Jump to content

Crowdfunding Approach to Integrating Existing Plugins/Add-ons Into Core Product?


djpretzel
 Share

Recommended Posts

I perceive a potential problem with the IPS development model that I believe can be addressed equitably as follows:

  1. Developers create powerful add-ons that bring desirable functionality to the IPS suite
  2. In many cases, these add-ons are actually recreating functionality that is standard, OOTB in competing products like vBulletin, Vanilla, etc.
  3. While this is completely as it should be and represents a healthy mod community - in other words, exactly what you want - there's an inherent value in some of this functionality eventually making its way back into the core product. Why?'
    • Core functionality can be counted on and relied on by OTHER modifications/addons, enhancing the possibilities of what can be accomplished
    • Represents added value to customers
    • Market competition makes sense for some types of add-ons, but for others, unless they are eventually adopted into the core product, they don't end up reaching their full potential.
  4. To reward add-on developers who have developed code that is tested, functional, and presents significant added value but which IPS & the community believe would be best implemented as part of the core product, some sort of democratic process to crowdfund/kickstart an IPS "buyout" of the add-on in question, for the purpose of migrating it into the core, could be started.
  5. This way, the add-on developer(s) in question is compensated for their work, the IPS team can enhance the core product at a faster rate as some % of code for new features will come from the outside, and the IPS community can take a more active role in driving the enhancement of the product.

Addons are great, don't get me wrong, but to me they can sometimes thrive at the expense of the maturation & enhancement of the core product, preventing other types of cumulative addons from even existing.

I would imagine that the IPS team would only want to consider addons that met a general level of code quality, but assuming that's doable, I don't see the downside. Functionality provided by addons shouldn't serve as a barrier for that same functionality being added to the core platform, and this type of approach would ensure that it happens more equitably, more democratically, and (hopefully) more quickly.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think there are some great plugins/applications out there, I think IPS does a great job of listening to the community and implementing things that "make sense" or are useful to everyone who uses their products. A lot of 3rd party plugins/apps are only good for niche markets or only a few communities require. I think it is good right now to keep it as an option from a 3rd party source as it doesn't slow down IPS development or bloat a "simple" community.

There is a line in the sand that you have to draw as a software provider and say that this will handled by 3rd party devs as it doesn't follow what the majority require or there is a change in evolvement of the industry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think there are some great plugins/applications out there, I think IPS does a great job of listening to the community and implementing things that "make sense" or are useful to everyone who uses their products. A lot of 3rd party plugins/apps are only good for niche markets or only a few communities require. I think it is good right now to keep it as an option from a 3rd party source as it doesn't slow down IPS development or bloat a "simple" community.

There is a line in the sand that you have to draw as a software provider and say that this will handled by 3rd party devs as it doesn't follow what the majority require or there is a change in evolvement of the industry. 

​And you think they're drawing that line correctly, 110% of the time?

I think they do a great job, don't get me wrong, but I disagree that ANY team would be PERFECT in drawing that line, and having a process for filling in the gaps is exactly what I'm talking about.

By all means, if you think the IPS staff are superhuman, clairvoyant gods capable of reading the minds of their customers and extracting any & all existing and anticipated needs, clearly my suggestion is unnecessary...

I'm in the process of migrating from vBulletin to IPB 3.X, for instance. vBulletin has a pretty robust system for thread prefixes that allows them to be defined as sets, used on different forums, and it also keeps them separate from tags. In vBulletin-land, this is core functionality, and has been for years. In IPB, the OOTB solution is a co-opting of the tag system, allowing the "first tag" on the thread to be treated like a prefix. This is a cute and even creative way of re-purposing an existing system (tags) to play an additional role (prefixes), but it doesn't offer the same flexibility as the vBulletin implementation. There's an addon for this for IPB 3.X, and apparently it does a good job, but... should this be handled by an add-on? I don't think so. The vBulletin developers didn't think so. And we used the prefix capability on our community, so there's some additional anecdotal evidence if you needed any... If IPB is going to offer something THEY call "prefixes" at all, it should be a relatively robust implementation.

