Rated 1 out of 5 stars
offering a free converter that costs a sh*t ton of money in the end. thank you. i had enoughThis review is for a previous version of the add-on (220.127.116.11-signed).
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
Interface is very user unfriendly. There are better alternatives.This review is for a previous version of the add-on (18.104.22.168-signed).
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
It's a wonderful application from the start . Its easy to use and quick . Very useful in my daily needs . The best thing is , that it works even on the sites many other softwares don't . It might be my most used add-on on firefox .This review is for a previous version of the add-on (22.214.171.124-signed).
LOVE IT! Rated 5 out of 5 stars
Current version took a little while to get used to, but it's still great.This review is for a previous version of the add-on (126.96.36.199-signed).
Good product - gone bad Rated 1 out of 5 stars
Once a really good respectable product, now virtually totally useless. Talk about money grabbing. Nobody minds donating, some give, some dont (its the nature of things). But greed my friends turns all things sour. A pity as I really enjoyed using it with firefox. Now Im lookin' for another alternative.This review is for a previous version of the add-on (188.8.131.52-signed).
Nice plugin Rated 5 out of 5 stars
I really like this plugin, its works for me.
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
Ooooh :-( fatal.... la versión anterior era super, esta se cuelga, cuelga el equipo.....
Ojalá la reparen pronto !!!
Ruined forever Rated 1 out of 5 stars
This was a good and usable plugin until a few months ago and suddenly a whole different thing replaced it.
I have not been able to download a single video since then.
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
I have read the developer's description, and a lot of positive and negative reviews.
I am not very expert at computers, but also not ignorant of their functioning.
I have downloaded this add-on and used it for some time.
1) It looks like a stable, powerful, thoroughly complete program. To give you an idea, it's the only video downloader I have ever met that supports porn sites. This feature can be very, very useful lol ;)
2) They try to more or less directly drive users into purchasing some program/converter/I-dont-even-know/what.
The program can be perfectly used without buying anything, and works great.
As for item 2), I think few things are as stupid as expecting good things for free. What is the problem if they try to gain money? Good programs (as well as videogames, and any media) SHOULD cost money. It would help serious developers, and screw sharpers and non-serious people.
I have the version 184.108.40.206, I can't know about complaints on earlier versions.
Looking at the 1-star reviews, I believe much of those are genuine, and not trolling.
As for me personally, I would gladly pay $3 or $4 to have an even more refined program. Drop-down menus and UI are, at best, ugly to the eye, to be sincere. And even the buttons on the top bar.. there's some awkardness to them (they are 2.. ). All in all, this program is a rare example of things that work better than they look :)).
It seems developers are ignoring this plugin Rated 1 out of 5 stars
It has been reported so many times that the addon still doesn't have the support for 1080p (HD) version of youtube video like some very VERY previous versions. Developers kept adding (useless) features to benefit their own business. They worried about putting a Donate button instead of fixing already existing problems.
They introduced also an "adaptive" version of videos which can't be disabled and it's always on top of the list; someone could say that you can re-order this list but it's not completely true since some adaptive version will remain ALWAYS on top of the list. Why can't it be disabled? Because in this case they could add a way to promote other paid softwares (i'm referring to the one you HAVE to use to convert these adaptive videos). Adding to this, every video has an unbearable watermark QR code on the upper left corner, all linking to the page where you can actually buy their converter.
It was a very excellent addon, but its creators apparently became obsessed by money.
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
This is gold. I'm downloading videos like a madman.This review is for a previous version of the add-on (220.127.116.11-signed).
Lots of crap Rated 1 out of 5 stars
I should be offended by your reply to my questions about your crappy little piece of spyware, disguised as a video downloader, but 'm not. Actually I'm pleased because this way you people showed your true faces for once. I can also assure you that I'm not a competitor, not even related to one ! I'm just an (ex) user that questions some of your program's features ! Your aggressive reply suggests that I'm not all wrong having doubts about it. If this makes me a troll then so be it !This review is for a previous version of the add-on (18.104.22.168-signed). This user has 2 previous reviews of this add-on.
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
Excelente, sin palabras para describirloThis review is for a previous version of the add-on (22.214.171.124-signed).
Seems Reasonable Rated 5 out of 5 stars
Re-edited and updated on 8-16 2015
Hello 'Add-on' DLH Personnel.
Thank you all for Download Helper.
