They will lose customers and goodwill, and if tech Youtubers catch on to this and ‘expose’ it, it could do significant reputational and financial damage to them.
I’d get it if it was a 3.5 release, after everything was performing at least as well as the previous 2.6 version, but it’s not even close. It’s a really negative PR move.įurthermore, why would anyone pay to be able to receive updates to 3.x when the newer versions perform much, much worse, are less stable, and have worse workflow than the previous version? Another video software company got into trouble recently for pulling a similar stunt, faced a lot of backlash, got a ton of bad PR, and lost a ton of goodwill/loyalty from their customers in the process.Īll it takes is a Youtube channel with a decent audience to bring light to this sort of thing and it really hurts the reputation of the company. Unlimited access to the world’s leading production-grade neural networks for video upscaling, deinterlacing, motion interpolation, and shake stabilization - all optimized for your local workstation.
If I was entitled to version 3, but not 3.1, why was I prompted to update without a warning that I wasn’t entitled to that update? Why was I offered the update at all? Why wouldn’t users entitled to version 3 receive all update to version 3? Especially given the poor state that version 3 released in, and is still in! Get tack-sharp 4k at buttery-smooth 60 FPS.
0 kommentar(er)
