This is very troubling to me and I had wished that a change of this magnitude would have been shared first before designing the entire core around a feature - which a "follow" is of a friend relationship. The whole point of friends isn't "friends" but a usergroup that allowed you to restrict your content to a limited group of people.
I don't run an adult site but I've seen almost every iteration of community from having run sites from small to very large. In more adult and mature environments, having content that is restricted to a user-based usergroup called "friends" or "trusted persons" is critical. So let's say you want to have a site called "L.A. Dating" - how can users post photos of themselves that only their trusted people can see? You can't. How about a family based site for parenting where you only want people you know or people you can trust to see photos of you and your children? You can't.
I'm hoping that someone can explain to me why anyone would think that "follow" is a substitute for the "friends" permissions group.
My sympathies - I do understand the disappointment but I'm trying to make sense of this.
I don't think that this is a good analogy. How much did you pay for the "perpetual license" when you bought it? Let's say you spent $100 more to get a "perpetual" license over the "standard" IPB 2 license. As a result, you ended up avoiding having to pay $500+ worth of licensing fees. Your disappointment is that the extra $100 spend didn't return an even greater windfall of thousands of dollars of endless development. Felt like the big gamble it was back then and not surprised it didn't pan out. At the end of the day, I think you're still coming out ahead. The question is whether you want a mediocre product for a longer period of time or accept that top products cost money and sometimes there is a need to determine how to move forward.
I'm sympathetic - it's an unfortunate surprise when you bargain for something and think that you're going to get every dime of an incredible windfall. What sometimes happen is that the company goes bankrupt. The owners start up a new company using a different and more sustainable business model and you're left with nothing. It was a gamble to try such a license and it wasn't economically sustainable. It happens. But look at the bright side - you're not out anything you invested and still ahead of what you did. In many cases, you gamble and lose everything.
Lindy - Respectfully, I think your imprecise legal terminology is lending to a bad impression as is the "all the rage" type of expression. While probably sincere, I think others believe that you're laughing on your yachts while changing the license structure, toasting to the fact that the plan all along to finance yourselves on free money worked. You might want to refine the message, e.g. such as the same optimistic revenue projections which are also made with open source software which were later realized to be far above what the reality was for returns.
In addition, the license is still perpetual. You may want to change that wording. The right to receive further upgrades is something else. Quite frankly, you had me ready to pummel you if you were moving me to a monthly paid fee to run my forum. ;)
Personally, I think it was overly optimistic for them to offer this "perpetual" license since it seems unsustainable. Do you believe that they intended to defraud you? What are your actual damages? For breach it's probably up to the amount of money you paid for the license. I don't know how generous the offer is right now. The seem to be trying to correct a short sighted error by giving you value close to what it would cost them to buy themselves out of a breach of contract. Now I can understand the shock of surprise. But is this really as harmful as you're making into being or are they in the ballpark for trying to do right?
I don't think I have missed a beat. So you have free upgrades of IPB 3 for life, for which there won't be many forthcoming because it's not economically feasible. After all, how do you expect the developers to afford rent, utilities and to feed their families if they aren't getting paid to develop the software... forever? You'd have to put a lot of money up front into a "nest egg" so you can provide the employees security to fund endless development. Honestly, were you expecting to pay this amount of money to have free major updates for the next 10 years? Maybe I'm not understanding you.
If this is the case, then it still is a perpetual license. You have a right to use the software you purchased and any updates to it within a 6 month period and during any maintenance periods you've paid. I don't see the difference from IPB 3 since you don't have access to download the versions released during maintenance periods which are unpaid. And if that is all we are talking about, then this would seem to be not such a big deal. But from the way I'm reading the original statement, I'm not quite sure that this is the case.
From my perspective, that would be "just as dysfunctional as it has always been." I bought the software for IP.C. It is not usable for the purpose intended, for admins and users to post articles easily and that are formatted properly for SEO. I wasted countless hours trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. There are other limitations which I won't go into here and I voiced them to IPS privately. Other large site owners know exactly what I'm talking about.
Hearing about a new licensing structure at this late date too is quite an additional surprise. I hope it is not what I am thinking it may be since my decision would have been made last year if it is what I hope it is not. I'm guessing many can relate
I'm confused by all this terminology without actually seeing the license terms.
Perpetual = If I have a license that I purchased, I can run the software as long as I want, including any future updates to the software during any maintenance and support period. This is what the 6 month "renewals" actually were. If you want to talk about licensing, it was a license to use updates produced during that period.
Non-Perpetual = You purchase a license for a period of time. After that license period expires, you have no right to continue using any version of the software. This is like a SAAS - once you stop paying, your rights go away. The amount of money for a license period, e.g. annual, unless set forth, is subject to be set by the company, e.g. $100 one year and $200 the next.
So... what is the actual licensing structure? Is it posted anywhere? I'm also confused because I heard that if you paid up maintenance fees for version 3 you got a free upgrade to version 4, with no other terms stated. So I'm trying to sift through speculation and get the facts. Thanks for the clarification.
Many of us have vBulletin forums. Given the limited to no support for the software for increasing versions of PHP, we've needed to move last year. I planned on it - when IPS said that they would have a release -- or I figured a beta to see whether what we hoped for would be possible. I need to determine whether all the issues I had with IPB 3 that made it not a viable solution for several sites would be changed/fixed/modified in version 4. I don't care about graphics in blog posts. I need specific answers, many which I've raised last year such as what types of configurations could I use, e.g. can I install modules in subdomains / subdirectories of my choosing? What limitations are there? Would we still have the limitations of the slug imposed in IP.C? These are just some critical questions that need to be answered.
Over the course of the past 8 months, I've watched others decide to build using different software. Now efforts are being made to create full bridges between products that are a solution and that have numerous add-ons. Since the software still isn't even in beta, it's fair to say that there is a much longer road to stabilization and options than anticipated. As a result, one must decide whether to immediately jump on and invest in the other solution, since that you can see as opposed to interminable darkness. Being honest, this extended darkness is off-putting and makes one wonder whether it's best to go the other route anyways because (a) it means that stabilization and knowing the full set of options may be as late as 2015, and (b) no matter how awesome the software is - will be delayed by an even greater number of months because nobody can get familiar with the core system.
I'm watching vBulletin conversions happen very quickly now, especially forum only sites. The time to have said what was going on is probably several months late. And given what the mod market was like here before, one has to wonder how long it will take for interest to take hold even at a basic level. This is what concerns me.
If you are saying you are being penalized in Webmaster Tools, you mean that you have a manual action for something. It is probably related to something else and you need to be very clear about that manual action is for. If it's not a manual action, it's not technically a penalty. If you've abused someone, Google's algorithm may automatically take into account your actions and adapt appropriately.
Trust me on this one as it's based upon both observation and impeccable sources. I don't have time to research the threads but do a search on this topic and you'll probably find some large sites that tried this approach and the surprises that occurred. The bottom line is that authorship is not intended for forums. Google has also scaled back authorship because of abuses. If you want to cause issues for authorship benefits being conferred where they normally would be, just try using them on the forum. The engineers there are pretty quick on the uptake and this type of tactic is now old.