I've got faith in the IPS team as well, and they tend to make good decisions. However, no team is perfect, and how you choose to mitigate your imperfections w/ regard to delegation and creative alternatives can be quite critical. Your response seems like a knee-jerk "Don't criticize IPS, they ALWAYS get it right!!" type of attitude, to be honest... this isn't personal nor is it particularly critical, I just see missed opportunity and unfilled potential.

Edited by djpretzel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

​And you think they're drawing that line correctly, 110% of the time?

I think they do a great job, don't get me wrong, but I disagree that ANY team would be PERFECT in drawing that line, and having a process for filling in the gaps is exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm in the process of migrating from vBulletin to IPB 3.X, for instance. vBulletin has a pretty robust system for thread prefixes that allows them to be defined as sets, used on different forums, and it also keeps them separate from tags. In vBulletin-land, this is core functionality, and has been for years. In IPB, the OOTB solution is a co-opting of the tag system, allowing the "first tag" on the thread to be treated like a prefix. This is a cute and even creative way of re-purposing an existing system (tags) to play an additional role (prefixes), but it doesn't offer the same flexibility as the vBulletin implementation. There's an addon for this for IPB 3.X, and apparently it does a good job, but... should this be handled by an add-on? I don't think so. The vBulletin developers didn't think so. And we used the prefix capability on our community, so there's some additional anecdotal evidence if you needed any... If IPB is going to offer something THEY call "prefixes" at all, it should be a relatively robust implementation.

I've got faith in the IPS team as well, and they tend to make good decisions. However, no team is perfect, and how you choose to mitigate your imperfections w/ regard to delegation and creative alternatives can be quite critical. Your response seems like a knee-jerk "Don't criticize IPS, they ALWAYS get it right!!" type of attitude, to be honest... this isn't personal nor is it particularly critical, I just see missed opportunity and unfilled potential.

​No, I don't think anyone is perfect. The benefit of a 3rd party dev market is that devs can come in and fill that gap. Again what you see as a "major" issue is not an issue at all to another (like myself, the tag system works great for my community). So why should something be a default that may never be used? You have to remove yourself from the software/biases and look at it from all viewpoints.

No way do I think IPS always gets it right but at the same time (look at my plugins lol), I don't think voting and pushing IPS' hand this way will create a good product. There are these feedback forums to propose ideas and IPS will definitely consider them. Most of the time if enough people are behind an idea that makes sense, it is implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way do I think IPS always gets it right but at the same time (look at my plugins lol), I don't think voting and pushing IPS' hand this way will create a good product. There are these feedback forums to propose ideas and IPS will definitely consider them. Most of the time if enough people are behind an idea that makes sense, it is implemented.

​I think you completely misinterpreted my proposal; no one would be forcing IPS' hand, it would be coming FROM them... a process they coordinate, when looking at the addons out there, what people are asking for, and evaluating the best and fairest way to meet that need, when it happens to coincide with an existing addon.

How could that be problematic? If an addon maker doesn't want to participate, or sets a crowdfunding buyout amount that is too high, IPS doesn't even make the proposal to the community... it would be entirely internal until both IPS and the addon maker(s) involved agreed among themselves...

Let me spell it out again:

  1. IPS sees a fair amount of interest for a given feature, X, that is already being met by an addon, or sees potential benefits of integrating that feature into the core in order to support OTHER types of functionality.
  2. IPS approaches addon developer to see if they would be willing to proceed with crowdfunding/kickstarter to "buyout" the addon for inclusion into the core product.
  3. If the developer isn't interested or they can't reach an agreement on the dollar target, nothing happens. If they CAN, though, the process results in a crowdfunding effort where the IPS community speaks with their wallets and exerts their own monetary influence on getting new features included in the core.
  4. If there were enough candidates for this sort of approach, there could be a democratic/voting aspect to it, to prioritize which addons get crowdfunding attempts first.

