Back to forums

Warning - do not buy Voyager

Starkeeper Voyager Starkeeper Voyager Advanced
Arun HDark Matters AstrophotographyJohn HayesAstroRepublicChris White- Overcast Observatory
•51 replies•3.2k views
drmikevt avatar
drmikevt avatar

You have been warned. There are many, many reports online about the behavior of the developer, Leo. This is another. Look at the email exchange below and tell me if you think he seems normal. Does this sound like how you’d like to be treated as a customer?

Me: Hello

I need a license for the Viking installation below

Leo: Hello

the support service has expired for your Viking license.

You can continue to use Viking where is installed. To ask anything else about you must have the support service renewed

Me: Leo

Thank you, but that is not what your website says. It does not say anything about not being able to get a new license. All it says is that I can no longer get support or updates, but that is not what I'm asking for. Please honor your own information and give me a new license to use on the new computer above.

Leo: Hello

the support service has expired for your Viking license.

You can continue to use Viking where is installed. To ask anything else about you must have the support service renewed

Me: Why are you not honoring the terms for Viking on your website?

Leo: Stop insulting me, otherwise I'll protect myself in another way. I don't owe you anything, the support has ended, and you can continue to use the license for as many years and millennia as you want on the PCs on which it is installed in the version you installed. The rest is support and is your responsibility. Stop writing things that aren't true and behave civilly.

Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar

I wouldn’t put up with being treated that way by a vendor. I’d switch to NINA and push on down the road. I can’t see that Voyager offers anything special.

Well Written
Arun H avatar
Arun H avatar
I went to Voyager's website and it has this text:
Your Voyager's License is perpetual - it never expires.

The license entitles you to:

1) Three installations on three different PCs owned by you (not shared with others). If you want to use Voyager on an additional PC, just install the software on it and send us an email with the new serial number. You will then receive a license file specific to that device, which you can install using the same process as on the first PC.
2) Program updates and support for one year.
3) Two telephone calls by Skype or WhatsApp including a TeamViewer session in which we can assist you with setup and initial use.
4) Two telephone calls by Skype or WhatsApp including a TeamViewer session for one year , in which we can assist you in the creation and check of DragScript scripts for advanced automation.


The key part is: "Three installations on three different PCs owned by you (not shared with others). If you want to use Voyager on an additional PC, just install the software on it and send us an email with the new serial number. You will then receive a license file specific to that device, which you can install using the same process as on the first PC."

So it seems to me that, as long as you are limiting yourself to three PCs or less, the website's own terms suggest you don't need to renew support to install it on another PC - the license is perpetual and the website itself says to send an email with the new PC serial number to get a new license file. Which suggests your interpretation is correct and the devleoper is not following the terms he has clearly communicated.

This is just one of a long list of issues. It is why I never switched to it and I know others that did switched to other software.
Helpful
andrea tasselli avatar
andrea tasselli avatar
The guy should be sued for breach of contract's terms. It would serve him well.
Daemon de Chaeney avatar
Daemon de Chaeney avatar

People like that usually got that way because customer behaviour in one way or another soured their disposition over the years, and now they take it out on anybody they think they can get away with, exercising whatever petty power they can muster. This is the generous interpretation anyway. Some folk, like me, are just misanthropic.

If it really annoys you, go see a law firm, have them make your demands, including compensation for having to spend money on a law firm and compensation for your time.

If you don’t care that much, walk away, and make sure everyone knows why.

Me? I’d go option one, then option two in series and maybe a bit more as well, but as I said, I’m a touch misanthropic whereas you seem an OK person.

Arun H avatar
Arun H avatar
Daemon de Chaeney:
Me? I’d go option one, then option two in series and maybe a bit more as well, but as I said, I’m a touch misanthropic whereas you seem an OK person.


Since the renewal price is €29, I don't know that it makes much sense to go through litigation. So the better option is 2, which the OP seems to have taken.