If, for anything else., I want to express my appreciation for having the use of your DLH.
Amongst other features..,
I can access downloaded HD media files from my storage drive, rather than having to include the Internet's additional load on the CPU and other components during a the process.
Real heavy file content found in HD media files with 4k resolution and wide screen configurations can be quite relevant for some of us with older machines.
HD puts a once, unavoidable strain, on my dual core CPU. With 2 x 2.53 Ghz on board, HD streams are able to run well but my CPU is throttle-locked with the "pedal to the metal."(the limit) This is a consistent pattern when viewing YouTube files, for example.
With DLH 4 or 5, than concern is gone.
By simply downloading the HD content first, which is done in just a tiny fraction of the time it would take to view it, I can execute the file from a media player, tinker with the player's settings, etc, and play that same HD file with a fraction of the CPU's resources. In my case, showing a 75% reduction in processor load.
Maybe downloading isn't always the convenient mode of media viewing if your PC is a later model with some muscle. That's fine.
It sure saves the lifespan of an older machine. Like my, Dell Precision M4400.
I've considered getting the fastest dual core in it's compatible class for an upgrade which would increase the dual core's Ghz rating to a 2x 3.06 Ghz.
Unfortunately., With $$$ in, M.I.A. status.., It will have to wait.
Meanwhile... No concerns for the CPU upgrade because there's a alternate solution to a temporary problem..,DLH.
This can be in itself, a REASONABLE consideration to factor when defending legal aspects of media downloading.
Having access to transferable media that's able to be sorted at one's practical convenience.
This is by far, is the appreciated result of DLH's functionality.
For all users.
Imagine reading a book that couldn't be reviewed, studied, or simply re-read at a later date.
Although, I haven't had the experience of utilizing DLH's full potential at this time, I have countless media downloads,
accumulated over time., Made possible with the DLH.
For me, nothing less than an essential tool, worthy of continued support.
5 Stars, without question.
Here's a tip using DLH.
Did you know for example...
If your NOT enjoying the best internet connection due to others on the same router?
Getting in the habit of downloading your media choices from whatever sources you browse on, like say, YouTube., as apposed to "streaming" the content. Which in this case, hogs too much headroom from your internet providers bandwidth allocation. This is the primary cause for having poor Internet speed which triggers download buffers, etc.
Why waste this headroom for the rest of your router connections.As explained earlier, system resources also get taken for the ride.
The smart way to handle precious bandwidth demand is this...
Simply logged off your browser and watch the downloaded file from your media player as also mentioned above.
This will free up your available internet bandwidth access for not only yourself, but for others too.
Having to "share" the connection from a router with one or more computer users is no joke. And as for many, not an uncommon situation by any means.
The idea of "download and delete" practice is an effective way to truly "share the signal" so to speak, with all users in mind.
This means the others must do the same as you, as a rule.
All you need is enough drive space to handle whatever your downloading at the time.
iPhone's and tablets alike can be an issue because of storage capacities. Efforts can be made if the user can adapt to the need and clear a reserved download space on their device.
With a group cooperative for bandwidth in place.,
I can tell you, with five RJ45's inserted in my own router box, handling this kind of multiple user demand in this fashion is essential. Not to mention, very effective.
Sometimes, we as a group forget this agreement and quickly realize the fix. This method is a form of discipline to some degree., And does without doubt, require cooperation as a group conscious.
Keep in mind, this can only work if you or the others don't give in to the temptation to download more than one file at a time, circumventing your group sharing confidence to commitment.
I noticed after about a week in my home, the gradual cooperation getting traction, as we made curtain attempts to catch the careless or indifferent.(like teenagers)
Enforcement via citations may not be your solution to the chronic violator but it served me enough to get the ball rolling.
This, after continued disregard of the problem.
Fortunately, we're now all on the same page as a group, seeing the noticeable difference in accessing and downloading media when you really want it.
Because we've addressed this resource as a group, our unnecessary net demand habits are more considerate on only taking what we need and leaving the rest. Peak usage can still occur but happens far less frequently on the bandwidth threshold.
No more buffering complaints is the result, proving we've gotten past the issue from our efforts and keeping the cable bill in the 2 digits area. When the others manage to catch me as the "violator," I get dishpan hands for my deviations.
Ironically, on a similar note...
What caught my attention here is this undercurrent of dis-respectfulness towards the DLH patch team doing the code re-writes and the developers themselves of DLH.
