The site uses a valid EV SSL certificate. You can check the server in this SSL Certificate Checker by Digicert. Just enter "www.remoteutilities.com" in the field, select "Check for common vulnerabilities" and click "Check server".
I didn't say your company 'had no talent', I said it may not employ the necessary in-house talent for Mac or Linux development, ie, there may be no programmers with that skill set, hence the lack of client 3-4 years on.
Further, in order to 'compete' with another vendor, you have to actually have a competing product, the point of this entire thread being, with regard to Linux & Mac OS, you do not.
The fact that we do not offer Mac/Linux client does not necessarily mean we do not have programmers with that skill set. We do. It's all about priorities.
A professional response, from a company that wanted to demonstrate that it 'cared' about its (prospective) customers, would be to point customers it can't/doesn't service, in the direction of a company that does/can. We call this 'professional courtesy' or just 'good customer service'. I personally find you individually, extremely lacking in this regard.
Customer service has nothing to do with this. It's about the rules of our community. Competitor links and product names are not allowed here. Just like any criticisms that go beyond merely discussing the technical issues, existing or planned features or licensing and instead focus on discussing the company itself, its programmers, specialists and talents (or lack thereof) or marketing/customer service practices and personalities. Such posts may be censored or deleted.
An example of 'poor' customer service is to ignore customer requests for years on end, or even worse, string customers along by telling them you plan development when you clearly have no intention of doing that.
We do not ignore customer requests. We just cannot fulfill them all at once. We had to delay the development of the Mac/Linux client because of other more pressing priorities.
And for my part, I was attempting to help a customer in the vacuum 'you' left, with an open source solution. At no point did I suggest a commercially viable alternative to Nick's issue.
I'm sorry, but we did not leave any vacuum. The fully-functional version of our software is freely available on the site. Nowhere in our EULA we are telling that we guarantee such and such features to be added if only a customer purchases the product. The customer purchases the product "as is", here is a quote from the EULA:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS. REMOTE UTILITIES LLC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES RELATING TO THIS SOFTWARE, OR REMOTE UTILITIES WEB-SERVER (MEDIATION SERVER) WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Sorry for the delay. And by the way, we are not going to change our licensing model any time soon (if ever). This one-time payment + 1 year grace period + discounted upgrades system works well for us and the majority of our customers from what we know. We don't see any reason why we should change it to subscription model other than to squeeze more money from our customers, but this we definitely won't do.
Our mobile client has its own versioning and so far this app is free. We haven't decided yet what licensing model we are going to use for it when we add more significant features to the client (namely, the full-fledged address book). There are different options that we are considering.