If the developer really did have a bad experience with a customer, it really doesn't make a whole lot of business sense to take it out on large sections of customers. I mean, the attitude of "My way or the highway" only works for a business as long as they have something that a large section of the customer base absolutely cannot do without, which most definitely is not the case here. There are choices that are far less painful and don't require you to pay a fee for bad service. Or indeed, pay a fee at all!

Aside from this, I suspect one underlying issue is revenue stream. For software, ongoing revenue comes from subscription fees paid by the existing customer base, unless you can somehow find a constant stream of new customers. That probably isn't the case here, since there are other capable options available. Hence, the developer is attempting to force existing customers to pay a subscription fee even where the terms and conditions do not seem to require it.
Georg N. Nyman avatar
Georg N. Nyman avatar

In your first statement, it does not say, that you have less than three installations, which would entitle you for a license - you may use your software in up to three installations of your own.

Does this mean, you wanted a license for a fresh installation exceeding three existing ones? If so, Leo is right - you first need to buy a full license and then you are entitled for support for one year.

Next aspect: For me, your first email request is not really friendly - too short and too sharp formulated. In Italy ( in France, Switzerland and Austria especially), it is a matter of politeness to greet friendly, say please and thank you… if you would address me like you did, I would be annoyed (IMO) as well.

And - the 29Euros or Dollars - what is the problem…just pay that small amount and you get what you wanted, support for one year.

Quinn Groessl avatar
Quinn Groessl avatar

AstroStew · Oct 11, 2025, 10:12 AM

I assume that you paid for the software and installed on your PC, and then over a year later you want to put on another PC, in Which case the support has ended. And they want you to pay for another years support, which would be correct, as you need the support to get the new license for your second PC, so if you are going to use on another PC you need to do it while the support is still active. 🤔

If this is correct then the vendor is correct and within his rights

In that case they should give you the 3 license codes you’re paying for right away. Now if he’s trying to add it to a 4th PC and not using it on an older one, then I would agree with you.

According to the website, you get 1 user and up to 3 PCs. and it says “Perpetual license - never expires” then right under that is the 1 year of support bit. It shouldn’t be a support issue to get your license codes. It should be as simple as logging on to an account. Either way I’ve heard enough bad things about them on here and Cloudy Nights that even if NINA was payware I wouldn’t even consider Voyager.

Arun H avatar
Arun H avatar
Georg N. Nyman:
And - the 29Euros or Dollars - what is the problem…just pay that small amount and you get what you wanted, support for one year.


The amount really isn't the point. Yes, it is small. It is more about being very clear when you pay something what you are getting an what you are not getting. If, after a year, I need to pay to put a third license on a PC, I really prefer to know this ahead of time.

Me: Hello

I need a license for the Viking installation below


I really wouldn't characterize this request as rude, lol, it seems quite professional, and someone who is a business owner needs to be cognizant that customers from different cultures would have different styles. Being customer focused means putting your customers first. But may be the OP would have had better luck with something like the following:
Dear Mr. Developer,

I really and truly appreciate your enormous and invaluable contribution to the field of astrophotography. You are awesome and every day that I wake up, your contributions come to mind and I feel small and tiny.

I know this is a huge intrusion on your time, but may I, please, request that you provide me one additional license? For this unwarranted intrusion, I am paying you the amount of $290. If you feel this amount is too small, please let me know what I must pay and I will happily pay it. If this is too much of an intrusion on your time, please keep the $290 as a small token of my appreciation for your contributions and I will make do with the license I have.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of using your software!

Sincerely,

etc.
Thomas avatar
Thomas avatar

I agree with some of the statements above. One you haven’t provided enough information about what your case is. Are you attempting to install on more than three machines? Two, like George said, you came off very rude to begin with and I can see why they are being rude in kind. Doesn’t mean they are right to do it as you are the customer, but kindness goes both ways. I would never expect a business to bend over backwards for me if I was sending them correspondence like the above.

Georg N. Nyman avatar
Georg N. Nyman avatar

Arun H · Oct 11, 2025, 12:36 PM

Georg N. Nyman:
And - the 29Euros or Dollars - what is the problem…just pay that small amount and you get what you wanted, support for one year.



