TDBF

I have to agree with this. Just too expensive with no discounts for multiple cloud licenses. As a self hosted user with 8 licenses, I have not added a new IPS license in a while because of this direction or lack of any major price changes, only increases. It’s much more beneficial for me to run my own server for all my licenses. They all share resources on my platform. Doing the math, if self hosted goes away, I’ll be forced to leave and switch platforms. No question about it.

IPS should stop this silly game trend that they are starting, which is leading to a kind of segregation between the cloud and the self hosting folks.
The cloud already has a valuable eye candy that will never match the self hosting plan and that is its easy setup and handling managed by IPS for those who can afford it and are not tech savvy.
IPS could've easily offer these features to the self hosting folks, I bet you £1 these nodes does not cost IPS an arm and 3 legs to run.
IPS could've even offer them only to self host that has an active licence, similar to the IPS geolocation and Spam feature.
 
 
 
 

Huh?  Why would I leave IPS because a competitor has a feature that isn't of high value to me and would introduce unnecessary costs/overhead?  I'm happy with IPS, I'm not happy with the direction IPS is headed with "cloud only" options.  That's the trend I'm pushing to change because it will inevitably cause attrition once competitors do offer enough value to offset IPS.  Makes sense no?
Who said a competitor was better?  I merely highlighted server side solutions are possible and cost effective and performant.  I also noted any solution that is cloud only or cloud coupled (i.e. AWS only/specific) is IMHO not an optimal solution for a wide variety of reasons.  It's not to say the premise of their solution's use case isn't good, but the implementation choice and limitations are.  Again, makes sense no?
You're missing the point and benefits of being cloud agnostic.  It has nothing to do with self hosting, literally zero and again, obviously so.  However there is an even bigger benefit and value and revenue projection for software that is both cloud and self-hosting compatible.  As I've mentioned in other topics around this very subject, perhaps IPS has done the ROI and "Cloud Only" features somehow worked out mathematically in their favor.  IMHO, I don't see how that's the case unless they are majority corporate based on the cloud and their finances reflect self hosting being marginally viable or simply low value in comparison.  Beyond that, having options, flexibility, and portability are the cornerstones of software marketability.  Why open the door to your competitors by doing anything other than meeting and maximizing those goals?  Unless of course your market analysis and client base have strong indicators otherwise, maybe theirs does and maybe they're ok with losing clients outright to a continual loss/lack of features who would otherwise stay with them and perhaps even pay a little more to support the development compatibility required for self hosting solutions.
I will say you are right, I don't understand their solution.  How do you?  Do you have access to their CF/TF scripts, infrastructure setup and cloud application code to determine what and how they are using it?  How are competitor add-ons doing all this AI magic on self hosted clients without having the power of AWS AI products?  My guess is they aren't.  If we are talking about the "Live" features related to this very topic, it's a polling and notification implementation.  If there's AI involved in it, I wouldn't understand why it would be.  There's no AI required to determine who is typing or who is actively looking at a topic.
Again, we aren't talking about IPS providing Cloud installation and setup documentation.  They own that portion of it as a service benefit at an elevated cost.  There's no value to anyone to go and setup a replication of their Cloud infrastructure unless IPS had some insane markup to their pricing.  I don't think that's the case, I think their pricing likely aligns with the inherent AWS costs incurred as well as the development and DEV/OPS support required to run things there.
I agree these features aren't make or break for a community site.  However, they are nice to haves, as you said, and they do offer other subtle benefits that do translate to increased activity which further translates to revenue.  IPS is in a great place with their offerings, I think those of us who are self hosted simply don't want to see it take a turn for the worse and get forced onto the cloud if that's not where we want to be.

Agree, this kind of things slowly making me feel bad about this script that I have for 20 years. 

Very cool feature, but sadly self-hosted communities (again) are left behind. 😞
I do not like the route IPS is going...

Will this also be available for self-hosted instances?

Would be curious to know what complexity is involved in the setup on Cloud that makes offering this to self hosted unviable?  Again this would seem like an example of allowing for optional feature enabling AND a setup guide for what's required even on a self hosting solution versus offering it ONLY on Cloud.  Just a bad look and approach, at some point it's going to start snowballing against IPS.  Choice vs no choice...IPS is forcing the latter for its own customers.
This reminds of the employer/employee relationship.  Employers should ensure they're fairly compensating their employees.   Once there's signs to the contrary, employees will start to interview and out of shear principle, when they find even an "equal" option, they're likely to leave for it.  Then the company will try to make good ONLY when they are given the letter of resignation, but by then it's too late.  

Automated response saying that server issues are not supported. Simple.
If not, it would also be best for IPS to remove Elasticsearch and Redis features from the self hosted clients, because the reason is the same.

You are talking about Xenforo or Vbulletin?
We already have features in teh self hosted to use Redis and Elasticsearch if we want. I don't see any reason why we wounldn't also be able to use Node JS if we wanted to.
If im not mistaken, the realtime new features uses Node JS. IPS already submitted the code to the cloud platform, why not doing it also for the self host, and who wants to use, they simple install and configure Node JS. The ones that can't do that or don't want do that, well, they don't use the feature. 
We already do that with Redis and Elasticsearch.

I will leave my two cents here. There is virtually zero way I would be moving to the cloud hosting.
If us the self-hosted guys would be left for dead at IPS 5 - I'd cling to the latest version like to many sites did when vB went kaput. Until a more viable option comes along like converting to something else if said latest IPS version becomes too obsolete after some time. Hope it does not come to this because I truly love IPS and what it brings to the table. But hobbyist niche type of forum owners just can't justify cloud prices at least in my case. It is what is is.
I understand your need to make some things cloud-exclusive but please do not cripple self hosted holders in the long run depriving them of some really cool and necessary features. An idea would be make some features available after a year or something later while cloud users get priority.

Are you being sarcastic?
When IPS 4.0 was released with tons of new features, not 1, not 6, but tons... I don't remember IPS asking more money to pay all those new features.
Is just how things works. 
Are you saying that for us to have just 6 new features in a major upgrade version, we can't have them because they cost money? Doesn't all clients pay to have an active license?
That's a problem of the self hosted clients, not IPS.
If IPS one day says: "Self hosted clients won't have access to IPS 5.0 because its to demanding for the servers of our clients", it seems you would agree with that.
If a self hosted client is able to buy a server and run IPS on it, don't you think he is able to do the rest? The hard part is already done. That's a very weak excuse.
 

"Really" cool features like those above require hiring additional developers with extensive expertise in a variety of different technologies and that doesn't come cheap.
IPS "could" provide self-hosting folks the above features but would have to significantly raise renewals to offset their development and Amazon costs. 
Another thing to consider is that the vast majority of self-hosted servers would have to be significantly upgraded to support the added load and technology requirements.
"Some" self-hosted customers would have the technical expertise and budget to deal with this, but the vast majority won't'.  
We all have Château Avenue Foch Champaine tastes and Kool Aid budgets.  We can have "some" nice things, but we will never have all the things we want.
My advice to folks is, "Don't Worry, Be Happy!"
 
 
 

It's part of the IPS marketing strategy, created to disappoint their self hosting customers.
 
 

Include in title that it's only for biggest clients and you are screwing self-hosted clients. Would save me some time - just another thing you do not care about. 
I'm a client for 9 years and I'm getting more and more anoyed with your solutions for self-hosted clients. 

Yes, please 😎

My 2 cents.
Make a notification when a members' post is chosen as a best answer or gets an upvote.
When a member wins a 1-3 place on leaderboard.
 

We're ahead of the curve. In MacOS 11.0 they are going to add an "UltraBrite" mode to combat eye degeneration caused by squinting at black screens.

As someone once said... 'If it ain't broke, don't try fix it'.
This just seems like change for change sake, and certainly wasn't one of the things which was on my mind when it came to improvements that could have been made to the suite overall.
This is not meant as a criticism, more an observation. 🙂

As someone once said... 'If it ain't broke, don't try fix it'.
This just seems like change for change sake, and certainly wasn't one of the things which was on my mind when it came to improvements that could have been made to the suite overall.
This is not meant as a criticism, more an observation. 🙂

As someone once said... 'If it ain't broke, don't try fix it'.
This just seems like change for change sake, and certainly wasn't one of the things which was on my mind when it came to improvements that could have been made to the suite overall.
This is not meant as a criticism, more an observation. 🙂

As someone once said... 'If it ain't broke, don't try fix it'.
This just seems like change for change sake, and certainly wasn't one of the things which was on my mind when it came to improvements that could have been made to the suite overall.
This is not meant as a criticism, more an observation. 🙂

As someone once said... 'If it ain't broke, don't try fix it'.
This just seems like change for change sake, and certainly wasn't one of the things which was on my mind when it came to improvements that could have been made to the suite overall.
This is not meant as a criticism, more an observation. 🙂

As someone once said... 'If it ain't broke, don't try fix it'.
This just seems like change for change sake, and certainly wasn't one of the things which was on my mind when it came to improvements that could have been made to the suite overall.
This is not meant as a criticism, more an observation. 🙂

With all due respect, but if you guys told us that you would be introducing a media manager where we could reuse images for articles etc, then I would be inclined to get a bit more excited.
God knows how much server space I have wasted uploading the same images over and over again, when I could have uploaded it once and reused it over and over again.