Observations of buggy code and non-functionality are expected and likely encouraged which helps address the beta feedback needed to put the finishing touches on the new version.
But there's some (not all) out here that have to take their expectations personal.
Any alcoholic can tell you, "expectations lead to resentments"
But the Alcoholic has an excuse. A disease of the mind and body, etc.
For those who criticize and go on the "above and beyond."
(like this review, lol" better tread lightly here.) might want to consider their actions as potentially destructive to the cause.
Getting this app up to the standards of it's own developers is the goal in mind for most DLH's user base. Not fielding conspiracy suspicions over data mining protocol that disseminates your porn choices with spyware.
And if it were to be true that this app is some insidious, post Snowden tool to spearhead an intrusive privacy operation that you've implied, I would bet that were all suspect for something. Taking interest for the worst of the intelligence community is futile, Not to mention, hypocritical.
The money's on that you're going to swallow it because DLH is too good to delete.
As I can believe that there's more to disclosure than meets the eye, I'll use the app anyway. And not pass out pacifiers for those in desperate need to suck.
Ever heard the expression,
"Never look a gift horse in the mouth?"
Well.. you've heard it now.
In closing on this hemorrhoid of a subject.,
There are informative reviews out here that get the label of negative and yet, they seem to be on solid ground, providing specifics to the issue with neutral attitude.
Well done to those concerned. They're immune to the following..,
After reading numerous review comments, I felt a bit disgusted by hostile input remarks, emanating from one in particular.
A very brief and snotty review submission,
An internet "Drive By shooting," if you will. Wtf?
Since it likely spawned from a 10 year old who knows how to clear a bios., I won't consider my acronyms a parental guidance concern and put in my opinion on this latest version's, user review reactions of DLH 5.
Outside of the negative reviews that share an honest account regarding valid issues and questions to the contrary,
These following comments go to the Phisher-Price section of this site.
It's this intention that can hopefully, shed light on the obvious for some... And yet, for the few.,
I can only address what appears to be a simple case of
a juvenile's lack of capacity, leading to the misplacing, if you will, "blatant entitlement complexes," aka "King Baby Syndrome," and joining league with the unreasonable, and judgmentally apposed.
OMG... Did I actually just type that? lol.
(as if there actually was a place for misplaced blatant entitlement issues. LMAO.
Although.., It does seem to work for me... :)
Moving along... lol.
Other than the fact that one may see some layout changes in DLH 5, it has improved navigation and features that take the initial time to get familiar with.., As I gather.
The layout can be returned to it's original appearance as stated above.
At minimum, if I haven't offended you, or especially if I offended you.., (sorry)
I recommend reading all the positive reviews here about DLH 5 which share in some examples, relevant discoveries, fixes, workarounds, and oversights, we all may have missed in the task of relearning DLH's new appearance, etc. It will address the confusion for many.
Taking notes helps us all and fattens your tool bag with easy referencing when needed.
And compared to the former version, IT'S STILL FREE of mandatory fees for those who want the freedom to proceed in using it as intended. An add-on, media down-loader tool FOR EVERYONE'S CONVENIENCE.
And yet., I sense that means there's some that may have problems with the watermark. Yes, there's some obstruction in the upper left corner and you can see it from a distance.
Be happy it's not placed dead center.., lol.
Which would be a problem for all.
For those of the self-untitled variety, why not avoid the ADP files all together?
Notice ADP files are the highest quality file choices in the download field? This is why there's an inserted watermark in the content.
Non-ADP files do not contain the watermark and carry no annual watermark removal fee.
Granted., HQ content is always the desirable choice, if available., But not absolutely necessary.
If your a home-spun, multi-media editor, and expect the best media quality in all cases, (which is understandable).,
Is the annual fee to have access to the best ADP files such a burden?
Consider that most mp4 files are analog/digital, aka A/D. which means they where made using an analog source for input, and producing a digital output. (copy) of the original source. Without technical manipulation, they can only look as good as the analog source. HD or not.
My point is selecting a lesser resolution for downloadable A/D type content addressing a redundancy in oversampled media that doesn't benefit from the higher format.
You'll have more storage left on you drive without a noticable loss in HQ.
If you're not sure, try comparing the two bestfiles in their class. One ADP v.s. one non-ADP or the highest resolution in the list.
I found an unnoticeable difference in most cases.