The amount really isn't the point. Yes, it is small. It is more about being very clear when you pay something what you are getting an what you are not getting. If, after a year, I need to pay to put a third license on a PC, I really prefer to know this ahead of time.

Me: Hello

I need a license for the Viking installation below



I really wouldn't characterize this request as rude, lol, it seems quite professional, and someone who is a business owner needs to be cognizant that customers from different cultures would have different styles. Being customer focused means putting your customers first. But may be the OP would have had better luck with something like the following:

Dear Mr. Developer,

I really and truly appreciate your enormous and invaluable contribution to the field of astrophotography. You are awesome and every day that I wake up, your contributions come to mind and I feel small and tiny.

I know this is a huge intrusion on your time, but may I, please, request that you provide me one additional license? For this unwarranted intrusion, I am paying you the amount of $290. If you feel this amount is too small, please let me know what I must pay and I will happily pay it. If this is too much of an intrusion on your time, please keep the $290 as a small token of my appreciation for your contributions and I will make do with the license I have.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of using your software!

Sincerely,

etc.

To your first point: If you read the conditions, it is clear, that you need to pay again for support if you want something after one year. So don´t complain, read the conditions.

To your second point: You can´t mean such a “request email” serious - obviously you just don´t get what it means to be polite and friendly.

No further comments on my side, it seems to be waisted time.

Arun H avatar
Arun H avatar
Georg N. Nyman:
To your first point: If you read the conditions, it is clear, that you need to pay again for support if you want something after one year. So don´t complain, read the conditions.

To your second point: You can´t mean such a “reguest email” serious - obviously you just don´t get what it means to be polite and friendly.

No further comments on my side, it seems to be waisted time.


Hello George, the OP was actually being polite. He said "Please" and "Thank you" initially. Not sure what you are expecting. As noted, I won't make any further comments from my side either, but I have a thing against being treated rudely after I pay for a service. 

Please see the exchange below:
Me: Hello

I need a license for the Viking installation below

 

Leo: Hello

the support service has expired for your Viking license.

You can continue to use Viking where is installed. To ask anything else about you must have the support service renewed

 

Me: Leo

Thank you, but that is not what your website says. It does not say anything about not being able to get a new license. All it says is that I can no longer get support or updates, but that is not what I'm asking for. Please honor your own information and give me a new license to use on the new computer above.
ScottF avatar
ScottF avatar

It seems to me that perpetual license means you can install on up to 3 PCs indefinitely, and he’s not asking for support or the latest version. If you’re a business owner or anyone dealing with the public, the tone and content of the final response are poor. The phrase, “I’ll protect myself in another way,” strikes me as hostile and possibly a threat. I’m assuming what is posted here is truncated for brevity, but the switch to openly hostile is puzzling.

Willem Jan Drijfhout avatar
Willem Jan Drijfhout avatar
Voyager/Viking licenses are actual files that are PC-linked. So new PC means new license-file, means request for support, means paying for support. Could the website be more clear on that? Absolutely. In today's world where almost all software is by subscription, developers that don't go with this trend go to great lengths emphasising that their software is 'perpetual' and in this case perhaps a bit too far.

If you buy Voyager, you know that this is a commercial product with pricing up there with the likes of TheSky, Prism, SGP, MaximDL, etc. A voluntary annual support fee of somewhere between 20-25% is not unreasonable. Btw, you miss very little if you decide not to, and just pay the support fee once when you upgrade the PC after a few years. If you do that, and you look at the cost averaged out, the support fee becomes almost negligible.

This is clearly a communication that went very sour, the OP is clearly angry and I'm sure Leo is equally frustrated. It looks like cultural differences and language barriers further complicated things. But at the end of the day we're talking here about a €15 fee for installing on a new PC. To publish a post in the community with the title 'Warning - Do not buy Voyager' seems a bit harsh.  

