed that culture for years. Sometimes that is easy come, easy go. If you aren't making enough money on your current pricing scheme, then raise the price. Explain that. Don't blow smoke at us and expect us to treat you like a patron saint. It's demeaning and insulting.

I will not buy a subscription to time-bomb software either. I will happily upgrade if the time-bomb is released. I might even continue to pay the annual subscription model at the tag price -- BUT IT WILL BE MY CHOICE, and I won't be forced into a corner like I am now: I have a fully patched system with software that's supposed to be compatible, and now I can't use my scanner (properly: See edit above), which is vital to my business. You made no warnings that USB support may not work at all when upgrading to El Capitan. In my mind, that's symptomatically negligent.

 

I manage a team of software engineers. We're looking to upgrade to El Capitan, and so I'm looking into various ramifications of doing that, including trying to figure out what software we'll have to upgrade. That's why I stopped by. We currently use Parallels for Linux virtualization. We couldn't care less about Windows features.

I came by to check on "upgrade" features and pricing, and I've found this subscription nonsense instead. The issue and the objections have already been well stated by others. I'm adding my $0.02 here just to be tallied as another business customer that you've lost with your new subscription model. I, like so many others, refuse to have our company renting software rather than purchasing it. I've been using Parallels since approximately its inception through multiple jobs and startup ventures. Shame on you for ruining our long relationship.

If/when our current Parallels version has a problem due to its age, I'll be moving my team to VMWare.

 

I have nothing against subscriptions if the price is well balanced. Look at Adobe. The price for Photoshop CS6 was 850 Euro and for Photoshop Extended CS 1200 Euro. Now I pay 150 Euro per year for Photohop CC and I can use it on two computers. I would't use Photoshop anymore if I would have to pay 1000 Euro per year.

You get the idea? Drop the price for a Parallels Desktop subscription to 15 Euro per year. You will get a stable income for the next years AND happy customers.

 

This must be a difficult business to make work profitably. VMWare Fusion is going away, since the entire development team was fired in VMWare's downsizing efforts for the acquisition by, heaven help us all, Dell. All the switches to Fusion suggested above are, or will shortly be, moot. The subscription model for Parallels is more expensive than the OS's they support. Yet it is a very important niche, in which developers have to co-evolve with two (or more in the case of Linux users) entirely different OS-developers. The free versions out there behave about like you'd expect them to. I just hope that Parallels isn't also about to go belly-up, given the fairly desperate price increases and ad connections, usually indicators that the bottom line isn't looking good. Would be nice to see some reassurance here.

 

And to re-iterate, I don't actually mind paying every year, I love the software and I want to see it continue. I strongly object to buying something that requires continued payments to continue working (yes, even though I might otherwise have continued those payments).

 

Sorry I am late to the game with this but I wanted to put my two cents in this discussion. As of today I am leaving Parallels. Great product, nice upgrades, fast VM's, and until now decent pricing. With the new V11 License model I am no longer interested in Parallels. Why must you get greedy? The 'subscription' model is completely bogus. Sorry, it is lame and no matter how you try to spin it you are just being greedy. I refuse to install time-bomb software on my computer that no longer works when the 'subscription' runs out. By guys. If you ever wise up and dump your stupid license model I may return, but now? Nope.

I was a guy that upgraded every year too because I wanted to support the product. But I don't like being forced to do so. So you guys just lost a loyal yearly upgrading customer because of your stupid V11 Lic policy. Hope it works for ya.

 

Just left Parallels for good today and bought a competitors product (with a perpetual license, no less). I had already been conned into the subscription model and was very unhappy about that. But the clincher is the lack of support. Every time I have a problem I get the run around and excuses and no solutions. I've moved on for good...