12.1 kills ram allocation >8gb for non PRO version?

Dear Parallels,

This would have to be the most underhanded thing I have seen in a long time. At least give people some warning that this new restriction was going to be applied, especially to your loyal and repeat customers of many years. Am I wrong or did you lose all our email addresses?

All it would have taken was a considered, open an honest email campaign prior to enforcing this restriction and you would not infuriated an entire market segment to the point that it will affect your bottom line in a negative way. The only people that will be happy as a result of this obvious brain fail will be the folks over at VM Ware.

You should immediately issue a patch for this mistake, or publish an article clearly advising users how to downgrade to the previous version so they can consider their options without having their VM's crippled in the mean time.

If this doesn't happen in the next few days, you have lost another loyal customer in me. This is a shame as for years now I have been shouting the benefits of Parallels to all my colleagues. Thanks for making me look like a fool.

Regards, Kent.
 
Last edited:
Andrew@Parallels said:
Dear Parallels Community,
We appreciate you sharing your feedback on the recent update. While the quote above is still actual, let me try to explain what happened in different words. The limitations you started noticing with the recent update were always a part of Parallels Desktop 12 Standard Edition and it was documented in the product guides since version 11 release in August 2015. Unfortunately these limitations didn't come into effect until the latest update, as there was a minor issue in the product which made some of the Pro features available to Standard edition users. With this issue corrected, Standard edition now has standard set of features, and Pro has advanced functionality. Hope this explains what happened and why.
Click to expand...

Dear Andrew,
Why is this not clearly shown on your web site page where the comparisons between products is done?... because no one would have forked out the cash? It's not a little side line optional feature, it is a major difference between the two products! Not to mention that the post you placed on this forum is a pitiful attempt at covering the company's back only with absolutely no concern about the end user.

Step Up !!

Regards

Domenico
 
After number of polite but firm emails though the support and management feedback channels, they have given me a key for one year of pro use, though I really wanted a refund. The product no longer works as advertised or expected based on previous use. I may still pursue
consumer law options though they appear limited.

That fact that the limitations are mentioned in the manual is irrelevant, the function of the edition comparison page at point of purchase is to point these differences out, it did not. This amounts to false and misleading advertising at best. Any one experienced with parallels, is unlikely to read the manual every upgrade.

I actually got mad when support stated that it was a mistake that the standard version had this extra functionality and that update 12.1.0 "fixed" this issue. I'll not deal with any company that shows such disregard for customers that it expects them to pay for corporate mistakes.

reply
 
Dear Parallels,

I understand that buried in the text is the statement you refer to. I've used Parallels for many years and faithfully upgraded. The fact that you chose to remove a feature and justify using the fine print is extremely poor customer service.

I spent a career in this kind of product development. A move like this is unrelated to any technical need and strictly a business decision to force people to the Pro version. I'll bet there are several attorneys that will find this an enticing and easy class action suit. While the text may state the limitation, the fact that you have shipped with the ability to use more RAM and CPUS for many years, waited until you had an installed base, then degraded an important feature to force customers to upgrade should be compelling evidence.
 
Last edited:
All - make sure you post about this on all of the MAC Forums you participate in as well. I've now posted on a few so that any future purchasers are aware of the disgusting tactics by this company...
 