So what's the downside for IPS? For addon developers? For the community?

To me it seems like a win-win-win...

Edited by djpretzel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

​I think you completely misinterpreted my proposal; no one would be forcing IPS' hand, it would be coming FROM them... a process they coordinate, when looking at the addons out there, what people are asking for, and evaluating the best and fairest way to meet that need, when it happens to coincide with an existing addon.

How could that be problematic? If an addon maker doesn't want to participate, or sets a crowdfunding buyout amount that is too high, IPS doesn't even make the proposal to the community... it would be entirely internal until both IPS and the addon maker(s) involved agreed among themselves...

Let me spell it out again:

  1. IPS sees a fair amount of interest for a given feature, X, that is already being met by an addon, or sees potential benefits of integrating that feature into the core in order to support OTHER types of functionality.
  2. IPS approaches addon developer to see if they would be willing to proceed with crowdfunding/kickstarter to "buyout" the addon for inclusion into the core product.
  3. If the developer isn't interested or they can't reach an agreement on the dollar target, nothing happens. If they CAN, though, the process results in a crowdfunding effort where the IPS community speaks with their wallets and exerts their own monetary influence on getting new features included in the core.
  4. If there were enough candidates for this sort of approach, there could be a democratic/voting aspect to it, to prioritize which addons get crowdfunding attempts first.

So what's the downside for IPS? For addon developers? For the community?

To me it seems like a win-win-win...

​Not to be facetious, but ... doesn't this already happen?  Doesn't IPS already evaluate all features, suggestions, add-ons and everything in between to find out what they want in the core?  

To spell it out for you:

  1. They do this.
  2. They don't do this, because they don't need / want to.  
  3. They don't do this, because they don't need / want to.   
  4. Charles holds a private quorum where they secretly vote on suggestions and ideas.  Nobody outside of IPS understands the process.  Democracy upheld!  

Some other thoughts from Joel:

  • This sounds, at first glance, like an amazing proposition... Crowdsource ideas!  Community building!  More trendy buzzwords!  Except, the more that you dig into it, you realize that the end goal of the process - which is for IPS to co-opt and self-develop critical and core features -- already happens.  The only thing that you're adding is the community's ability (and let's face it, screw the community, you're actually more concerned about YOUR ability) to influence and adjudicate over what you think should be included in a stock installation.  
  • The decision making of what gets included, I do agree, can become more transparent to active IPS customers. And by IPS customers, I really mean, me.  
  • I can understand the community crowdsourcing funds to support an app and I support making that easier for developers.  But, you can do that anyways without the involvement of IPS.  
  • IPS may not take any immediate financial risk in buying out the app since you're using other people's money, but they undertake major long-term risks for development and support.
  • Your process can lead to some very unexpected results.  You're correct that IPS may not 'correctly' adopt all the 'right' features all the time (however that's judged).  But is voting by majority the correct process?  We would end up with a community of IP.Apps for Social Groups, Tournaments, and Member Map all on a skin that does the Harlem Shake!  Yes, clearly the majority knows what's most important in building a compelling community.  

On a serious note, I'm not intrinsically against your idea.  I think you have some good elements (like crowdsourcing good ideas for developers and supporting a healthy modding community), but for IPS to co-opt certain mods and features is already a business process for them.  They rigorously evaluate and seek feedback through multiple channels.  (Actually, I could be lying.  For all we know, Charles throws darts at a board to decide what feature gets included next.  Oh well.)

 

By all means, if you think the IPS staff are superhuman, clairvoyant gods capable of reading the minds of their customers and extracting any & all existing and anticipated needs, clearly my suggestion is unnecessary...

​I've always envisioned Matt as Superman and Charles as Iron Man.  ironandsteel1.thumb.jpg.f4cc3271e4510bce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel has it right.

