uTorrent Changes: A response to your feedback

[dubnium]

Testing different feature sets. There's more than one team for the client.

out of interest, how many teams have you had before you were acquired by bittorrent inc? maybe you should move in that direction, help keep electricity costs down and code quality up.

[Kitsoran]

How big are the teams?

[rafi]

16Kp...

[ciaobaby]

16Kp...

Kilopascals?

Or are you suggesting they are all nuts

[rafi]

You may use your own imagination for the "p" ... people, pixels, whatever...

[WinMacLin]

Like others in this thread I am not happy with the direction of uTorrent. And I'm also not happy with this response to our feedback.

You quite clearly state in your post that for the past 6 months the team coding uTorrent have been dedicated to everything but new features. And yet several paragraphs down from this you clearly talk about the new feature in 3.2.2, advertisements.

Do you not consider featured content a new feature? Because the way you talk about these advertisements they are for our benefit. You are being very disingenuous with your statements because you want to make it sound like you've added a new feature for us to find content and yet you dismiss that with your earlier statement that no new features have been added and obviously you don't consider advertisements a feature, they are indeed just a way to monetise.

I also take umbrage with the way you portray your role in bringing us this free software. You are specifically highlighting the fact that the software is free so that we will think, sure maybe they should make money for giving us this free software. Except you didn't make uTorrent you bought the client and then kept releasing closed updates. If you were so concerned with providing a free client then you would open source it and allow us all to attempt the same. You are artificially creating the conditions of providing a free uTorrent client to us and for that I cannot feel any sympathy for your monetary circumstances. Either open source it or stop making these statements, we would all be happy to take the burden that is uTorrent off your shoulders.

That is all I have to say on the matter.

[ciaobaby]

That is all I have to say on the matter.

Thank [deity] for that!

Have none of you heard the adage, "There's no such thing as a 'free' lunch"??

Examples

'Free' email (GMail, Hotmail, Yahoo) = Adverts displayed.

'Free' Instant Messenger (MSN/Live, Yahoo!, GoogleTalk) = Adverts displayed

'Free' Anti-virus (Avast, AVG) = Up-sell popups and Adverts.

'Free' Hosting = Forced adverts and/or up-selling

Get a grip people and join the real world, adverts ARE the price for getting free software!!!!!!!!

[WinMacLin]

That is all I have to say on the matter.

Thank [deity] for that!

Have none of you heard the adage' date=' "There's no such thing as a 'free' lunch"??

Examples

'Free' email (GMail, Hotmail, Yahoo) = Adverts displayed.

'Free' Instant Messenger (MSN/Live, Yahoo!, GoogleTalk) = Adverts displayed

'Free' Anti-virus (Avast, AVG) = Up-sell popups and Adverts.

'Free' Hosting = Forced adverts and/or up-selling

Get a grip people and join the real world, adverts ARE the price for getting free software!!!!!!!![/quote']

Your examples are not based in reality as they are all services which have ongoing costs related to their Client-Server business models.

You see Email, Instant Messaging, Antivirus Definition Updates & Websites all require physical Servers & Bandwidth. This is an ongoing cost and as each of these services grow in size so does the operational costs. This is not true for Bittorrent Inc because no matter how many users download and use uTorrent their costs do not increase. They do not facilitate downloads or provide even 0.00001% of all torrented content.

We the users provide both the content and the distribution of said content, not Bittorrent Inc.

If they are so concerned with being unable to pay programmers to keep writing updates to uTorrent they should open source the client like other free Bittorrent clients which don't need advertisements. Examples include Transmission, LibTorrent/rTorrent & Deluge. As I said previously I take umbrige with them keep saying how it's so nice of them to provide us with free software just to gain our sympathy when they could relinquish the source and lose the burden of having to maintain uTorrent entirely. At one time they believed in the power of Open Source as the original client was Open and truly free as in freedom.

I find it frustrating that they are holding the uTorrent client hostage and trying to monetize it with advertisements that no one wants. It should have remained ad free and they should never have bought it unless they intended to make it an open source project, they obviously lack the funds to support its closed development or they wouldn't be turning to in-app advertisements.