Besides posting to other forums, it may be effective to email those who have previously reviewed Parallels, especially comparative reviews with competitive products and especially those published on major news outlets, suggesting an update or story about this.
This is my suggestion to Parallels (if they are continuing to read this thread):
Apologize and reverse the action, allowing the previous number of CPUs and RAM until the next version (i.e., Parallels 13), for which this limitation can be properly advertised. Otherwise, offer the choice of a refund or a free change to the Pro version.
I do believe that there is a basis for charging consumer fraud. It is a classic bait and switch fraud, except that it is done months later when it is too late to contest the purchase on my charge card. They sold me a product that was consistent with the previous version I had been using (with which I was using more RAM) without advertising this new limitation or implementing it in the software that they delivered for my purchase. Then, after the period during which I could have contested the sale, in the guise of a minor upgrade they take back the product I purchased and put an inferior product in its place. Also, it appears to be a willful attempt to hide this limitation in order to position the Standard product against a competitive product at the exact same price point but which does not have this limitation. As evidence of willful action, Parallels still hasn't presented this fundamental limitation in the version comparison or other marketing descriptions on their product webpage, even after the Company became aware that those who have purchased the software have complained.
It really is not about the money, it is about the way this has been done --- selling and delivering a fully functional product and then months later crippling that product via what appears to be a minor update without any advertisement or advance notice of a significant limitation.
 
This version (parallels 12) was my THIRD paid upgrade, and I did this _MINOR REV UPDATE_ in the hopes that Parallels finally fixed the screwed up multiple monitor/black screens in spaces fiasco, only to get this error! I intentionally moved _FROM_ VirtualBox to Parallels, hoping for some perfomance gains, but all I'm getting is soaked!
I guess I'm looking for two things:
  • A phone number to call to get a refund for this version, because every update they post takes something AWAY (first the multiple monitor not working thing, and now memory and CPU usage!)
  • and a link to instructions on how to move BACK to VirtualBox, where I can spend zero dollars to NOT have functionality taken away from me!
 
Caught me today as well.. I will try to downgrade to the previous version as well...
I also have been upgrading from the first releases many years ago without much though, assuming newer versions will address bugs found.
I have 3 licenses and will now start to look around for other options....
If a class action is feasible I will support is..
 
and to be honest: As far as I can see, I do not need all that eye candy stuff they are positioning as Pro features.. I just need a solid VM solution with proper file exchange support... proper host OS support en proper guest OS support... E.g. Installing parallels tools on Centos 7 is non trivial.. Maybe spend some development there instead of useless features in a so called pro-version.. I have no problem upgrading every year or so, but do not create bloatware and do not take away features we already had...
Everybody understand that keeping a solution running on new macOS releases costs money and therefore a periodical fee is necessary to support this... But this is not the way to do it...
 
Steve Reichenbach said:
Besides posting to other forums, it may be effective to email those who have previously reviewed Parallels, especially comparative reviews with competitive products and especially those published on major news outlets, suggesting an update or story about this.
This is my suggestion to Parallels (if they are continuing to read this thread):
Apologize and reverse the action, allowing the previous number of CPUs and RAM until the next version (i.e., Parallels 13), for which this limitation can be properly advertised. Otherwise, offer the choice of a refund or a free change to the Pro version.
I do believe that there is a basis for charging consumer fraud. It is a classic bait and switch fraud, except that it is done months later when it is too late to contest the purchase on my charge card. They sold me a product that was consistent with the previous version I had been using (with which I was using more RAM) without advertising this new limitation or implementing it in the software that they delivered for my purchase. Then, after the period during which I could have contested the sale, in the guise of a minor upgrade they take back the product I purchased and put an inferior product in its place. Also, it appears to be a willful attempt to hide this limitation in order to position the Standard product against a competitive product at the exact same price point but which does not have this limitation. As evidence of willful action, Parallels still hasn't presented this fundamental limitation in the version comparison or other marketing descriptions on their product webpage, even after the Company became aware that those who have purchased the software have complained.
It really is not about the money, it is about the way this has been done --- selling and delivering a fully functional product and then months later crippling that product via what appears to be a minor update without any advertisement or advance notice of a significant limitation.
Click to expand...
After wrestling with Support and (what I think is) their Management I asked for an immediate refund and switched to Fusion, so far so go. (see above)
I presented them with all your arguments and more. Still got the same spiel...no offer to make this right. No offer to upgrade to Pro at their expense...nothing. Within 30 seconds of demanding a refund, I got a : "Your order has been refunded ...will take 5 to 10 days..." e-mail.
Funny, Parallels is very efficient and does a masterful job processing refunds rapidly. I still don't have my money back, but it seems like they at least have that down pat...My license was also disabled immediately , even though the full refund hasn't completely processed yet...geez..this never ends. So, if you're hosting Win10, make sure you "cmd.exe: shutdown /s /t 0" your vm before shutting down a disabled Parallels, other competing products will need a properly shut down vm to import your stuff. :cool:

I alluded to a consumer protection agency action earlier in this thread, I (like you) believe this to be consumer fraud.

Good luck.
 
The current version of the product page states "16 vCPUs and 64 GB vRAM" without regard to product edition (Standard or Pro). That certainly could be regarded as a material misrepresentation. [https://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/, accessed 18 November 2016] In terms of fraud, it would be interesting to see internal communications on this issue, including marketing strategies, e.g., obtained by subpoena.
 
I too have been worried whether I would have any problems bringing up my bootcamp with other VM software if I accepted a refund, so I indicated in my most recent communication that I would regard only a restoration of the previous support for CPUs and RAM as an acceptable solution and explicitly reserved my decision on whether I would accept a refund or "upgrade" to the Pro edition. At this time, if Parallels does not restore the original functionality to the Standard Edition, I am inclined to switch to another vendor before accepting a refund. If I shutdown my VM normally, should I be able to bring it up easily with a competitor's product?
 
As a long time customer of Parallels Desktop, I have paid for all updates except v12 so far. I was waiting for my new MacBook Pro and was planning to upgrade to 12 (and 12.1) when it arrives next week.
However, I am now following this fiasco to see if Parallels steps up and removes the limitations in 12.x. I will jump to VMware if Parallels does nothing. (WMware: any good upgrade offer?)
 
Another long time customer here. I downloaded the minor update mid-week and started up the VM this morning to find this new limitation. If that had been listed a benefit of Pro I would have considered that when updating and likely gone Pro as Parallels is critical to my work.

Thankfully I was able to downgrade to the previous version using Time Machine, but freezing paying customers out of functionality that they've been using for years and pointing to obscure pages in the manual for justification doesn't fly with me.
 
Last edited:
Steve Reichenbach said:
Besides posting to other forums, it may be effective to email those who have previously reviewed Parallels, especially comparative reviews with competitive products and especially those published on major news outlets, suggesting an update or story about this.
This is my suggestion to Parallels (if they are continuing to read this thread):
Apologize and reverse the action, allowing the previous number of CPUs and RAM until the next version (i.e., Parallels 13), for which this limitation can be properly advertised. Otherwise, offer the choice of a refund or a free change to the Pro version.
I do believe that there is a basis for charging consumer fraud. It is a classic bait and switch fraud, except that it is done months later when it is too late to contest the purchase on my charge card. They sold me a product that was consistent with the previous version I had been using (with which I was using more RAM) without advertising this new limitation or implementing it in the software that they delivered for my purchase. Then, after the period during which I could have contested the sale, in the guise of a minor upgrade they take back the product I purchased and put an inferior product in its place. Also, it appears to be a willful attempt to hide this limitation in order to position the Standard product against a competitive product at the exact same price point but which does not have this limitation. As evidence of willful action, Parallels still hasn't presented this fundamental limitation in the version comparison or other marketing descriptions on their product webpage, even after the Company became aware that those who have purchased the software have complained.
It really is not about the money, it is about the way this has been done --- selling and delivering a fully functional product and then months later crippling that product via what appears to be a minor update without any advertisement or advance notice of a significant limitation.
Click to expand...
I will be willing to participate in a class action suit, please contact me if you need me.
 
Thanks for adding your viewpoints to this discussion.
For those users, who are concerned about this update limitations, please send me a private message on the forum.
I will be happy to review your use cases, licensing information and follow up 1:1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top