Proof in point, common request in 3.x was to easily add any content block to the board index sidebar. While a few mods were made to serve this need(including one of my own creation), that did do the job, they are as nothing compared to the inbuilt widgets and block manager of 4. IPS does incorporate critical functionality into the core, and they do listen, but they are not going to just adhoc re-release an existing modification. For one thing, they can do it better, cleaner, than we can hooking in. For another, it'd be unethical.

Edited by Marcher Technologies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the word "crowdsourcing" is not the most appropriate, as we're discussing much smaller amounts than the average, but in my experience, this is what often happens:

 

1- User a wants xx idea to be implemented and is willing to pay for it. He requests a quote (estimate)

2- Estimate is presented (not always, but often privately) by coder b.

3- User a asks around if anyone interested in the mod would be willing to chip in. Everyone says: "no, but I'd be willing to pay xx$ bucks once it's done." (yeah, right, me too, it's so easy once it's done!!) 

4- User a pays the full amount (only way to see the mod take off). Since coder can't sell any copies for the original production price, price goes down dramatically or mod is released for free (not much else the coder can do! this is perfectly understandable). 

5- User a needs another mod. (Go back to 1.)

6- User a goes bankrupt. :D (and has to turn to free BBs?)

7- User a would like to chip in to see some ideas get developed, but there doesn't seem to be a way to achieve this... 

 

I wish there was a mod like Michael's donation mod that would faccilitate some kind of mini-crowd sourcing to see smaller projects take off. Both the coding community and the comunity of IPB users would benefit from this...

Edited by Telemacus2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • To reward add-on developers who have developed code that is tested, functional, and presents significant added value but which IPS & the community believe would be best implemented as part of the core product, some sort of democratic process to crowdfund/kickstart an IPS "buyout" of the add-on in question, for the purpose of migrating it into the core, could be started.
  • This way, the add-on developer(s) in question is compensated for their work, the IPS team can enhance the core product at a faster rate as some % of code for new features will come from the outside, and the IPS community can take a more active role in driving the enhancement of the product.

Realistically, the unique "buy-out" costs for an add-on will be in the thousands for anything decent. IPS will not be able to use the code from the add-on "as-is", it will need to be re-written to their in-house specifications. Code written in all various ways will introduce many, many problems and it would not benefit IPS in any way. From a business perspective, this is a waste of money and time. It would be better for IPS to just create it themselves throwing the original developer to the curb.... which would surely do damage to the developer community.

Additionally, how much stuff do you intend to add before it's called bloatware? This sounds like you want anything and everything added that people want..... and since nearly everyone wants something different based on their use-case of the software you're going to end up with votes for almost everything. IPS will need to look at the "most wanted" add-ons and ignore the rest... and if you're going to do that, I see no difference between this and how IPS gathers feedback to decide what people want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love IPS and I'm pretty fond of this community as well, but I can't help but notice a very pronounced vein of defeatism/pessimism when it comes to change. There's an attitude that everything's fine, that the model that IPS are using is working, has always worked, and will always work, etc.

I guess I hope you're all right, because you're certainly quite sure that you are...

Edited by djpretzel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love IPS and I'm pretty fond of this community as well, but I can't help but notice a very pronounced vein of defeatism/pessimism when it comes to change. There's an attitude that everything's fine, that the model that IPS are using is working, has always worked, and will always work, etc.

I guess I hope you're all right, because you're certainly quite sure that you are...

​3 contributors replied. We are part of the group of people who have the most to gain by your strategy as we would be "bought out" and the 3 of us are against it. It's not that I don't welcome change, it's just frankly your idea just doesn't make much sense from the current way. Change shouldn't happen just for change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​3 contributors replied. We are part of the group of people who have the most to gain by your strategy as we would be "bought out" and the 3 of us are against it. It's not that I don't welcome change, it's just frankly your idea just doesn't make much sense from the current way. Change shouldn't happen just for change. 