I put it that Bittorrent Inc. no longer have the best interests of the client at heart because the right thing to do at this point is to open source the client. I don't see what they are so afraid of, it will result in improvements and forks, innovation in the client space. They got to the client first and flashed their cash now the rest of us developers want the same opportunity they had to turn the original uTorrent sources they purchased in to something unique, wonderful & free.

I truly believe that the Bittorrent protocol was one of the greatest gifts humankind have ever received and it is repulsive to see the most prominent client from the original creators of the Bittorrent protocol be so closed down and have all its dignity slowly leeched away. The application store inside uTorrent, the in-app advertisements, the social media additions the up-selling to the Plus version and the toolbar's pushed down our throats when we try to download the client itself... It has gone too far.

[mike20021969]

adverts ARE the price for getting free software!!!!!!!!

Not necessarily.

I have numerous free software with no adverts (although a lot of the time there is a "Donate" button on the download page).

I don't mind "offers" during installation as long as they can be declined.

[dubnium]

That is all I have to say on the matter.

Thank [deity] for that!

Have none of you heard the adage' date=' "There's no such thing as a 'free' lunch"??

Examples

'Free' email (GMail, Hotmail, Yahoo) = Adverts displayed.

'Free' Instant Messenger (MSN/Live, Yahoo!, GoogleTalk) = Adverts displayed

'Free' Anti-virus (Avast, AVG) = Up-sell popups and Adverts.

'Free' Hosting = Forced adverts and/or up-selling

Get a grip people and join the real world, adverts ARE the price for getting free software!!!!!!!![/quote']

i'd like to see your face when you find out about open source.

[ciaobaby]

Which is still a "Call to action" just as adverts are in other cases.

I don't mind "offers" during installation as long as they can be declined.

Which they can, and the in-client ads can be disabled.

They really are not the huge problem that people make them out to be.

[Beasly]

Although ads and other crap are not the end of the world the powers that be needs to listen very closely to the peeps.

Sure you have millions of uTorrent users but nothing lasts forever especially if people think you're shrugging them off and going in a different direction!

I really would like to know how many users click on the featured content anyway.

There are many here and on other forums jumping ship to either unsupported versions or other clients.....

You may say to yourselves, ok I can deal with a losing a few to other clients!

Please don't get too comfortable/nonchalant at being #1.

[ciaobaby]

Your examples are not based in reality as they are all services which have ongoing costs related to their Client-Server business models.

Granted that point might have merit, were it not for the simple fact that the organisations that provide the forementioned 'free' applications, each have FAR greater resources and capital income than BitTorrent and uTorrent put together. So if BitTorrent and uTorrent have "no need" to 'monetise' their 'free' software, the same applies to Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google AND in a greater magnitude.

[ciaobaby]

i'd like to see your face when you find out about open source.

So you assume that:

A: I do not already know about "Open Source"

B: I do not already participate or have participated in Open Source collaberations and projects.

And of course as uTorrent is NOT an open source project your point is somewhat meaningless.

[WinMacLin]

Your examples are not based in reality as they are all services which have ongoing costs related to their Client-Server business models.

Granted that point might have merit' date=' were it not for the simple fact that the organisations that provide the forementioned 'free' applications, each have FAR greater resources and capital income than BitTorrent and uTorrent put together. So if BitTorrent and uTorrent have "no need" to 'monetise' their 'free' software, the same applies to Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google [b']AND in a greater magnitude.

Transmission, rTorrent, Tixati, Deluge, KTorrent, qBittorrent, TorrentFlux.

What do all these torrent clients have in common? They are free. All of them except Tixati are open source. None of them include advertisements. Most of them have feature parity with uTorrent.

Again your argument is futile in the face of open source software which as I said before the original Bittorrent client and the Bittorrent protocol were released as. But sigh.. greed wins out over freedom and uTorrent remains a closed down hostage for Bittorrent Inc's monetary aspirations.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Microsoft, Yahoo and Google. Three companies that are all about services with ginormous continued operating costs. Sure Microsoft charges for Windows but that is because their monopoly (like Bittorrent Inc's uTorrent) enables them to do so even when it isn't necessary. If you wan't an example just look at Solaris, Linux or BSD.

