Skip to content

Teamviewer Terminates Perpetual Licenses

Technology
38 26 344
  • 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)

  • I switched to Rust Desk after I got repeatedly flagged for commercial use of Team Viewer and access disabled. I was doing nothing of the sort, but it happened after I accessed my personal computer on my personal phone while at work. They must have IP address checks that are extremely aggressive.

    I followed their process to "verify" I was non-commercial, which was invasive and insulting, and then was flagged again.

    Rust Desk works great, no problems, never using Team Viewer again.

    I have been flagged three times by teamviewer. Appealing requires writing an email and waiting weeks. This last time my use was consistent and only ever connected to my home computer due about 10 minutes tops.

    They just don't want free users who don't upgrade to a monthly subscription but will never say that.

  • 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)

    negligence doesn't mean they 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.

  • I switched from nomachine to RustDesk, and I couldn’t be happier. It’s very lightweight, very fast, and has all the features I need. And it’s great that it’s cross platform.

  • negligence doesn't mean they 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.

  • Do you (or anyone else) have suggestion for software than can control an android phone from pc?

  • Do you (or anyone else) have suggestion for software than can control an android phone from pc?

    Rust desk also does it. But Google makes you jump through a bunch of hoops to get it working because of scams.

  • First heard about this a few hears ago- apparently it's got Wayland support now, including for tiling WMs like sway? Thats super impressive, I'm gonna see if I can get it set up and running real quick because I just gave up on remote access on Sway when I last tried to check out the options.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Yeah, that's got my attention too. Definitely going to try them out now since I need an alternative for remote support for family.

    I switched when team viewer had me sign up for fixing my aunts laptop. After that wasn’t working properly I found rustdesk and threw teamviewer straight from both systems.

  • 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.

    The argument is that anyone still using TeamViewer deserves this, and anyone who isn't isn't actually impacted bym this change so it's irrelevant.

    That's your argument, and I disagree with it. I've already shared why.

    and anyone who isn't isn't actually impacted by this change so it's irrelevant.

    This is also wrong. Having the license revoked means the people who had one can't use it at all whether they were using it or not. Let's set aside that you shouldn't advocate or endorse a company selling a product, shitting the bed, then revoking the product from those that already paid for it.

    You'd be surprised, but there's tons of small companies and organizations that rely solely on viewing software, some ancient version of Windows Server, and a remote toaster for administration still to this day. Those people are directly impacted by this.

    I don't think they deserve a license revocation because I don't think any company should be able to take back a product that a user has purchased for no cited reason. Which is the case here.

  • The argument is that anyone still using TeamViewer deserves this, and anyone who isn't isn't actually impacted bym this change so it's irrelevant.

    That's your argument, and I disagree with it. I've already shared why.

    and anyone who isn't isn't actually impacted by this change so it's irrelevant.

    This is also wrong. Having the license revoked means the people who had one can't use it at all whether they were using it or not. Let's set aside that you shouldn't advocate or endorse a company selling a product, shitting the bed, then revoking the product from those that already paid for it.

    You'd be surprised, but there's tons of small companies and organizations that rely solely on viewing software, some ancient version of Windows Server, and a remote toaster for administration still to this day. Those people are directly impacted by this.

    I don't think they deserve a license revocation because I don't think any company should be able to take back a product that a user has purchased for no cited reason. Which is the case here.

    You might have a point if those people had no choice, but there are several good or at least better alternatives to TeamViewer and at least one of them is free. Nobody has any excuse for being negatively impacted by this change. Hopefully this is a wakeup call to those people that have been either too lazy or too incompetent to replace TeamViewer to finally do so. TeamViewer is a shit company making a shit product that has just made yet another shit anti-consumer decision (and potentially illegal but I'm sure there's some sneaky license clause they claim makes this legal).

  • If anyone is still using teamviewer after the many breaches they had, they deserve this 😉

    Yeah even Windows has Quick Assist built in.

  • Anyone know how I can get remote access with my monitors off while using Wayland ? Everytime I log in if I have my monitors off I just get a black screen. I bought one of those dummy HDMI plugs no dice. Works fine with x11 but I don't want to have to relog every time I get to my computer.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Teamviewer is such a scummy company.

    • If you sign up for a TeamViewer license, you have 7 days to cancel and get a refund. This does not apply to renewals.
    • Licenses are only available in annual installments.
    • TeamViewer's license recommendation tool may suggest a license that is greater than your actual need. In my case, the cheaper license that best fit my business use case (one session at a time) was not presented during onboarding.
    • TeamViewer does not offer mid-term downgrades, but does allow mid-term upgrades.
    • You will get a renewal notice 30 days before renewal. TeamViewer requires written notice of cancellation 28 or more days before renewal.
    • TeamViewer does not offer the option for mid-term cancellations and will not grant a prorated refund for the remainder of your unused license time. When you cancel, you are only cancelling the next renewal.

