If you have an authenticated copy, it stays authenticated until you reinstall it, for whatever reason.

Yeah. Most likely he already fixed it and just isn't releasing it because, Uh, I dunno, he's Q? Kind of bullshit when you consider the fact that myself and lots of others actually paid for the dam thing.

@Nocturnus, Hahahaha. Was it good back in the day? Just asking cause obviously using the official service or TWBlue is free. Did it stand out? Or was it the best, simply cause it was the only one? Also, how much did it cost while it was a thing?

Yeah, what 7 said.  I want to say it was originally 15 US dollars?  When it first launched it was exactly what I personally wanted so I felt it wasn't money thrown away.  Obviously, the service has outlasted the application, so it is what it is.

The website still says you can purchase it at least from what I saw. Not sure whether or not this is accurate but apparently you can still do it

@Nocturnus, well, I once had a pet. It was a very good pet, always behaving itself. One day, it went missing. That pet was a Chicken McNugget, and I ate it cause I was hungry. I was very sad...

Yup, very sad indeed. Not that I'd really expect any less from the likes of Q.
Something I find rather interesting, if chicken nugget was based off of qwitter's source code, and if qwitter was GPL, isn't the fact that chicken nugget is both closed source and paid technically illegal? Not that it matters, that ship has long since sailed, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Just adds to the long list of Q's sketchy decisions.

Erg, capslock being next to tab, sorry. Chicken nugget is original code.  I was in that circle for the development of it and used to have access to his private source repositories once upon a time.  Whatever else you might say about Q there wasn't code theft to my knowledge.  I can't positively attest that there wasn't code theft, just that I never saw it if there was, and that I was in the room for enough of the development that I can say with a  straight face that the effort put in was commensurate with him having started from scratch.

I have a lot of negative things I could say about Q and won't defend him in general, but I'm not sure why everyone gets so mad that products stopped being updated.  Every single product on the face of the earth stops being updated eventually.  If you're not allowed to stop updating stuff, then you can't make a profit unless it's a subscription service.  If his purchase page is still accepting payment, that's a problem, but not updating the thing anymore, especially since it not being able to work well is in large part Twitter's fault, I don't get it.

Everyone pays finite money around here, and expects devs to put in infinite effort.  Why should someone put in infinite effort for $20 per user or whatever it was when the userbase is so tiny that that $20 per user probably stopped rolling in a long time ago, and when the thing you're working with broke their API with the almost explicit intent of pushing third party clients out?  $20 doesn't buy you 10 years of maintenance or something, yet everyone here thinks it should.  Yes, being blind often means $20 is a lot of money, but it's time for everyone to re calibrate and realize that while $20 being a lot of money is a sucky place to be in, that doesn't give you the right to continually pull others down to your level and demand tons of work for it.

And god forbid someone launch a subscription service like Swamp for $20 a year, can't have that either.  I've got news for all of you.  Devs have the right to make money.

That said, Chicken Nugget was always buggy as hell, which was a problem, and I think he should probably have open sourced it, except that it was such a mess that no one would have been able to fix it I think.  So, I'm not defending the product, in the end.  It got to the point where it'd just freeze for 30 seconds sometimes just because for a lot of us.  But I can't even begin to describe how irritated this entitled "I bought a thing for $20, therefore it must be maintained forever or the dev is an evil person" mentality is.

if there was some specific incident where he made a promise and broke it that's different, but every time this comes up no one actually says that, so this is news to me.  Believable news, but news nonetheless.

@21
He's still accepting payment for it even though you can't authorize it?

I mean, it at least ties with that time we all helped him get funding for NVDA remote under the understanding that it'd be open source and then he decided to keep the server closed source just because.

I want to be clear: I'm not defending him in general.