​...and I'm not advocating change for change's sake, I'm making a specific case for the following:

  • The most popular third-party addons should, in a perfect world, being making a STRONG case - based on their popularity - for inclusion into the core, as they represent the features/capability that most users would probably have preferred been included in the core package.
  • In other words, the more popular an addon is, relative to the overall IPS userbase, the more of a case it ends up making against its own existence...
  • This argument may seem insulting or counter-intuitive to addon developers as it almost sounds like I'm holding their own success against them... I'm not. I'm saying they correctly identified functionality that IPS omitted that is of general interest.
  • Again, in a perfect world, IPS would have SOME sort of process to "buyout" the plugin & integrate it - not just the CODE, but also the IDEA. Even if IPS completely code something from scratch that does the exact same thing, this would be a way to compensate addon developers while at the same time eliminating the continuing need for that specific product of theirs, as it is now part of the core.
  • In this way, the core can continue to grow not only up, but out... even as more and more functionality becomes a standard part of it, eliminating the need for certain types of addons, there will be possibilities for entirely new types of addons based on this cumulative new base of additional features.
  • In the absence of ANY process whatsoever to deal with this problem, it just seems to me that IPS avoids implementing some very good candidates for inclusion in the core product suite "because there are already addons for that" - ignoring the inherent benefit to customers AND developers were at least SOME of those features merged in.

That's not change for change's sake, that's trying to address a problem I perceive as real & actual. You may doubt that the problem is really a problem, but you shouldn't doubt my intentions.

Edited by djpretzel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the absence of ANY process whatsoever to deal with this problem, it just seems to me that IPS avoids implementing some very good candidates for include in the core product suite "because there are already addons for that" - ignoring the inherit benefit to customers AND developers were at least SOME of those features merged in.

​Well made point. Things should not be taken off the table as an option for core inclusion simply because "there is a mod for that"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The most popular third-party addons should, in a perfect world, being making a STRONG case - based on their popularity - for inclusion into the core, as they represent the features/capability that most users would probably have preferred be included in the core package.
  • In other words, the more popular an addon is, relative to the overall IPS userbase, the more of a case it ends up making against its own existence...

​Just because a 3rd party add-on is popular doesn't mean it should always be a part of the core system. Putting all the popular add-ons in the core system will just make it bloat-ware, as said above. Where do you draw the line?

A lot of the arguments that you're attempting to make already happen anyway via the feedback forum(s). Just instead of a client coming forward, asking for it, you want IPS to come forward with it "already approved" and have clients vote on it. If IPS thinks it's a good idea, why shouldn't they just implement it? 

This just seems like a very odd way to go about things. If the current feedback system is "broken", I don't think this is a way to fix it.

Edited by ForeverPontiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do understand 4 was all about stripping the bloat, right? They didn't need our help to make 3 bloated. As a result, there is a critical eye on what is truly needed by the majority, and the resulting software is based on literally years of feedback. I think you seem frustrated by advanced tags and prefixes not being core. Most people don't need all that. Some would take it even further than he does as a custom thing. Core is not supposed to grow up and out into some sort of monster. It is supposed to serve the majority of needs while allowing the modifications to serve the rest. You want a monster with everything under the sun baked in, go use wordpress or something, I like having a clean base to dev off of, which we have in 4.

Edited by Marcher Technologies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popularity is not reason enough to have a feature included. The software needs to remain a neutral platform and a lot of popular features are niche.

What if a developer has a add-on that sells well and he/her enjoys developing it? People are now calling for integration... what choice does the developer now have but to except to accept whatever compensation IPS comes up with and leave?
 

​...not just the CODE, but also the IDEA.

​You cannot buy an idea. A lot of these "idea's" have been made in the past and made by developers for other software. The only thing they can buy is the rights to the code, which as I said earlier, is not beneficial to them.