    We got totally boned when our renewal notice went out just before a three day weekend. PayPal and our bank sided with TeamViewer. Apparently, someone tried to sue over this shady practice in California and the court also sided with TeamViewer.
    Probably would have dodged this bullet if I had thought to scroll through the TeamViewer subreddit, I went with them because I had positive experiences using the free version for personal use.

    Been using RustDesk for years with great success. I especially appreciate the responsible disclosure banners on the main site and GitHub warning users that they might be on the phone with a scam artist.

    IMO, all the proprietary remote access software (Teamviewer, Ultraviewer, Anydesk, Etc) companies are profiting from and therefore complicit in the use of their software to scam people.

  • Anyone know how I can get remote access with my monitors off while using Wayland ? Everytime I log in if I have my monitors off I just get a black screen. I bought one of those dummy HDMI plugs no dice. Works fine with x11 but I don't want to have to relog every time I get to my computer.

    I think when screen recording software (like OBS) request screen recording access, it is an option to create a new virtual screen, in the system dialog when you need to select which window or screen to share. maybe this would help? it could be wasteful with resources, though

  • Teamviewer is such a scummy company.

    • If you sign up for a TeamViewer license, you have 7 days to cancel and get a refund. This does not apply to renewals.
    • Licenses are only available in annual installments.
    • TeamViewer's license recommendation tool may suggest a license that is greater than your actual need. In my case, the cheaper license that best fit my business use case (one session at a time) was not presented during onboarding.
    • TeamViewer does not offer mid-term downgrades, but does allow mid-term upgrades.
    • You will get a renewal notice 30 days before renewal. TeamViewer requires written notice of cancellation 28 or more days before renewal.
    • TeamViewer does not offer the option for mid-term cancellations and will not grant a prorated refund for the remainder of your unused license time. When you cancel, you are only cancelling the next renewal.

    We got totally boned when our renewal notice went out just before a three day weekend. PayPal and our bank sided with TeamViewer. Apparently, someone tried to sue over this shady practice in California and the court also sided with TeamViewer.
    Probably would have dodged this bullet if I had thought to scroll through the TeamViewer subreddit, I went with them because I had positive experiences using the free version for personal use.

    Been using RustDesk for years with great success. I especially appreciate the responsible disclosure banners on the main site and GitHub warning users that they might be on the phone with a scam artist.

    IMO, all the proprietary remote access software (Teamviewer, Ultraviewer, Anydesk, Etc) companies are profiting from and therefore complicit in the use of their software to scam people.

    I never understand the renewal cancellation issue. The company will get the renewal once. If that happens to me I’ll cancel going forward and never work with them again. But if they let me cancel easily I may go back in future.

  • 96 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    F
    I am very interested in politics, but not on any kind of social media. The whole purpose of political discourse on sites like Twitter is to foster uninformed, extremist political posturing with no constructive or interesting discussion.
  • CIA chief associate and Project 2025 author takes top job at Meta

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    10 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 804 Stimmen
    110 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    S
    I do not have downvotes on my instance, so please, have a
  • Signal – an ethical replacement for WhatsApp

    Technology technology
    235
    1
    1k Stimmen
    235 Beiträge
    5k Aufrufe
    V
    What I said is that smart people can be convinced to move to another platform. Most of my friends are not technically inclined, but it was easy to make them use it, at least to chat with me. What you did is change "smart people" with "people who already want to move", which is not the same. You then said it's not something you can choose (as you cannot choose to be rich). But I answered that you can actually choose your friends. Never did I say people who are not interested in niche technologies are not smart. My statement can be rephrased in an equivalent statement "people who cannot be convinced to change are not smart", and I stand to it.
  • 112 Stimmen
    23 Beiträge
    222 Aufrufe
    exec@pawb.socialE
    I mean no more live view via the screen
  • 307 Stimmen
    23 Beiträge
    223 Aufrufe
    G
    I spent way too long researching the morning. That industry implies a much greater population that is attracted to children. Things get more nuanced. People are attracted to different stages, like prebubesant, early adolescence, and mid to late adolescence. It seems like an important distinction because this is a common mental disorder. I was ready to write this comment about my fear that there's a bunch of evil pedophiles living among us who are simply deterred by legal or social pressures. It seems more like the extreme stigma of pedophilia has prevented individuals from seeking assistance and has resulted in more child sexual abuse. This sort of disorder can be caused by experiencing this abuse at a younger age. When I was religious, we worked closely with an organization to help victims of trafficking. We had their stories. They entered our lives. I took care of some of these kids. As a victim of sexual abuse when I was kid, I had a hatred for these kinds of people. I feel like my brain is melting seeing how there is a high chance of people in my life being attracted to children. This isn't really to justify the industry. I'm just realizing that general harassing people openly about it might not be helping the situation.
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    423 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • *deleted by creator*

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet