Rοb

lol @ -rep for posting honest feedback, nothing new there I guess.
The point of this thread is to provide feedback. Just because someone doesn't agree with it doesn't mean it's not appropriate, or deserves -rep.

Is the software decent? I can't say, its only been a few hours , but it does look decent.

Is the support acceptable? From what I've experienced (so far), not in the slightest. If putting something in the 'wrong department' (which it wasn't) means it's going to get delayed 12+ hours, then perhaps those understaffed departments need more staff, or people need to think outside of the box, and stop listening to ticket systems as to when to help someone.

Anyways, the feedback's been left. No, it's not an unreasonable expectation to want tickets answered same business day at all, especially when one is a new customer.

One feature of Vbulletin that I miss are links to moved threads that expire automatically after x days. Would be nice to see that as part of IPB

The $25 ever 6 months for standard, $30 per year for perpetual, and nothing for lifetime isn't just support. It includes access to the resource site which is considered a service. I never said that I wouldn't be willing to pay something as a lifetime license holder. But their current reasoning is not justified. Either give it to all license holders, or don't. It's is simple as that. I hope you can understand now.



Thanks Matt. I await your answer :).

I think it was around $150 when yearly licenses were about $60. I know I paid $200 or more for my lifetime license when it was available. I don't recall the exact amount.

But as I said before, it's not about what you paid for the license, or how much you pay to renew it. A license is a license, and should be considered equal. They should be giving it to all license holders, or make it separate service. I'm not against paying something to help with the costs of running this service (as it seems to be their concern), I just don't appreciate their initial tactic.

They're talking about it, so we'll wait. But I expect nothing less than equal treatment for every license holder. What ever is/was paid for a license should not be put into the equation.

bfarber: The way I see it is the standard license $25 fee is for support and upgrades, nothing else. If you bend it to "future services" then by that token you should do it to the perpetual license since they pay $30 per year for support. And if you give it to them, lifetime license holders should get it free. The closest thing I have to compare to this service is the resource site: Without an active support contract, you cannot access it. Standard license holders pay $25 every six months, perpetual license holders pay $30 per year, and lifetime license holders pay nothing. But they get access to the same "service". And technically I would consider the resource site a "service" the same as the spam monitor.

I ask for every license holder to get it, or for none of them to get it and have a yearly fee. That would be fair to everyone. And it's much simpler to charge no one, or charge everyone. And as far as who is paying what for their license, in order to be fair you can't look at that. Regardless of what the initial agreement was, a license is a license. I have an active support contract, I get access to the resource site "service". The spam monitor should be treated the same for all, or different for all. It's as simple as that.

As an active Lifetime License holder.

If I want to add the IP.Blog,IP.Gallery,IP.Downloads systems I pay a yearly fee for them (I have active blog/gallery licenses).

If I want to remove the footer copyright I make a one-off payment (currently considering).

If I want to use the new spam service... my "Lifetime License" is effectively ruled null and void?

I would happily pay a small additional fee (as I do with the other add-ons), but essentially I'm being asked to pay for another full license. Hello, I have one.

Am I missing something or is this a financially motivated drive to force Lifetime License holders into regular payments.

As an active Lifetime License holder.

If I want to add the IP.Blog,IP.Gallery,IP.Downloads systems I pay a yearly fee for them (I have active blog/gallery licenses).

If I want to remove the footer copyright I make a one-off payment (currently considering).

If I want to use the new spam service... my "Lifetime License" is effectively ruled null and void?

I would happily pay a small additional fee (as I do with the other add-ons), but essentially I'm being asked to pay for another full license. Hello, I have one.

Am I missing something or is this a financially motivated drive to force Lifetime License holders into regular payments.

As an active Lifetime License holder.

If I want to add the IP.Blog,IP.Gallery,IP.Downloads systems I pay a yearly fee for them (I have active blog/gallery licenses).

If I want to remove the footer copyright I make a one-off payment (currently considering).

If I want to use the new spam service... my "Lifetime License" is effectively ruled null and void?

I would happily pay a small additional fee (as I do with the other add-ons), but essentially I'm being asked to pay for another full license. Hello, I have one.

Am I missing something or is this a financially motivated drive to force Lifetime License holders into regular payments.

As an active Lifetime License holder.

If I want to add the IP.Blog,IP.Gallery,IP.Downloads systems I pay a yearly fee for them (I have active blog/gallery licenses).

If I want to remove the footer copyright I make a one-off payment (currently considering).

If I want to use the new spam service... my "Lifetime License" is effectively ruled null and void?

I would happily pay a small additional fee (as I do with the other add-ons), but essentially I'm being asked to pay for another full license. Hello, I have one.

Am I missing something or is this a financially motivated drive to force Lifetime License holders into regular payments.

Well then couldn't a new type of license be made, available only to Lifetime/Perp holders, where they pay $10/year (renewable at anytime, just like the standard IP.Board license)? That way IPS is making money (as I mentioned in my previous post) but not forcing the customer to change their license type?

I felt like smacking someone when I saw this thread's title.

Eye can tell.

Sigh, another "when will it be released" thread...

Apparently for each one created it brings that magical date forward an hour.

Seriously though, the answer is "when it is ready". IPS never have public release dates :)

I've not noticed any difference in speed whatsoever (all versions of IP.Board 3.0 installed on these boards), all appears fine to me.

Could be browser specific though, I use Chrome which is uber-fast.

Off the topic slightly but I'm hoping that this will become a community project sooner rather than later (i.e perhaps with the first un-encoded release) as this module is one of the main reasons I use IP.Board.

Off the topic slightly but I'm hoping that this will become a community project sooner rather than later (i.e perhaps with the first un-encoded release) as this module is one of the main reasons I use IP.Board.