Haku2

Just now, Chris Anderson said:

Check out the IPS Community Suite 4.5.2 Release notes for deprecated features at the bottom of the page.

Release Notes - Invision Community

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.

10 hours ago, Joel R said:

1.  Isn't this just a Product with no renewals? 

I'm confused by your request.  Create a product in Commerce.  Leave renews off.  

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

On 1/21/2021 at 3:35 AM, Stuart Silvester said:

Click into your license, then click 'create request'. Do not submit ticket at the Zendesk URL it may not get answered.

Where do we go to submit tickets for sales, account, or billing issues?

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.

2 hours ago, Joy Rex said:

You've never done software development, have you?

I cannot think of the hundreds, nay, thousands of hours IPS must have put into 4.5 - all the testing, planning, trying to make things as smooth as possible for their customers to upgrade their sites, etc.

If the connection between the host and client is terminated, there's usually no way to tell the host process "hang on, something's wrong" and stop whatever processes are running, and record a stopping point (can you imagine if it was inside a query - I suppose a rollback is possible, but again, a lot of overhead for something that isn't likely going to occur).

The absolute safest way is to run the upgrade via a RDP or similar process, so that way if the client connection is cut, the VM running the upgrade can continue uninterrupted (because presumably the host machine is on a solid connection with redundancies for power, etc.).

This was unfortunately a case of bad luck on @Paul E. part, but I take exception blaming or insinuating that IPS is somehow "not determined enough".

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.

1 minute ago, Joy Rex said:

And exactly how would IPS or any addon developer account for a disconnect from the client machine running the upgrade?

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.

1 minute ago, craigf136 said:

It’s not absurd as it’s still available on ips website as it was before but it’s fundamental to the marketplace and should have been included within the ACP as standard imho.

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.

20 hours ago, craigf136 said:

Understood but I would have thought managing purchases and orders was pretty fundamental to the marketplace in all honesty.

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.

1 hour ago, DesignzShop said:

I understood exactly what you were saying. As I said before, feature updates usually come along during a major upgrade like what we just seen for 4.5. That means most of the time what you are getting on standard upgrades are bug fixes, security and vulnerability patches,. That's a long time between feature upgrade versions. incentive must be provided for renewals. Security and vulnerability patches are just that. Incentive to pay for renewals. Plus it pays the person who takes the time to fix the breach.

If IPB just gave this away, you'd have many not renew at all. To keep paying people and running a business you can't just open up the freeloader lane..

As a matter of fact, I never really used the paid for features with my license, Not even spam prevention most of the time. Really never needed it. I always renewed for security patches to keep my investment safe. When a security breach is identified someone works to fix it. They should get paid. Yes?

I'm not trying to be harsh here. I think you've been a outstanding member here The Old Man, I'm just a firm believer people need to eat and get paid for what they do. If they volunteer to do something for free that's a whole other story. That's not the case however when you work at or run a business.

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.

1 hour ago, The Old Man said:

Regarding security patches for fixing vulnerabilities, I believe they should be removed from point releases and instead made available separately for free through the Support Tool, especially with auto updates coming closer. You should NEVER, EVER have to renew a licence to ensure your member's data is safe and your site is secure, especially after you have paid a lot of money for professionally developed quality software with increased security in the first place.

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.

5 minutes ago, Lindy said:

We don't net anything off of the Marketplace

So, is the 20% commission that you are earning off the Marketplace purchases just an exaggerated number from some of the developers?

44 minutes ago, jaeitee said:

A lack of updates does not indicate a good security record.  In fact it can quite often indicate the exact opposite as it's a direct result of a lack of testing.

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.

12 minutes ago, DesignzShop said:

I ran a popular drummers forum for 13 years. I went into it not expecting people to pay me anything, I left it that way too till the end. If you're developing something with dollar signs in mind I wonder how much of a passion that really is to you. If you can't afford a forum and what it takes to keep it and your members safe imo you should stick with free software. At least with free software you can keep security patches up with current releases on time. It's like buying a new car, Should I get a Cadillac and pay tons in maintenance costs or should I get something when something goes wrong I can fix affordably. You certainly want to keep maintenance up and your budget is obviously saying if you buy the Caddy it could be struggle which may end up leaving you without transportation. 