[ciaobaby]

Transmission, rTorrent, Tixati, Deluge, KTorrent, qBittorrent, TorrentFlux.

Then use one of those.

Exercise your right to choose, if you don't like the way uTorrent has gone or is going don't use it. It is that simple.

That way you don't need to be annoyed, frustrated or whatever. Life is too short to be wasting it in arguing about what you cannot change, accept it and shut up or move on and leave it behind.

[WinMacLin]

Transmission, rTorrent, Tixati, Deluge, KTorrent, qBittorrent, TorrentFlux.

Then use one of those.

Exercise your right to choose, if you don't like the way uTorrent has gone or is going don't use it. It is that simple.

That way you don't need to be annoyed, frustrated or whatever. Life is too short to be wasting it in arguing about what you cannot change, accept it and shut up or move on and leave it behind.

Except by complaining this very thread was created and the advertisements in uTorrent became opt out. A policy change made through the direct result of user criticism.

And about your "accept it and shut up" comment: I won't be censored or told to leave a discussion by other members of this forum.

[Beasly]

accept it and shut up or move on and leave it behind.

WOW! F***ED UP!.....It sounds like you're the one that's frustrated. Leave your personal problems off the forums...Maybe you're the one that needs the break from the forums!

If you do not have the want to help for whatever reason or do not have the patience anymore then you're the one that should Shut Up!!!!

[dubnium]

i'd like to see your face when you find out about open source.

So you assume that:

A: I do not already know about "Open Source"

B: I do not already participate or have participated in Open Source collaberations and projects.

And of course as uTorrent is NOT an open source project your point is somewhat meaningless.

i was replying to your "herp derp free software without ads doesn't exist" argument, i assumed you were simply ignorant and not a liar, apparently that assumption was far too generous.

[ciaobaby]

"herp derp free software without ads doesn't exist"

I said there was no such thing as a "free lunch" and what the hell does "herp derp" mean

BitTorrent and uTorrent are COMMERCIAL enterprises, who employ and pay their developers, their staff are not funded from independent enterprises

Open Source software is mainly created and maintained by developers who work for OTHER COMPANIES or are academics and as such have no need or requirement to seek remuneration for their efforts. Their motives are purely altruistic, academic or research driven NOT commercial.

[soniamdisappoint]

I think that what happens:

Since majority of people don't bother and continue using newer uT versions (users have high tolerance level and are lazy to change things they are used to), uT managers will think it is ok to push their monetization and other bloatware crap initiatives to the limit, and will do so (meanwhile feeding active uT users who are here with regular bullshit of how they are really doing what they declare). Because they probably think: "Seriously, 0.1% of userbase who declare discontent with newer versions of uT here and/or stick to older versions or other clients isn't much of a loss, you know, especially since this 0.1% is probably technically advanced (ie geeks/nerds) and absolutly not profitable. Anyway, there are lots of loyal geeks out there, who provide us with technical feedback and test newer versions for free". Then they hit the tolerance level of major userbase and if at that time other bittorrent clients are fully functional and painless to use (well, they already are), this majority of users will start migrating en masse. While they do so, uT managers will have a time window and enough motivation ("Argghhh! We're loosing profits!") to reconsider their policies and to finally make what users always wanted. Happy end. Stupid? Yup!

[dubnium]

only the percentage of people who are using 2.x instead of 3.x is much higher than 0.1%, i'd say 30% at least.

[soniamdisappoint]

only the percentage of people who are using 2.x instead of 3.x is much higher than 0.1%, i'd say 30% at least.

You're wrong about that.

Well, at our tracker there are no 3.x users at all because all versions after 2.2.1 are prohibited. That means 100%, right? Among those who read/write at this forum 2.x users share may be about 30%.

Now think worldwide (and there are 125+ millions of uT users): how many of them visit uT forum? How many of them stick to old version? That is actually less than 0.1%.

[dubnium]

i was basing that estimate on clients i encounter in the wild, downloading and seeding real torrents, not on a forum frequented by 50 people.

[ciaobaby]

Well, at our tracker there are no 3.x users at all because all versions after 2.2.1 are prohibited.

So you really have nothing to base any estimates/guesses/numbers of ver 3 users there are, if you don't allow them how can you count them?