What happened with the Chat rewrite?

[Kjell Iver Johansen]

20 minutes ago, InsideEdge said:

From cometchat's website...

 

Yes there was a hook we used for integration already a few years back

I used it a month or so before we abandoned it. 

[DesignzShop]

I guess if it has to get replaced personally I would like to see a solution that's available to all. An additional 129.00 will cut a lot of people out imo.

Regards

[DesignzShop]

If a reasonable priced solution couldn't be found how about just eliminating chat all together and let the third party handle it completely. I really don't think it's fair towards theme developers to expect them to put that kind of money out either. Of course no one has to put that money out but if you don't then you're not covering all the IPB applications. Thus the reason I say just eliminate chat all together and not have it as an IPB application but instead a third party program entirely or keep it proprietary.

Don't like to see it go, use it with my clients and have used it several times in the past weeks. Comes in useful for me anyhow. Tough call here.

[NoGi]

Any updates?

[Sorus]

Ugh, I have zero interest in CometChat and neither do my users.

[MADMAN32395]

4 minutes ago, Sorus said:

Ugh, I have zero interest in CometChat and neither do my users.

So instead of saying zero interest, what are your pros and cons? give a reason(s), make a counter argument. Instead of just being 'that guy' and saying "nope, dont want it."  #ChangeIsntAlwaysBad 

[Sorus]

1 minute ago, MADMAN32395 said:

So instead of saying zero interest, what are your pros and cons? give a reason(s), make a counter argument. Instead of just being 'that guy' and saying "nope, dont want it."  #ChangeIsntAlwaysBad 

Not entirely keen on relying on a third party outside of the Client-Provider relationship we have with IPS.

[m@t]

Cometchat or Arrow chat are the best & cheapest offers for such chat features to website systems as IPS or tons of others and you have plenty of features in this software

The IPS chat has stopped in time years ago and is more than out of time - and also to expensiv what you get for it

[Wayne B]

@Lindy

Any update on this please? Its a while since you said we would receive an update.

Thanks

[NoGi]

@Lindy, has this progressed any further?

[Buschiq]

Also wondering, this is a key feature for my community

[NoGi]

On ‎31‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 10:51 AM, Lindy said:

I'll have more info this week or next. As it stands, we are currently discussing a partnership with Cometchat. 

@Lindy it's been a tad longer than a couple of weeks, are we going to get an update on what's happening or can we assume that a chat replacement\rewrite is dead in the water now?

[Lindy]

The intent was to replace our chat with Cometchat. Since then, I've had a lot of feedback pushing against this and towards other alternatives or overhauling our own. So, we're taking some time to consider our options. 

[NoGi]

1 minute ago, Lindy said:

The intent was to replace our chat with Cometchat. Since then, I've had a lot of feedback pushing against this and towards other alternatives or overhauling our own. So, we're taking some time to consider our options. 

Thanks for the update. I thought the majority of feedback here was for rather than against cometchat though?

[Lindy]

This isn't our only source of feedback. Further, the majority were for Sparkpost too, however, that has not bitten us as deliverability is awful as is the feedback. We just need to make sure we do the right thing and unfortunately, you'll need to be patient a bit longer. There's nothing wrong with the current chat solution and if you're interested in moving to something like Cometchat right away, they do have a fully functional app.

[Daniel Turner]

I'd much prefer a well thought out chat update than a quick push to cometchat - absolutely. I have no problem with chat as it is - having used it since 2012 in various roles and suites. It suits our purpose. Multiple rooms and other things are interesting additions - but not necessary, in my not so humble opinion. As well as we don't have a decrease in quality, it still thematically appears like the site rather than being a noticeably different service, and carries rank colours and so forth over, what else does chat truly need?

Although you (Lindy) have said that Invision isn't particularly interested in continuing or upgrading the chat side of things since you are busy with other aspects of the suite, I genuinely think the service is unique as it is, and already well functioning and doesn't need a lot of work. Sure, there are a couple settings we could do with, but in the grand scheme of things, IPB Chat is what keeps me on this service and what keeps my admittedly small site with you guys. Moving to another provider wouldn't be enough to make me want to switch of course, but I just want to throw my voice in as one of the minority that enjoys the chat service as it is - frills and all.

[Lindy]

Thanks for the feedback, Daniel. I actually don't think suspect you're in the minority. From the feedback I've gotten via PMs and tickets about this, I think more gravitate towards us keeping chat as-is than moving to another solution. We may have underestimated the community value of chat. Of course, if we continue chat, we would need to modernize it a bit. It will never be as feature-packed as Cometchat, so if that's one's goal, I would urge you to consider going directly to Cometchat. I think we could add a few things people have asked for though, such as multi-chat support. 

[Joel R]

For the public record, I don't use IP.Chat and thus I'm rather indifferent to the decision making and product development of this app.  But I'm curious about the following:

1. Specializing in Chat - I personally believe IPS already offers applications that it doesn't actively develop, so does it really need to retain yet another first-party app that it doesn't actively develop?  To be clear, I'm not questioning the passion of the admins who DO own IP.Chat and couldn't imagine their communities without it.  But I do think those same admins should open their mind to the possibility of utilizing a third-party service that's branded and integrates well, and allow IPS to focus on its other applications while allowing a third-party company to specialize in chat.  It combines the integrity of two great companies to offer a better and more feature-rich community.  Furthermore, IPS already utilizes a number of third-party services in the community.  I'd like to point out that none of us have stopped using the editor in IPS 4 because IPS is now suddenly using CKEditor.  I actually appreciate the fact that IPS isn't trying to build an editor from scratch, allowing it to focus on its other core competencies and allowing CKEditor - which specializes in the editor AND does it very, very well AND has built a whole ecosystem around the editor over years of development - to form the basis for the IPS editor.  The same thing could happen for IP.Chat.
2. Features of Chat - Some admins apparently think rank bars are the most important features of a chat system.  That's fine if you're using IP.Chat on a micro or small scale.  But in the years that I've been with IPS, I've seen a passionate number of admins request over and over again additional features to chat, and chat has never been updated.  I'd like to point out to admins who DO like the simplistic IP.Chat that moving to a full-featured chat service doesn't diminish or take away your simplistic usage, but it DOES allow more advanced admins with more demanding usage to take advantage of features that are comparable to other chat services.  Your rank bars will still remain, but there can also be so much more.
3. Community Value of Chat - In all the years that I've read through product feedback, I agree that IP.Chat is one that's consistently and passionately brought up by admins.  As such, there's clearly a unique role for a chat service in the IPS suite and adds something to a community that many other forum builders don't offer.  However, I don't think the affection that clients have for a chat system should be confused with the affection for an "Invision Power"-version of chat.  Therefore, a better comparison is whether or not it's worth the resources of IPS development to develop less features in more first-party apps ("jack of all trades, master of none"), or strategically specialize in certain first-party apps while still offering the same full suite of solutions where every app has the chance to be best-in-class.  Ultimately, what clients want are the best solutions possible and as long as IPS delivers on that - regardless of who is delivering it on the back-end - is what really matters.

In the end, if IPS wants to keep IP.Chat as a first-party application as a solution for clients, then IPS needs to fully own it -- its development, its feature set, and its future.  If IPS can't step up to take ownership of the application, then I think it behooves IPS to seriously explore other strategic options as deference to years of client feedback regarding the app.

[Lindy]

That's something we need to gauge, Joel. To be clear, a partnership with a chat provider would not be like CKEditor. We would be hands-off beyond helping the partner with integration. You would sign up with them, pay them, be supported by them, etc. We're not interested in reselling service - that's not historically worked well for us. Many have expressed concern and would prefer IPS keep it in-house as an integral part of their community. 

Chat has not been significantly changed (other than a refactor for IPS4) since its inception and most seem ok with that. It's relatively low maintenance compared to other things we do, so I do think we can expend resources to freshen it up, however, I don't believe we would be interested in replicating the functionality of a full-on clone of comparable services developed by those who specialize in chat. Based on what's been given to me, I'm inclined to think in the case of chat, many are ok with a modern refresh and in cases where more robustness is required, they can drop in a dedicated chat app from an appropriate vendor. This is already possible. 

I agree, you can reach the point where you're a jack of all trades, master of none level. Chat is a unique circumstance. I would reiterate - we will not be doing a chat service with "all the things." There are existing services, such as Cometchat, that can already drop into IPS4. Our decision is simply whether or not to freshen up our own solution with the most requested functionality (such as improved moderation and multi-chat support) as a community supplement or to discontinue it and promote a partner service entirely. The pushback when I mentioned a partnership was largely based on many admins just don't want to deal with another vendor. Those that don't mind already can. 

[Kjell Iver Johansen]

Just a sidenote.

Many chatters are coming from the old IRC-channels - and are used to IRC commands. As far as I know IPS has also one IRC command -  "/me"

I would suggest that you implement more IRC commands, and specially command "/Invite".. I think that would be a nice feature! Also - mentions - with @ - so that you could mention onlye those people in the chatroom - and get notified when there...

[BradSmith]

Chat is fine as it is, with one caveat, on mobiles it frequently disconnects users. Wish it was more reliable on that regard.

 

 

[Wonster]

On 10/28/2016 at 7:42 PM, BradSmith said:

Chat is fine as it is

Another caveat: chat users get disconnected when navigating away.

Telegram integration would be nice. I don't know how this integration would work or if it's possible, but I have a scenario:

• members can choose to connect to Telegram during community sign in or in their account settings;
• members can set in their account: phone number (not shown to others), groups, contacts
• members can chat with each other if both accept (chat button confirmation)
• members have a contact list on their profile (not public)
• ACP group permissions