To each their own, that's for sure, but if you want to get into the big league with paid software you should expect there's recurring costs involved. getting something better means developers are being paid and there's a business to run. business's can't run on every Tom Dick or Harry wanting to skip renewals either. People have to eat. As you know with free software, those developers are making money in other ways to put food on their table, pay bills and whatever else it takes to feed themselves and their families possibly.

Realistically looking at this, the entire suite to renew is around 110.00 USD every 6 months. You have 6 months to save a hundred bucks. If you can't save a 100.0 USD in 6 months, you may want to consider a free option.

Bottom line, IPB is a business and must work as such to survive.

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? 🙂

5 minutes ago, Ptilly said:

Because not everyone has hundreds to thousands of members that can donate at every given moment. Some people are still trying to grow their forum the right way by not using freeware forums or cheaper alternatives. This also helps in the long run so you don't need to worry about converting over to a paid platform in the future...

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.

4 hours ago, Square Wheels said:

This is very disappointing.  I suspect it will affect developers too.  That was one of the best parts of IPS for me, the active developer community.  It's not likely I will switch as I am pretty invested in IPS, but as others have pointed out, forums are dying a slow death, this is not helping.

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?

2 hours ago, ahc said:

I had an inactive license for over a year because there was nothing significant enough to warrant the extra $190 we would have spent.

I was able to purchase and download files from the marketplace the entire time right up until 4.5 Beta 1 came out. All of a sudden I was locked out of things I had just paid for or renewed. I sent in a ticket and was told that this was always the intended behavior and that if I had access to purchase, renew, and download files before with an inactive license, it was in error.

So.. which one is the truth?

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.

2 minutes ago, Dean_ said:

It’s now found under your Profile account settings. But you can still enable or disable it globally in ACP.

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.

39 minutes ago, V0RT3X666 said:

The result are funny things like THIS. User buys an addon, gives a bad rating and the dev doesn't give him access to the download anymore 

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?

4 minutes ago, Adriano Faria said:

I do permit BUT I leave pretty well clear that I don't support ANY modification. User is allwed to do it but he's on your own... including current supported files. Funny because even having this in the Terms, people still review your file with 1 star because you don't support. 😆

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.

48 minutes ago, opentype said:

I don’t really support that reasoning. Legally, as customer you get a license to use software under certain conditions. You don’t own it. It’s not yours to change and fix as you see fit unless the licensor specifically allows that—which is usually not the case for commercial proprietary software. Of course in the past, such things were never enforced. Providers on the Marketplace couldn’t even define their own licensing terms and the marketplace is so small, that no one bothers to fight legal battles over a single product, let alone a single sale. But this doesn’t change the legal foundation. I much rather see the marketplace get more professional and add more legal and technical protection of the uploads. 

The discussion about abandoned resources is a little weird, since that has nothing to do with the IPS platform. It’s not just the same for every other software marketplace, it’s the same for every business which might suddenly fold. It’s up to every admin to weigh the risks of using third-party tools—or even the IPS apps for that matter, since apps and functionalities from IPS can also be removed at any time. 

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?

7 hours ago, day_ said:

Imagine there will be a few tears from those that like to run Null communities with plugins

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.

1 hour ago, sudo said:

We have customised some marketplace addons to meet our needs with our server but I suspect we wont easily be able to do this in future?

Correct; it would seem this way. 😞

41 minutes ago, Lindy said:

First and foremost, we want to really promote more harmony within third party applications. 4.4, because of its looser standards that did not require authors to use versioning/update notifications, ultimately allowed a hodge podge of current and outdated resources that would collide with one another (and the core) leading to unnecessary issues, customer frustration and support overhead. With everything managed within the AdminCP, you have easy access to updates - the same as the core software.

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.

2 minutes ago, Lindy said:

To answer your question, it would not prevent you from installing. That aspect is on the honor system (and who wants to risk losing their license from breaking the rules??), however, we would like to provide authors with the ability to determine how this works for their individual resources. 

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.

@LindyI believe you were looking for feedback on how the search utility could be improved and this topic provides at least some very important insight on how some aspects of the utility could be improved. If you could take a peek in here and forward this concern to the development team for review and discussion, it would be greatly appreciated.