michaelk42

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About michaelk42

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Oh look, weasel-words and excuses. They have altered the deal, and we just have to pray they don't alter it further. Not the people I'm going to throw $40 at even once, much less on an annual rental basis.
  2. Oh no. Crippling the app with only 10 folders after expressly promising such a thing wouldn't happen is one thing. But a subscription license? NOPE, I don't rent software. Especially not software that doesn't even require hosting or any other significant support from the company. A subscription in this case is nothing but a cynical cash-grab.
  3. There is a direct link to 1.4.110 that has the last non-2.0 .apk 1.4.65 The direct link to 1.4.111 has been reported to have a 0k .apk, but it's still only 1.4.65 anyway. Once you have the .apk you're on your own for installing it I guess (Check "unknown sources" to install it, provided that option is available on your Android device.) From that point on, if it's still hooked to your Google Play store turn off auto updates, and ignore it asking to update. You'll still have to rebuild your folders though.
  4. Really? "Everyone else is doing it too!" isn't exactly a defense here. Again, really? I see people expressing dissatisfaction here. (Hey, Greatmarko, if calling the dude out for likening dissatisfied users to children is a "personal attack," maybe you should consider removing that initial blanket attack instead?)
  5. Presuming that your device allows "unknown sources" to be selected without having root access.
  6. There is a direct link - Here You can get the .apk there and re-install, but you might need a rooted device. Mine's rooted and uninstalling 2/installing 1.4 from the .apk worked for me. Edit: And the .111 links are in this post
  7. But that's not the thing. BT made a specific promise about the functionality, and then didn't follow through. Well, no, we're only renting the product. Remember not so long ago when you paid $40-50 and got tech support for maybe a couple of years until the next major version released? Software companies aren't moving to a subscription model for the benefit of users. The periodic subscription payments are just an ehanced revenue stream. Now they get paid more for providing that support whether people use ir or not. Then the added bonus of not having to come up with a major revision too soon (or at all.) Look at Adobe CC. They realized they couldn't think of much more in the way of new features to justify anyone upgrading on a regular basis anymore. So they went rental with everything in order to keep making money. So no, it's not disingenuous. You can pay for Dropbox on a subscription and get off-site hosting of your files in addition to syncing them across your own hardware, in addition to support. Trying to get people to pay in that same sort of subscription model while actually providing less then even what was provided before is just being greedy.
  8. If I let it upgrade to .111, is it going to hobble anything or start nagging about 2.0?
  9. NOPE If BT isn't going to keep their promise of having the same functionality from 1.4 to 2, I've got no reason to trust BT will keep any other promises they make. And I buy software, I don't rent it. And $40/year when there's not even hosting of data by BT? That's even worse.
  10. I'm just getting a non-stop barrage of them; Apr 27 05:55:09 miniupnpd[431]: Unknown udp packet received from 192.168.1.101:49342Apr 27 06:00:38 miniupnpd[431]: Unknown udp packet received from 192.168.1.109:63505Apr 27 06:01:56 miniupnpd[431]: Unknown udp packet received from 192.168.1.104:58793Apr 27 06:10:11 miniupnpd[431]: Unknown udp packet received from 192.168.1.101:49342Apr 27 06:15:40 miniupnpd[431]: Unknown udp packet received from 192.168.1.109:63505Apr 27 06:16:58 miniupnpd[431]: Unknown udp packet received from 192.168.1.104:58793All from the machines on my network running BTSync.