Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

 Content Type 



IPS4 Providers

Release Notes

IPS4 Guides

IPS4 Developer Documentation

Invision Community Blog



Everything posted by Haku2

  1. This is very disappointing, but I can't say I'm surprised. It seems like it's always the most useful features that get removed.
  2. Not necessarily. Using this workaround for products provides an unfriendly and disconnected interface to the user. Aside from the possibility of users inadvertently purchasing the lifetime version of the product while still having an active renewal-based version of the product, there may be likely more work for the administrator to routinely perform such as: managing cancellation or refunds for the renewal-based product creating a custom invoice for the user requesting payment for the difference between the price of the lifetime product and the remaining time left on the renewal-based product transfer any user-supplied information in the renewal-based product to the lifetime product
  3. Where do we go to submit tickets for sales, account, or billing issues?
  4. This feature, or at least a great part of what you're describing, used to be in earlier versions (3.x and below) of the software. I'm not sure why it was removed. I'd like to have it back, however.
  5. I am actually a professional software engineer who works for one of the big tech giants. I never said it was easy. As you stated above, without going into the specifics, it's a lot more difficult with web-based software and would likely incur overhead. The point of this topic is that IPS has shifted from methodology that provided customers with a versatile way to install third-party applications to one that is fairly locked down and prone to issues if the surrounding conditions aren't nearly perfect. And, then, in the event that something does go wrong, there is no longer much you can do yourself to fix it without contacting the developer or submitting a support ticket. This results in time being wasted (in addition to possible service outages) to explain and get support for the issue. It also makes those who invested time in getting a technical background to solve these types of issues feel powerless.
  6. If they were really determined, there are ways of tracking where the upgrade left off. Otherwise, the easier option would be to move the upgrade process to a background task.
  7. Yes, you're right. It's just that if IPS is shifting the bulk of functionality and focus to the ACP, there shouldn't be a divide of features.
  8. Yes, this is very ridiculous especially that there isn't even an apology or statement claiming this functionality is coming back soon. This is not a way to do software development. This might have been forgivable if the marketplace was just being introduced, but to then remove this functionality with many users already having purchases is absurd.
  9. There's a big difference between bug fixes and security fixes; the second one is a liability. When there is security hazard with a vehicle, the manufacturer issues a recall to fix the issue free of charge. In regards to a developer getting paid to write the security patch, most of the patches are usually only a few lines long at best. I can't imagine this taking more than several minutes for an experienced developer. Furthermore, alot of times, when it relates to web-based software, the patch is provided by a vulnerability research website that discovered/published the issue. There are many other incentives IPS can provide to encourage people to renew their license. One of them is actually adding new features, not removing them as I have seen in the last few major releases. Why would I renew to get updates that remove functionality from the software? Furthermore, there are many things that people have been asking for since the last few major releases that have yet to be added.
  10. This I agree with and this is how it used to be before IPS got greedy. When security patches were released, most of the time it was just one file that you would just easily download and replace on your environment. However, I expect them to come back with some cover-up excuses about why it shouldn't be that way anymore, but hopefully they will surprise me.
  11. So, is the 20% commission that you are earning off the Marketplace purchases just an exaggerated number from some of the developers?
  12. That's not exactly what I said. Software with a good security record can have many updates with only some of those updates including exploit fixes. The point I was trying to make was that if every update or every other update contains an exploit fix, it's probably software you shouldn't be using anyway. Otherwise, you can go a long while without having to renew for an update if you don't go in and patch the exploit yourself (which is usually a few lines of code anyway). Obviously, this can vary between different software packages. Some are very stable and aren't focused on new features so if the only updates (assuming the updates aren't very frequent) are exploit fixes, it's very reasonable.
  13. It's a bit unfair to skip over my points just to attack @Ptilly's only point as mine counteract most of your arguments. If we're going to play around with the analogy of the Cadillac, the maintenance costs should be fairly average if you only bring it in for maintenance when it really needs it and not premature oil changes or transmission flushes. And, even then, you could save quite alot by doing it yourself or hiring someone else to do it. The same could be said for software. Not everyone needs every bug fix or new feature as soon as it's available. There are bugs you may never notice unless you regularly work within a certain realm of the software. You could even fix some bugs easily yourself. If the software has a good security record, you shouldn't have to upgrade frequently to get the security patch. I've kind of already went over this before, but most security flaws aren't even that complicated and can be fixed with a few lines of code. There actually used to be one-file patches you could easily download and apply before IPS got greedy and refrained from doing this. Furthermore, Cadillacs are basically just an overpriced American car so their parts shouldn't be anything special. To get to your point on how businesses have to make money, there are plenty of ways companies can make money without unfairly charging people for every little aspect they can think of. I'd be renewing more frequently if I didn't have to pay for renewals on apps I'm not currently using in addition to other shady business decisions IPS has implemented. Would you give into your refrigerator charging a monthly fee to cool if it meant keeping the brand in business? 🙂
