AxCrypt 2.0 and 1.7

[Jack]

Version 1.7 has two main features I use: easy and secure encryption, and quick file wipe. To get the file wipe and more secure 256-bit encryption with version 2.0, I need to upgrade to the paid version. OK, I’m glad to support software development and, being a retired developer myself, I buy lots of software. So I was just about to upgrade and buy 2.0 but then I found that I can’t buy it, I can only *rent* it. In other words, I’ll need to pay 24 euros for it, then next year pay again, etc., ad infinitum.  Paying for upgrades is one thing, paying continuously for the same software is something else.

Sadly, I searched for something else. To my surprise, there are great encryption programs out there, easy to use, quite secure, and some do file management; most are one-time payments and others are free. And there are great file wipers too, and many are free or one time purchase. So I tested a few and found good replacements for AxCrypt, and finally uninstalled AxCrypt.

I did it with sadness because I had become quite fond of it. But I don’t miss it, and I have to thank you for the motivation to look for replacements. Now I have all the features I need and I only have to pay for upgrades.

[Nick]

“So I was just about to upgrade and buy 2.0 but then I found that I can’t buy it, I can only *rent* it”

<b>Most commercial software is a subscription model (Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office etc.)</b>

I don’t mind paying AxCrypt every year because you get new features. I’d be less impressed if I had to pay to upgrade every time a new version came out. Here’s something that AxCrypt wrote explaining their decision.

“To my surprise, there are great encryption programs out there…”

<b>Being a “retired software developer” I’m surprised you’re surprised. Of course there are lots of alternatives to AxCrypt; it’s a free market and anybody can develop encryption software. Some are free, others perpetually licensed and some subscription.</b>

Use whatever you’re happiest with.

“But I don’t miss it, and I have to thank you for the motivation to look for replacements. Now I have all the features I need and I only have to pay for upgrades.”

Great, it’s good that you’ve found something which suits your needs.

[Jack]

Hi Nick,

I guess I need to clarify what surprised me: it wasn’t that there are great programs out there, but that there are great programs equivalent to AxCrypt that are free or one-time purchase. And I was also surprised at how well they replaced AxCrypt. It was a pleasant surprise because it meant I wouldn’t be struck continuously paying for features that I’m not interested in. It sounds like you may not be aware of it, but you don’t need to pay for every upgrade of a software program. You only pay if it has new features you want.

You say “Use whatever you’re happiest with.” I want to thank you for your permission to do just that. It’s really kind of you to make that offer. You’re a sweet boy!

I disagree with your statement that “Most commercial software is a subscription model.” That’s just not the case. There is a lot of rentalware, but there are more programs using what you call the “perpetual license” model.

I’m happy to pay continuously for services, but not for a static program.

Before they went rentalware, Adobe would release “updates” every few months that consisted of bug fixes with one or two useless “new features”, and charge $200 for it. The new update had more bugs, so they could make a new update shortly afterwards. Microsoft did the same thing by adding new features (and bugs) to programs like Word and Excel, many of which features few people use. The programs became more bloated and each update/upgrade was expensive. And they impacted computer resources enough to give an advantage to their competitors. Their rentalware solutions actually make sense because they can host the bloatware in the cloud and the client computer only runs what it needs at any given moment, keeping its resources down and speed up.

I would pay Axantum for a key exchange and maintenance service — if I needed one. But a subscription model means I pay for all the services and “features” I don’t need. And I’d re-pay for them again next year, even if I’m only using the software and not the service.

“Great, it’s good that you’ve found something which suits your needs.” Aww… there you go again, being so nice to say that. I hope you get the hugs you deserve!

Please let me know if you need any more clarifications.

[Nick]

<b><i>Everybody,</i></b>

[Jack]

But Nick, how will you get enough to eat?

[Anonymous]

thanks for all the great work but I refuse to use AxCrypt 2.0

[SvanteSpectator]

Hello Anonymous,

Sad to hear it – could you let us know just what it is you object to, causing you to “refuse to use AxCrypt 2.0“?