This system puts strain on IPS. You've taken away their ability to evaluate what features they want in their software. IPS will never be able to rid itself of "crowdfunded" features because from the moment they are purchased, customers will expect them to be in all future releases as they were bought by the community. Removing them will result in backlash (and they already get that whenever they remove one of their own features). As Marcher said, 4 was about getting back to basics, questioning everything and building a new platform to build from.

Edited by BlistDev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popularity is not reason enough to have a feature included. The software needs to remain a neutral platform and a lot of popular features are niche.

What if a developer has a add-on that sells well and he/her enjoys developing it? People are now calling for integration... what choice does the developer now have but to except to accept whatever compensation IPS comes up with and leave?

​Popularity alone may not be reason enough, but it's a pretty good indicator. Better in some ways than the feedback IPS solicits & receives from this community, because I believe it represents larger numbers. I have absolutely no idea what you think a "neutral platform" is, and I think that's part of the mentality I'm trying to suggest is problematic - software like IPS isn't "neutral" - it needs to grow based on the changing needs of customers AND what is being offered by the competition to remain relevant.

What I was proposing was that IPS might be able to find a mutually beneficial way to handle the integration of functionality currently being offered by an add-on into the core. Nothing at all is stopping them from simply copying the functionality verbatim and putting the third-party developer out of business, at least when it comes to that product. However, they're good people, and I also think they see a popular add-on and just assume that everything is as it should be - the need is being met by the marketplace, etc. I'm sure SOME of the time that's completely true, but it seems like ALL of the time it's what happens - an addon, even a free one that does something VERY basic, pops up, and whatever that addon/plugin/tweak is accomplishing is forever banished to the realm of things IPS won't consider for the core.

I completely agree that not EVERY popular addon should be merged into the core; that's not what I was saying, but at any rate, I agree that it's not possible or desirable for that to happen. What I AM saying is that SOME of them should be, especially the ones that are free, popular, and trivial, or that have been around a long time and address very blatant deficiencies in the core product's functionality, as opposed to adding completely new functionality.

Advanced Topics & Prefixes is a great example, frankly... vBulletin offers much more robust prefix functionality OOTB and has for years, IPS has something they CALL a prefix that's just a glorified tag, and the IP Converters can't even migrate thread prefixes from vB because of this disparity. If IPS decided that prefixes were something that made sense for the core product - which they DID - they shouldn't have done a half-assed implementation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Advanced Topics & Prefixes is a great example, frankly... vBulletin offers much more robust prefix functionality OOTB and has for years, IPS has something they CALL a prefix that's just a glorified tag, and the IP Converters can't even migrate thread prefixes from vB because of this disparity. If IPS decided that prefixes were something that made sense for the core product - which they DID - they shouldn't have done a half-assed implementation.

​Make a feedback topic about this directly then?

What I was proposing was that IPS might be able to find a mutually beneficial way to handle the integration of functionality currently being offered by an add-on into the core. Nothing at all is stopping them from simply copying the functionality verbatim and putting the third-party developer out of business, at least when it comes to that product. However, they're good people, and I also think they see a popular add-on and just assume that everything is as it should be - the need is being met by the marketplace, etc. I'm sure SOME of the time that's completely true, but it seems like ALL of the time it's what happens - an addon, even a free one that does something VERY basic, pops up, and whatever that addon/plugin/tweak is accomplishing is forever banished to the realm of things IPS won't consider for the core.

​Oh, let's see shall we? Of my own 3.x offerings, I can name at least 2 that are made irrelevant, superseded or very reduced in functionality due to 4.

Database Forms and Widget Kit both did something that is now core functionality, proof in whole that the above is very much not the case.

Please note, I am not at all bitter about that, I was filling a void in functionality, to see that void filled allows me to get on with doing what I needed said mod for in the first place. If the sales from the addon weren't enough to cover my development time on it, I would assume I am doing something wrong... No 'buyout' is needed for IPS to implement it better in their own way, they provided me the opportunity to make money off of such in the first place and that is enough.

