INTERACT FORUM

I also would not like this "feature". Some of us like to stick with a version that works for them but might not be the latest and greatest. I don't see why this needs to be mandatory.

It is not that major of a deal but I just wanted to weigh in with my opinion.

I can see why you'd want this, and I've got no problems with MC "phoning home" every seven days, although I'm sure there will be people who have issues with it.

My only concern is this - If a user purchases 10.0 when it's released, and is happy using it, and then a maintenence release is done, and he/she upgrades because of auto-update-checking, that's great. But what happens when the next "paid-for" update, such as 10.1 or even 11 comes around? Will MC be asking the user to pay to upgrade to the latest version of MC every seven days for the rest of eternity? If this is the case then I can't see how it's fair. If there's one thing I hate more than spam in my mailbox, it's spam in my applications.

I'm not against mandatory auto-update checking, just as long as it only checks for free updates.

I'm not sure how MC displays the results, but I'm sure people will have issues with message boxes appearing if that's the way it's being done. Maybe a compromise would be to have an update manager that non-intrusively announces new updates, which is accessable from the Tools menu, or something like that.

Scott.

Well, we have had so many goodies recently that it seems churlish to moan about forced update checking.


Much......  

I also strongly hope that update-checking will be made optional.  Please remember that some of us run MC on dedicated boxes, in a remote location, possibly without a local monitor, keyboard, or mouse.  Network usage by the checks aside (which would be minimal), I certainly hope that if this is forced, there will be no pop-up windows or anything else that will require user intervention or potentially compromise the stability of a media server.

Quote from JimH:

MC will check for updates every 7 days.  You can set it to check more frequently.

Quote from  Nikolay (from release thread):

Checks for updates has to be mandatory, but you can set it to check only once a month.

So.... it will default to 7 days, but you can set it more frequently if you want. However, you can also set it to check less frequently. Tell me again, what's the point of this?

Scott.

edit: that was supposed to be funny, not aggressive

I think its a great feature, and really cant't see the big issue here - nobody is forced to download and install anything..??

Agreed, update checking is a good idea, but the issue is not that we're being forced to download anything.

The issue that most people are having (as far as I can tell) is that we're being forced to put up with message boxes along the lines of "There are new updates available" when we would rather just have the option of turning those messages off. and checking for them ourselves. That's not too much to ask, is it?

rungabic's post suggests that it could also be quite impractical on systems that have no local keyboard, monitor, etc.

Marko also points out that users of dial-up connections may be inconvienienced when their connections want to become active.

In my first post in this thread I also asked about the ethical issues of constantly nagging people who have already paid for one version to upgrade to a newer version that may cost them again.

Also, the fact that auto-update checking was optional in the past makes me wonder why auto-update checking simply must be mandatory now, even if it can be drawn out to once a month, as Nikolay suggests.

Hope this clarifies things.

Scott.

this software sounds like its turning into real player

My thoughts  exactly and I don't like it at all.. Is this
some kind of pirate hunt or what or why it can't be optional?

well they must find a way to keep protected music under control
don't they?


Me , The GREAT Zev , Plays: VA-Acid Visions · Word D / Today Is Just Tomorrow's Yesterday [2:05 · #9] From the album: Acid Visions 3-CD1

HA

It is ONLY about a check for update once a month all this mess?

Sorry i understood that the install of the update was mandatory.

Does not look like a big deal.
On the top of phoning home at start up , this is just a kind of extra for the same price.

I also strongly hope that update-checking will be made optional.  Please remember that some of us run MC on dedicated boxes, in a remote location, possibly without a local monitor, keyboard, or mouse.  Network usage by the checks aside (which would be minimal), I certainly hope that if this is forced, there will be no pop-up windows or anything else that will require user intervention or potentially compromise the stability of a media server.

Exactly! I have it in my car, without monitor and keyboard, and on two computers in the house - the HTPC and the Server (which also handles Internet connections in my house). I can't have popups that blocks playback or does anything else, so I'm now downloading version 107, and I won't update MC again before this "feature" is out. I have been so satisfied with the way JRiver has handled everything, but this one stops upgrading dead in the water for me.

We still don't know about the music service stuff. MC has announced big news for over a year. The big news is comming, is pretty close.

But before that, MC includes invasive pop ups, and takes control of our internet connection. What will be next? Music News? Handheld promotion? A new Real One Player?  More MusicMatch?

I know you allready have taken a decision. But I fell free to cry and pledge:

No, please... stay being just a jukebox....

Is this some kind of pirate hunt

It could very well be.

i think it all depends on how frequently you guys plan to release builds - there hasnt been a new build of media jukebox in ages.

why not have a reminder every two weeks?
'there may be a new build available - do you want to go online and check?'

surely we can't object to that and it is would be in our best interest. as long as there is NO FORCED UPDATING, especially if you were by any chance to try and add a feature you might be working at the moment which people concerned about their privacy might be concerned about...

I want to be able to trust J River, but the program size has been creeping up and up and we're not receiving very clear information about what all these changes are for... please MC we are your customers, we pay your wages for this fantastic program you provide us with, have a little more respect for us please and let us know more about what's going on your end of the line.

OK, I can see that you think it's a problem.