I am using Voyager and am every day impressed by how well it supports automated imaging, how smart it is, how stable it is and how flexible you can work with it. Perfect? By no means, no software ever is. I'm no active participant on their forum anymore, as like others have noted, the communication challenges are sometimes just not worth it. But the software is a solid piece of work that I could recommend to anyone who will be relying a great deal on automation in the imaging workflow, for example in remote settings.
Well Written Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Jim Waters avatar
Jim Waters avatar

Tony Gondola · Oct 10, 2025, 04:30 PM

I wouldn’t put up with being treated that way by a vendor. I’d switch to NINA and push on down the road. I can’t see that Voyager offers anything special.

I second Tony’s comments above. I have had simular experiences with him when I was evaluating Voyager. Move on and migrate to NINA 3.2.

Jim W.

John Hayes avatar
John Hayes avatar

I’m always amazed that amateur astronomers think nothing of taking a personal disagreement like this public with virtually no regard for the kind of trouble they could get themselves into. Whether or not Leo did the right thing, he clearly stated that he feels that the OP has made false statements. Expressing frustration is one thing but in my view, the OP has gone way beyond that. I’m not an attorney but the OP should clearly understand the definition of libel:

“Libel is the publication of writing, pictures, cartoons, or any other medium that expose a person to public hatred, shame, disgrace, or ridicule, or induce an ill opinion of a person, and are not true.”

In my view, the title of this thread and the statements made by the OP are walking dangerously close to a line that could draw legal action.

And don’t think that it can’t happen. A number of years ago a guy on CN got pissed off by the moderation and proceeded to visit some dark-web, hacker site with what he thought was an innocent question. He wondered what it would take to have CN DDOS-ed? Somebody took him seriously and CN got knocked off line for nearly a week. A month or so later, our hero answered a knock on his door to find the FBI standing there with a search warrant. They caught him dead to rights and as I recall, he ultimately spent around 3-years in prison and had to pay a substantial fine along with reparations. He lost his job and the aftermath was devastating. Even the CN owners were shocked by the scale of the penalty but the sentencing guidelines are very rigid for this sort of offense.

It seems crazy for such a small industry but it is VERY competitive and lawsuits happen all the time over stuff like this in the world of amateur astronomy. If you want to complain, make sure that you back up your comments with fact based evidence. Second, you are allowed to have opinions but make it crystal clear that they are your personal opinions. False declarations that hurt someone’s business can get you into seriously deep hot water. Finally, don’t make it personal. DO NOT attack someone by name. If you don’t like a policy, make sure that you clearly state what the policy is and why you think that it might not apply to your situation. You’ll get further by negotiating in private that by posting an angry screed on a public forum.

John

Chris White- Overcast Observatory avatar
Chris White- Overcast Observatory avatar

I have experienced a similar situation with the developer. I was within my license period, and after upgrading the software would not launch. I could roll back to a previous version and it would work fine. I asked Leo for help, and he extremely rudely told me that it was my problem and that I should buy a new computer. When I called him out for this, he told me that we are “not friends” and basically told me to piss off. I asked a friend who is very computer savvy and he found that the updated version of Voyager required some windows file to be installed and after doing so it worked fine. It turns out that this type of windows upgrade is supposed to be packaged with voyager (or at least inform the user in the installer)… or something like that. The entire exchange was brutal, I could not imagine talking to a customer this way, or even treating another human being this way. I vowed at that point to never give him another dollar. This was 1 week after I had paid him 400 euro for voyager target scheduler, etc!!!! And I had been a voyager user since 2016, so this was 8 years into using the software. Unbelievable, to be honest. I still use it (expired license) and fully plan to switch to something else when the time comes for whatever… most likely NINA since there is such a large community of users. I’m sorry the OP had this experience, but having been on the receiving end of Leo’s behavior… I cannot say that I’m surprised. Buyer Beware.

Andy 01 avatar
Andy 01 avatar
I love Voyager. It just works, every time, all night long, 100% reliable. Brilliant software. smile
Jim Waters avatar
Jim Waters avatar

Andy 01 · Oct 12, 2025, 06:28 AM

I love Voyager. It just works, every time, all night long, 100% reliable. Brilliant software. smile

Maybe true but the developer needs to take some ‘people skill classes’.