Edited by Marcher Technologies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Make a feedback topic about this directly then?

​Oh, let's see shall we? Of my own 3.x offerings, I can name at least 2 that are made irrelevant, superseded or very reduced in functionality due to 4.

Database Forms and Widget Kit both did something that is now core functionality, proof in whole that the above is very much not the case.

Please note, I am not at all bitter about that, I was filling a void in functionality, to see that void filled allows me to get on with doing what I needed said mod for in the first place. If the sales from the addon weren't enough to cover my development time on it, I would assume I am doing something wrong...

​I should, and I will.

When I browse the marketplace, though, I still find myself running into things that just strike me as more "addressing a longstanding oversight of the core product" than "catering to the more specific demands of a niche audience" - there's a line, but I actually don't even think it's THAT hard to draw, and to tell the difference. Do you?

I'm glad to hear that this has happened, even if some of your own products were affected. What I was proposing was a way to potentially offset that impact a bit, when IPS want to do something that has that effect on existing products. If you think that's a bad idea, you've obviously got experience from the developer side that I don't. All I see is a % of addons that have been around for years that are more in the "addressing nerfed functionality of core product" category than the "expanding on the amazing capabilities of IPS"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​When I browse the marketplace, though, I still find myself running into things that just strike me as more "addressing a longstanding oversight of the core product" than "catering to the more specific demands of a niche audience" - there's a line, but I actually don't even think it's THAT hard to draw, and to tell the difference. Do you?

​It honestly shouldn't be as hard to draw as it is in this community. :D

I've learned to choose what I release a lot more carefully, oftentimes the greatest clamor for xyz functionality will have little to no actual interest upon and long after release.

A few can make a lot of noise here. At one time, I was one of those few, even playing champion of the people. XD I tend to think with a more level head now, thankfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I may do is to hire someone via the "custom projects" - after my Europe trip.

Teaching me how to make plugins / widgets apps via a remote session - so I can learn and make things myself in context with the underlying concepts and design frame work of IPS.  I have a bookshelf full of php / sql books but they just don't help in working or understanding the methods used on IPS.

If I get some proper training may encourage me to release something to offset the project costs, or may even offer the recorded sessions, perhaps to spawn others to wade into the fray. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I may do is to hire someone via the "custom projects" - after my Europe trip.

Teaching me how to make plugins / widgets apps via a remote session - so I can learn and make things myself in context with the underlying concepts and design frame work of IPS.  I have a bookshelf full of php / sql books but they just don't help in working or understanding the methods used on IPS.

If I get some proper training may encourage me to release something to offset the project costs, or may even offer the recorded sessions, perhaps to spawn others to wade into the fray. 

​If you do that, and record those video sessions, I'll chip in $50 if you make them available to the rest of us :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want the ability to resize bloody images properly. Would do anything at all to make that happen.

​In the context of this discussion... let's say we need a set of features like this. 

Scaling, resampling, watermarking and adding effects to say make the thumb B&W or something.

Where would this fall in this discussion? 

Could/should this be a Mod, or is something like this a feature that should only be added by IPS to the core product?

I am trying to understand the limits of Mods vs. Core functionality (of if there is any)

 

 

 

Edited by socceronly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I may do is to hire someone via the "custom projects" - after my Europe trip.

Teaching me how to make plugins / widgets apps via a remote session - so I can learn and make things myself in context with the underlying concepts and design frame work of IPS.  I have a bookshelf full of php / sql books but they just don't help in working or understanding the methods used on IPS.

If I get some proper training may encourage me to release something to offset the project costs, or may even offer the recorded sessions, perhaps to spawn others to wade into the fray. 

​I hit this same wall. 

I can sit down and program some pretty involved stuff in PHP and JS.  But when I try to understand these systems and how to contribute to them I think I would rather perform self surgery with a spoon.   I just can't get over that wall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...