  14. Yes, there are at least several reasons actually: Renewals can be expensive, especially if you own most of the official apps. Unfortunately, you can't select which ones you don't want to renew. If you try to get around this by cancelling some, you just lost a big chunk of your investment as you now have to pay full price if you ever want them back. Hopefully, the software maintains a good security record in which you don't have to perform full upgrades frequently to have the security holes patched. You shouldn't have to upgrade to every point release that gets put out. Additionally, a properly qualified administrator should have the knowledge to be able to patch the reported exploit himself/herself (or at least know/hire someone who can). Upgrading to any of the first few releases of a major release usually isn't a good idea. It's best to wait until most of the major bugs are ironed out first. Some of us perform development (this includes content) on a local environment first before opening the community to the public. In this case, there is no rush to upgrade if bugs or newly announced functionality isn't impacting you. As @Ptilly has said above, some of us are either running a community as a hobby or have a very small member base in which having the newest and greatest features all the time isn't necessary. Not everyone needs official support to run their community. Some us are very good at troubleshooting and fixing issues ourselves without submitting a support ticket.
  15. I know how you feel. It is ridiculous to have to pay so much money just to access the marketplace files you have already paid for. You now have to renew all of your suite's app licenses just to access one marketplace update. And, if you try to get around paying for all of your suite's apps renewals by cancelling some, you then have to pay full price if you ever want them back. I've been holding off on renewing for this reason. Furthermore, as a developer, who wants to have to pay over $100 on renewals (if you own almost all of the official apps) to release one app that maybe has integration with one official app at best?
  16. I know how you feel. It is ridiculous to have to pay so much money just to access the marketplace files you have already paid for. You now have to renew all of your suite's app licenses just to access one marketplace update. And, if you try to get around paying for all of your suite's apps renewals by cancelling some, you then have to pay full price if you ever want them back. I've been holding off on renewing for this reason.
  17. Yes, this is correct although I don't agree with it. This seems like a poor design decision. If you're not logged in anonymously, but then wish to do so, you have to log in normally first, revealing (although for a short time) your online status.
  18. I wouldn't say it's nonsense. This blog entry seems more like philosophical ramblings than product marketing to me. One could write a blog entry such as this one without ever being involved in software development.
  19. It's been awhile since I've released anything on the marketplace, but can't authors do that here as well if they really wanted to?
  20. This I find more than reasonable, @Adriano Faria. I would never expect a developer to go out of their way to help me with personal modifications that weren't explicitly supported by the software or official documentation. It's unfortunate some of your clients don't see it this way. I appreciate you continuing to develop modifications and allowing modifications despite this.
  21. License terms or not, I don't see why you wouldn't want to permit clients to modify the software if it continues to allow them to use the software as intended in the event of your irresponsibility or abandonment. It's the most minimal decency you can have or show to your clients. As an example, if someone modified your application to work with the latest version of PHP or MySQL, would you really be upset by it?
  22. Actually, I would expect quite the opposite. Just as with the movie industry who imposed non-skippable scenes on retail DVDs, or the gaming industry whose certain games impose constant Internet-based license validation for single-player mode under the guise of an "enhanced experience," the nulled/cracked/ripped version provides the best experience. It's only the paying, honest customers who get hurt and punished by these types of imposed restrictions.
  23. Lindy. I appreciate you taking the time to respond as well. I agree that this change is useful as it will help novice and less technical users with preventing breakages. However, I do hope that the team will find time to offer the alternative of manual downloads that we have been very much used to, especially for us who like to set up third-party applications before launching our communities or those of us who run intranet-only sites. To me, it seems that with every major release, there are always about three features removed or new restrictions put in place that limit the control of our own communities. From what I've seen from all my years here, it is very rare that a feature is brought back or a restriction is lifted. And, I'm not sure if this is true, but I heard there was even a rule forbidding mod developers from reintroducing removed features. Furthermore, changes like this make me miss the days of third-party marketplaces such as Invisionize where I could select the version of applications I wanted all without having to worry about keeping my license current or the application being delisted simply because it wasn't updated for the latest version. There are apps that I've even paid for here that are just removed at the staff's discretion. It just seems that IPS is becoming a controlling monopoly in regards to marketplace applications. I like that there's at least this positive aspect. I was also a bit worried that there would be alot of hassle in this situation. Although, I do find it a bit overreaching to revoke someone's license because they broke a third-party software's license terms.
  24. I thought one of the main goals of IP.Suite 4 was to keep the features consistent throughout all of the applications of the suite. I don't doubt that this feature will make it to the Downloads application eventually, as it's very much needed, especially for paid downloads of the application, where marketing is especially important, but I'm a bit disappointed that I'm still seeing these inconsistencies.
  • Create New...