[Dave]

Long time axcrypt user, here is my critique of the ‘new direction’ the program has taken.

Everything about v1.7 was spot on; simplicity, integration, portability, minimal footprint.

The features that were introduced with v2 such as online account integration and vault architecture is bloat and it adds an unnecessary cumbersome layer.

Consider forking the program and keeping v1.7 style application as a ‘lite’ version for people who really just want the basic integrated encryption.

[SvanteSpectator]

Hello Dave,

Thank you for the feedback! We may indeed do so in the future, in one way or another.

[Johnno]

Consider forking the software yourself Dave; that’s what a fork is. If AxCrypt were to add the feature it wouldn’t be a fork, it’d be an official feature.

It’s something that’s only asked for by a minority of the overall userbase so until people start splashing the cash, the development team only have finite resources and they need to focus on getting the software rock solid and reliable before even contemplating adding new features.

If peopl want the individual password feature then version 1.7 is still out there and, that old model, is still causing many problems for people, Version 2 is a breath of fresh air. Those determined enough to use another model have version 1.7.

[SvanteSpectator]

Thank you Johnno!

[Mari]

I came here wondering much the same that has been posted. I used AxCrypt for single file encryption and for file/recycle bin/drive wiping. Was a simple two click thing to do. Now… I right click on my recycle bin and I guess I have to click “Advanced”… and then I have to log in… and then a program opens and I *still* don’t see the option to just clear my recycle bin. I can see that any sort of criticism of the new AxCrypt is deemed trolling or whiny but I do sorely miss the simplicity of v1. I’m weary of using software that is no longer being developed though. So Jack, what did you find was a suitable replacement?

[Zulu]

Why does it need to online at all? Why do you need a verified email address for the user? Are you suggesting that the prudent user create a one time email somewhere and use it with a VPN service to sign on for the one time that you say is necessary to use AC2?  Any every time in the future that he does the same every time he reinstalls AC2?

[Zulu]

You are correct about your interpretation of what “forking” means; but personally I think that Dave was just trying to be kind and offer AxCrypt an alternative to dumping Axcrypt 2 altogether and going back to a continuing the development of AxCrypt 1.7.   Your other comments being invalid. I will be more blunt: you are making a big mistake – I will continue to recommend that they only use the

Like Dave, having been a user of encryption software since its first public implementations, AxCrypt the elder gave me more of what I want and need for data encryption in a reasonably user friendly environment.  Axcrypt the younger was so obviously put out with improvements that should have been in 1.8 BUT with a completely different business model.  If you look at the comments/reviews the downsides of AC2 are pretty much related to a business model need rather than a user functional need.  It is hard for me to see that this software could ever provide sufficient income stream to support a family in Scandinavia.  It does not need much functional change from year to year ( 95% of its function was present in version 1: so “new” versions are not a necessity except for every few years to keep up with changes to the OS.  Not much interaction to drive donations I agree but I thought that was known and understood – the IP inherent in this product is all about its user interface so how much is that worth?  Rather charge a nominal fee for version 1.8 which would include 256 encryption than pursue AC2 would be my recommendation.  In the meantime I will continue to recommend v1.7 to my clients requiring a simple quick and easy but not as secure solution and 7-Zip for a less quick and easy but more secure solution.  I do commend you from at least keeping the file servers going for AC1.  At least you get some feel (along with counts from the common files servers) that the users still want and use AC1 for new installs.

[Zulu]

Another thing that is sad to see.   The new website for AC2 lists and uses links for reviews of AC1 as support for a reason to buy AC2.   If I was in charge of the AC1 website I would tell the AC2 website people to get their own reviews!  As both websites point out these are two different pieces of software and should have separate reviews.   Like when Fiat bought Ferrari and used the review of a Testarossa to sell a Punto – say what; are the users expected to be that dumb?  And these users arn’t even the average computer user – these are the ones that figured out that they needed encryption of their files and figured out that the should not use the free Microsoft solutions – those dumb people.

[Author]

Posts