Jim W

Julien T. avatar
Julien T. avatar

Hi,

The responses received by the OP don’t surprise me. I have also received similar responses.

I had reported him a few bugs (in a very polite manner). I even sent them the steps to reproduce them each time.

His responses were along the lines of:

- It's because you're using the software incorrectly.

- There's a problem with your hardware.

- Etc.

I continued to use it for a while, as these bugs were mainly annoying in certain cases.

But I finally switched to NINA after discovering one last bug that could have caused damage to the telescope.

I still kept the software installer just in case. But given the OP's message, I imagine I can get rid of it.

ckrohm avatar
ckrohm avatar

I am not a Voyager user but a professional in the IT business.

Two things:

a. The website lacks a legal notice or impressum. It states the business is in Moncalieri (TO) , Italy.

Depending on your legal form and for any business or freelancer (libero professionista) based in Italy you must clearly show:

  • Full name or company name

  • Registered office address

  • Contact details (email; a phone number is recommended)

  • VAT number (Partita IVA)

  • REA number (if registered with the Chamber of Commerce)

b. Regarding the issue of the Viking license.

The website states that it will issue up to three licenses once installed. But it is important in what order is being stated on their website.

  1. It goes from installation on up to three different machines.

  2. Then email the serial number.

  3. Then support kicks in.

So the website does not state if supports starts with date of purchase or date of issuing the first license.

If I would be the provider I would be more specfic.

a. Start date of support

b. And clearly stating if the licenses must be issued within a certain period i.e. while a support period is current.

It is very ambiguous as there are no clear rules. But I could understand if the developer limits issuing the licenses within the support period. They must be more precises in their website. And yeah, get the legal notice and terms and conditions for your businesses and licensing crystal clear. You have to do this in the European Union.

Helpful Insightful Respectful
Quinn Groessl avatar
Quinn Groessl avatar

John Hayes · Oct 12, 2025, 01:51 AM

“Libel is the publication of writing, pictures, cartoons, or any other medium that expose a person to public hatred, shame, disgrace, or ridicule, or induce an ill opinion of a person, and are not true.”

The key part being the last 4 words of that quote. OP has said nothing that’s not true (that I can tell) and the title of the post wouldn’t have anything wrong with it legally.

For instance, I could make a post saying “Don’t buy SiriusXM radio”. They suck. And they’ll threaten collections the minute they don’t get their money. That’s backwards of almost any other streaming service, and they’re a terrible company that I won’t even use my free trials for anymore.

Chris White- Overcast Observatory avatar
Chris White- Overcast Observatory avatar

Sharing personal experiences and public reviews of products and services is completely normal. The parallel with hacking into a server to disrupt business operations is absurd.

Well Written
Arun H avatar
Arun H avatar
@John Hayes - I would agree with Chris here. First Amendment rights in the U.S. are very strong. People share reviews about businesses all the time, bad experiences and good. If lawsuits could be filed every time someone posted a bad review or a bad experience, there would be no review sites. Amazon would shut down its product reviews and so would Google, Yelp, etc. 

The reason libel suits typically don’t work against product reviews is because truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the person posting something can back their claims with evidence, that ends the matter. In this case, the OP presumably has evidence of actual communications. on the other hand, if they completely made it up, it becomes a very different issue. The other situation in which someone can get into trouble is if posting an experience violates another agreement, such as non disclosure. For this reason, states such as California explicitly prohibit businesses from inserting things into their TOS that would bar people from posting factual experiences in the form of reviews. In the US, the posting of honest experiences is protected both by anti SLAPP laws at state level (though not all states have such laws) and at the Federal level by the CRFA. 

The CN case was very different - an obvious criminal act was conducted. Attacking an Astronomics server or a CN server is quote different from posting an honest experience - it is a criminal act.  That is why the FBI was involved. All that said, there have been threads on CN and on AB, not having to do with products, where I thought people were subjected to slander. That is something we have to be cautious about. You could certainly sue for that.