Depending on the up loaders abilities to keep the content as clean as possible. Making this comparison can illustrate how 'Much To Do About Nothing,' applies here.
And save some space on you hard drive as well.
If one hasn't noticed., Home editor, or maybe your just a download hound., Being able to take your liberty of choice for media sources is a regulated privilege.
An example of this scenario might read like this...
Under the basic understanding of a "personal use only" Agreement(s), You agree to use the product under the terms implied, yada, yada, and comply (I hate it it when I have to comply. lol) with to the fore-mentioned, IF the installation button is pushed... etc.
This verbage is imposed by virtually every form of media editing apps. out there. That is, apps. that aren't rouge in nature.
Handling downloaded media that I didn't produce, I tend to follow the REASONABLE approach.
1. Captured-acceptable., 2. Downloaded-acceptable.,
3. Archived-acceptable., 4. Uploaded-Questionably Acceptable., 5. Edited-Questionable., Altered -Unacceptable., 7. Stream Cast - Unacceptable, Launch Uninstall-System Crash Bot, etc, etc.,
IMO, DLH's features are tools of trust.
As I feel unrestrained with content choices. Digital quality is REASONABLE for free.
This optional cost for the best content quality is a fair tradeoff for the most part and certainly not a shakedown, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill. The horror.....
I personally, am not accusing any reviewer, user of DLH, or particular individual, here on this site, of actually being involved in any misuses mentioned above. A sense of gratitude might be helpful.
What is implied here is taking it frigging easy on the providers that never received payment in the past for services rendered.
The water mark, I can only assume, does a few things:
1, helps prevent the misuse of licensed material with some level of compliance to copyright.
2, Provides a compensation percentage to licensed content owners, collected from the annual service fees generated, if paid into.
3, Helps keep DLH acceptable from a legal perspective, without being diminished in court rooms for it's capacity to do what it does best., Download media for personal access. freedoms of uses are a luxury, not currently found elsewhere. Protections can be coped with.
4, Of course., It best serves as a reminder that we're watching HQ without having paid for watermark removal.
Apparently, Things are not getting adequately funded for this app., For whatever reason
It's safe to say, understandable., From both sides of the issue. The User/Potential Consumer - The Product/Provider/Support
Knowing that 99% of the human race felt, and still feels, the ever-reaching effects of the"So called" Recession.
And yet., If concerns like these fuel one's discontent to the changes with DLH. This discontent may be misplaced, as
well. Give it some thought.
DLH user(s) like myself and others who've installed and applied this app. can't deny they would miss it if it were discontinued.
If you live in the U.S, it comes down to this...
We I realize that we, as consumers, have been fleeced and picked over from house and home, not to mention, pocket and country. It's left an indelible mark.
That being said.,
Prejudging or pounding your fork at the diner table won't fly here. Those who providing a free, open source, improvement to work-rounds should be praised. In this case, Mozilla browser Enhancements.
Take any disappointments you harbor and turn it into opportunity, Cash on hand or not, write your review, express your thoughts, contribute to the improvement of DLH and see what surfaces. Your support for the real people you recognize that put this all together, since it's arrival...
It's something to feel better about, at minimum.
There is still a very high percentage of people who aren't even aware of this type of add-on. they marvel at that fact that you can download just about anything your into.
As I read and feel the intent of the watermarks purpose, It's clear that DLH providers need some income, plain and simple,
Who can say they don't?
And who want's to pull teeth over it? Trying to squeeze out some compensation for what's already, a recognized success.
An important application for us to benefit from.
Support translates into voluntary donations of any sum.
I feel the an annual payment for HQ file access is best spent when you calculate how many YouTube-type files are stored on your storage or external drive.
Would it not be REASONABLE to offer what you feel is some amount of monetary gratuity?
After all., having some sense of gratitude is REASONABLE when using DLH at our disposal.
Deeming it's freedom of uses as a "rightful cause to debate" is not, and shouldn't be of concern.
At least, not on this site.
BEING ABLE TO SURVIVE AND SUSTAIN ITSELF IS THE RUB here, so to speak.
When DLH is suggesting they're hungry too, and asks for a nominal annual fee for their the best media quality access, or for when their simply encouraging us users to kick down whatever sum we can live with for a donation.,
Be assured that it's helping more than just themselves.
Yourself, as a DLH user, can likely admit getting your monies worth, in the first two days of heavy download session.