Here's our problem.  If we don't make sure people know about what he have, then they often run old software that may not do the job as well.  When they find out there's something newer, they say something like

"Hey, I just bought Version X.  Why didn't you tell me version X.1 was available?  That really stinks."

Or suppose we fix an ugly bug in an encoder plug-in?  Shouldn't we try to deliver that?

Or suppose we found a bug that created a security hole?

Or suppose we found that our software violated some term in a contract with a partner?

So, what would work?  Default to "check every x days" but allow a user to turn checking off?  Lengthen the time period to 14 o4 21 days?

How bout when you Turn MC on, the start page goes to a screen that dispalys the most current version...

default on, us able to turn it off permenantly for good would work for me.
please dont make the start page go online instantly.
dont want to be jumping on all the time when I dont want

It is up to the consumer to check for updates. Especially if there is a problem in the current version. Heck, even the Evil Empire (MS) doesn't make me auto check for updates!

I understand that there are some that don't check and then look for support, wasting your resources. But, don't make everybody pay the price for those few. Instead, why don't you have it turned on by default but allow us to turn it off? The same people that don't know to check for updates will probably not look deep enough to turn off this option.

I am especially concerned because Jim said they might charge for the 10.1 upgrade. MC already does all I need it too so I probably won't buy such a minor upgrade. At that point, I don't need a weekly popup advertising a newer version I can buy.

So, what would work?  Default to "check every x days" but allow a user to turn checking off?  Lengthen the time period to 14 o4 21 days?

Thanks for the reply, Jim.

From my view, the best way to implement it would be thus:
- Make the default setting to check for updates every seven or so days.
- Make it possible to completely turn off, but when a user does turn it off, display a (one-time only) friendly message that explains why you think it's a good idea to leave it on.
- If the user does leave the setting on and MC does find updates, make the notification non-intrusive. For example, an icon in the corner of the screen, etc, or a label somewhere that states that new updates are available -  just not a popup window/message box. That way we know it's there, but it doesn't interrupt us from what we're doing.

I think this would be a good compromise.

What do you think?

Scott.

OK, I can see that you think it's a problem.

Here's our problem.  If we don't make sure people know about what he have, then they often run old software that may not do the job as well.  When they find out there's something newer, they say something like

"Hey, I just bought Version X.  Why didn't you tell me version X.1 was available?  That really stinks."

Or suppose we fix an ugly bug in an encoder plug-in?  Shouldn't we try to deliver that?

Or suppose we found a bug that created a security hole?

Or suppose we found that our software violated some term in a contract with a partner?

So, what would work?  Default to "check every x days" but allow a user to turn checking off?  Lengthen the time period to 14 o4 21 days?

The people in your example are the people who aren't going to turn it off in the first place -- they'll leave it set to the default "on" setting.  Those of us who DO prefer to turn it off will know to check for updates on our own.  It's the fact that you feel people shouldn't be trusted to make their own choice in the matter that people are reacting to.  If people are smart enough to turn the auto update off, they are smart enough to check for updates themselves.  If they want to solve a bug or check for new features, they'll check for updates.  I think you'll find that all the people who turn it off will probably check for updates MORE than once a month.

Even Microsoft allows people to "not" check for updates if they don't want to.  If you give us the option to turn the auto-checking on or off, EVERYBODY wins.  If you say you "need" to have the auto-update feature active, most people will assume that there is something else going on.

Larry

...since few months they try so much to hyde things that look like large part of the trust people had is evaporate.

We don't have a choice about what we show and what we hide.  We have signed agreements that prevent us from disclosing what we're working on or even talking about.

Please try to understand that.  

So, what would work?  Default to "check every x days" but allow a user to turn checking off?  Lengthen the time period to 14 o4 21 days?

Anyone object to doing it this way?  If not, we'll change it in the next build.

So, what would work?  Default to "check every x days" but allow a user to turn checking off?

That sounds perfect.  I don't think anybody has a problem with the default number of days -- it's just the ability to turn checking off that people want.

Larry

I do understand it -
But you gave hints of things on they way .
So people start tu run in every corners trying to know WHAT IS IT .

As soon as the word 'protected music' goes into the game , many start to freak-out.


The more they freak out , the more the frenzy goes on you as well.
This is like an infernal circus playing in town.

Of cause , it is easy to me to say that it would have be better to give a free beta testing  , selling it when all put on the table.

But , i do not need to have people  paying for an upgrade to be able to run my house.
I i needed it , i would have do like you did.

Anyway , things are close to be out .

Everything may calm down after few days of posts non stop when all  out.

Good  luck.

PS : i think i know what the big dealS are.
But as i said , it is not me to say .
Beside it , i may be wrong .

We don't have a choice about what we show and what we hide.  We have signed agreements that prevent us from disclosing what we're working on or even talking about.

Please try to understand that.  

So, are we (the paid users / independent of the "Big Deal" customer target base) locked into the terms & conditions of this "Big Deal"?

Are we forced to become targets of this "Big Deal's" marketing?

Are we going to be limited to only the "Big Deal" version of Media Center, or will there be an independent version for paying customers who wish NOT to be involved or affected by the "Big Deal"?

Please let us know this, because if this is the case it will definately affect my choice of media software as we move forward.  I do NOT wish to be involved in using software that links me with any type of music service (etc) without my consent.  In the meantime, my firewall will suffice.