FYI, here are the details of the CN case from the DOJ:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdok/pr/california-telescope-enthusiast-sentenced-prison-cyber-attack#:~:text=%22%20Evidence%20further%20showed%20that%20DDoS%20attacks,that%20night%20and%20continued%20intermittently%20until%20the
Helpful Respectful Engaging
John Hayes avatar
John Hayes avatar

Arun H · Oct 12, 2025, 12:53 PM

@John Hayes - I would agree with Chris here. First Amendment rights in the U.S. are very strong. People share reviews about businesses all the time, bad experiences and good. If lawsuits could be filed every time someone posted a bad review or a bad experience, there would be no review sites. Amazon would shut down its product reviews and so would Google, Yelp, etc. 

The reason libel suits typically don’t work against product reviews is because truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the person posting something can back their claims with evidence, that ends the matter. In this case, the OP presumably has evidence of actual communications. on the other hand, if they completely made it up, it becomes a very different issue. The other situation in which someone can get into trouble is if posting an experience violates another agreement, such as non disclosure. For this reason, states such as California explicitly prohibit businesses from inserting things into their TOS that would bar people from posting factual experiences in the form of reviews. In the US, the posting of honest experiences is protected both by anti SLAPP laws at state level (though not all states have such laws) and at the Federal level by the CRFA. 

The CN case was very different - an obvious criminal act was conducted. Attacking an Astronomics server or a CN server is quote different from posting an honest experience - it is a criminal act.  That is why the FBI was involved. All that said, there have been threads on CN and on AB, not having to do with products, where I thought people were subjected to slander. That is something we have to be cautious about. You could certainly sue for that.


FYI, here are the details of the CN case from the DOJ:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdok/pr/california-telescope-enthusiast-sentenced-prison-cyber-attack#:~:text=%22%20Evidence%20further%20showed%20that%20DDoS%20attacks,that%20night%20and%20continued%20intermittently%20until%20the

Arun,

This isn’t a free speech issue—and it’s not about any objection to product reviews. My problem here is that the OP didn’t post a product review. He provided virtually no background—just one email thread. He didn’t say how many installations he had or how many PCs were involved. He didn’t say when he last paid for support nor did he cite the actual support policy or even compare it to what other companies do. Instead, he posted an angry response to not getting his way in what appears to me, to be an effort to hurt Voyager’s business. The title says it all: “Warning—do not buy Voyager.” If he’s unhappy with the support policy, he could have built a case and made a post specifically about that issue rather than attacking Leo on a public forum. The OP clearly feels wronged but I can see that Leo believes that he is “writing things that aren’t true…” and that’s a problem. I am particularly bothered by the fact that so many people are falling for this as a “product review”. It is not and that’s why I pointed out the hazards of making this kind of post. I personally think that the notion of so-called “free speech” allows anyone to say anything they like for any reason at all on the internet—no matter how outrageous has been incredibly damaging to the rational exchange of ideas in society. This kind of nearly fact-free post done under the guise of a review has the sole purpose of stoking outrage and I disagree with the way that it was done. It’s not going to get the OP what he wants, it spreads inuendo, it damages the reputation of a company, and most importantly, it sets a bad example for how to handle issues like this.

My reference to the events on CN certainly isn’t directly relevant to this situation and I pointed it out merely as an example of how illegal conduct or committing libel on a public forum can turn into legal action. In this particular case, I don’t know how close to the line the OP may have come but I wouldn’t bet that a motivated attorney couldn’t turn it in to something. Turning a personal grudge into an attack on someone’s business is not how a product review should be done and that’s what this looks like to me. Behind the scenes, I’ve been involved as an expert witness in legal cases in this industry so I’ve seen what can happen when businesses feel threatened and it’s not good. So, feel free to ignore my advice, but it’s risky to think that you can do anything you like online—particularly if your intent is to cause damage to a business.

John

Well Written Insightful Engaging
This topic is closed to new replies.