Thank you for posting in much bigger letters. Everything is so much clearer now.
Look, I don't think I'm being nuts here. I was using a piece of software that worked perfectly. That was the software that I wanted to purchase. Nothing on the web site made it clear that what I would be purchasing is a string of builds and not be able to get the build that I was using before.
When I was first using the software, I didn't even know it was a beta, I downloaded it from a link from an e-mail message.
When I discovered it was a beta, just before purchasing, I figured, "Okay, well, it works fine so what the heck", figuring that what I would get was a simple unlock for what I was already using. Nothing written anywhere on the site gives any indication that a user will have to move from one build to the next whether they want to or not.
I have beta tested before, and when I did, moving from build to build was optional. One got a notice that the new build was available, and one downloaded it, and if it didn't work, one went back to the previous version.
In this case, what build you get is not made apparent on the download page (It simply says "version 9"), and I can't go back to a previous build.
And look, this cost money! 35 bucks is a lot of money for software like this, especially when there are competitors like Winamp and Windows Media Player offering ftheir players for free. I see the value which potentially makes this software better, but not 35 dollars better if I also have to put up with this out of control beta situation.
There are a lot of inconsistencies here, and no amount of user loyalty or large caps letters is going to convince me that this is a perfectly normal situation.
The bottom line for me is: either beta test for free and then no one can complain, or charge money and offer some quality assurance. You can't have it both ways. If I don't see a version that I can use within the next few days, I will insist on my money back.
Dave