Copyright Links (2.2+)

[Mat Barrie]

Hi there,

I remember that for versions after 2.0, the "IPS, Inc" part was not a hyperlink to IPS' site - from what I recall you did that because some of your customers are webhosts - who, of course, cannot be seen to link to their competition (just as you do not).

However, I notice that you've linked the "IPS, Inc" portion again, meaning that you are again expecting webhosts and related organisations to be providing a link directly to a competing service.

Might I enquire as to the reason behind this decision, or rather reversal of a previous decision?

[.Sephiroth.]

EDIT: NVM.. I am noticing this as well, IPB 2.x had it, but IPB 2.1.x doesn't, and IPB 2.2.x does. O_o

I'm curious as well. O_o

[stobbo]

Wouldn't Copyright Removal solve this?

[Mark]

Yes, but it's very unlike IPS to go back on a decision. There must be a reason

[Brandon C]

I agree, I've noticed this too and it's quite odd. :blink:

[Luke]

Interesting because the "Invision Power Board" part has always been linked to "http://www.invisionboard.com", even on my 2.1 installation.

[princetontiger]

How would that be competing? If your service is good and your customers are loyal, you shouldn't have a problem.

[Mat Barrie]

Yes, J

[Quillz]

And why was "Powered By" added?

[stobbo]

Yes, J

[Mat Barrie]

A business could afford $275 though, the primary group who could not would would be home users, who have no reason to not want the copyright there.

No, Stobbo, not at all. Every business decision must be quantified in terms of cost vs. benefit. For a (web hosting) business, the options available are: Invision Power Board, minimum cost of $424 ($149 + $275), against vBulletin at a cost of $180 (from memory) - meaning that by a long shot, Invision Board is not going to be considered as a viable option - vBulletin is nearly $200 cheaper.

As a webhosting provider (well, as a secondary business focus anyway) were I to make the forum solution decision today (as in, had I not purchased IP.Board at this time) I would be purchasing vBulletin, as IP.Board is not cost effective due to the additional costs required for viable use in an industry competing against IPS.

In general, when a supplier imparts services or products to a client as part of a business relationship, they are contractually bound not to make any attempt to solicit the services or business of clients of the receiving company. I'm sure it's unintentional, but from where I stand it appears that IPS is charging $275 for that agreement (copyright removal so that you may remove your competitor's links from your forum installation).

All I'm looking for is a statement regarding this, whether it is "Oh yes, that was a regression from 2.0 code, will be fixed in the next release" or "That was intentional" and if it was intentional, what reasoning was behind the reversal of the prior decision regarding this.

[stobbo]

No, Stobbo, not at all. Every business decision must be quantified in terms of cost vs. benefit. For a (web hosting) business, the options available are: Invision Power Board, minimum cost of $424 ($149 + $275), against vBulletin at a cost of $180 (from memory) - meaning that by a long shot, Invision Board is not going to be considered as a viable option - vBulletin is nearly $200 cheaper.

As a webhosting provider (well, as a secondary business focus anyway) were I to make the forum solution decision today (as in, had I not purchased IP.Board at this time) I would be purchasing vBulletin, as IP.Board is not cost effective due to the additional costs required for viable use in an industry competing against IPS.

In general, when a supplier imparts services or products to a client as part of a business relationship, they are contractually bound not to make any attempt to solicit the services or business of clients of the receiving company. I'm sure it's unintentional, but from where I stand it appears that IPS is charging $275 for that agreement (copyright removal so that you may remove your competitor's links from your forum installation).

All I'm looking for is a statement regarding this, whether it is "Oh yes, that was a regression from 2.0 code, will be fixed in the next release" or "That was intentional" and if it was intentional, what reasoning was behind the reversal of the prior decision regarding this.

Maybe a IP.Board wouldn't be for your business then, but business which host several thousand customers could afford $275 I'm sure.

[Mat Barrie]

Stobbo, you have the comprehension of a brick. As a Managing Director, I am required to ensure that all expenses are justifiable. When deciding on a forum, how am I meant to explain to the stakeholders that "I reckon this forum has better features, but it costed an extra $350 over the nearest alternative so we didn't have to have a link to the competition on it" - that's not a decision that I alone must face, as I CAN afford it - as can other companies that have the same decision to make. The difference is, can I justify it? The answer is, no.