Am I wrong?
Now add 362 more days left you can still have using DLH.
Appreciate the REASONABLE, people.
How many thousands of media files can one squeeze into a multi-terabyte drive in a years time? More that the time you have to do it.
Definitely worth an annual fee.
I think we all know in our hearts that the very attitude that one may foster, "Everything online should be thought of as cost-free.," is wrong. Not to mention, fuels the argument for corporate attorney's, grand-standing the case of apposition, regarding apps like these.
Thanks again, to mig, for DLHelper, and to all of it's contributors, attempting to sustain it's purpose.
I trust your organization is doing it's best and deserves to be supported as part of this nations cyber infrastructure,
Let alone, by it's users.
Seeing that bookstores are disappearing and other divisional aspects of current trends regarding self-education are on a constant attack from the, "only God knows who" clan. (and we have an idea who they are), It's becoming a grave concern for the silent,or should I say "muted" majority.
Accessing the internet is becoming thee singular lifeline to all things relevant. A dismal outcome, if you will., Risking our own sense of humanity.
Intellectual freedoms and communications could be a thing of the past. Sound familiar to the1940's?
Anyhow, before I continue to lose myself here..,
Keep up the exceptional work with DLH, knowing there's support from this side of the screen saver.
Support from me at this time, will have to be in the form of this lengthy review, containing my truthful endorsement to DLH, and actual user experience, thus far.
Any likely truths suggested regarding your support policies with watermark technologies and it's applications, in conjunction with my speculative assumptions of uses, are JUST THAT.., Speculative assumptions.
The numerous and likely intended uses I purposed in this review are based on commonsense, reasonable assumptions, and commonly known, international copyright laws.., and must be considered as either, partially, or completely inaccurate to any official mig. watermark uses documentation. and or policies, supported and governed by mig.
I hope my endorsements and watermark use assumptions, were not considered "off the mark" or misleading in any form. Making my point about licensing and copyright allowances in general was my intention and not a dictation of actual policy.
With all Sincerity,
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
This was a great product and suddenly became unusable. I was also greatly offended to read the makers dismissing complaints about their product, stating that anyone who writes a bad review is a troll and being organized by a competitor(its all there in the description page). Really? This is how you address complaints?This review is for a previous version of the add-on (126.96.36.199-signed).
This sucks Rated 1 out of 5 stars
Need to install a crappy converter.
Free version add watermark.
Nova versão Downloadhelper Rated 1 out of 5 stars
Downloadhelper antigo era perfeito (4.9.22). Há coisas q inventam se são perfeitas não tem o q melhorar. Ex: o clips. Eu sempre considerei este complemento o melhor do mundo, o "clips" da internet. Esta nova versão é horrível. Por favor voltem com o "Downloadhelper antigo (4.9.22)" Se for o caso mudem o nome dele e continuem com o atual se assim desejarem, deixem os 2 funcionando, uma forma democrática de resolver a questão. É muito triste ver o "perfeito" ser destruído. Estou procurando a 1 mês um outro aplicativo, mas nenhum se assemelha com a versão (4.9.22) do downloadhelper. Por isso vim aqui fazer este pedido, pois todas alterações de 2015 deixaram a desejar. Para mim, o antigo era completo!! Obrigada.This review is for a previous version of the add-on (188.8.131.52-signed).
Too expensive Rated 2 out of 5 stars
Purchase of watermark free version is TOO EXPENSIVE. Please bring down the price and you will see your sales soar. And yes STRIPE is much better than Paypal, but stripe is not available in many countries.This review is for a previous version of the add-on (184.108.40.206-signed).
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
WTF happened. Such a great addon and now it adds a black bar to the side of every video and a GIANT QR code on the top left corner. Fuck them and fuck this. I'm going to have to figure out a new way to download videos because this shit is certifiable junk.
EDIT: Just wanted to say this review was not "from a competitor" but from someone who had used this for years previous and was outraged that when I wanted to download a really beautiful video about the universe, there was this GIANT FUCKING QR CODE IN THE CORNER. Kinda ruins the vibe. Now they are saying that it's from a competitor and the review's aren't legitimate? It's dishonest and pathetic.
in the new interface errors and slowness. Rated 3 out of 5 stars
the new interface is very bad. clunky and slow. there is a problem in the file format options. disabled video format, again, in the show box occurs.
irregular new interface and slowness! errors should be corrected.