+1-888-365-2779
Try Now
More in this section

Forums / General Discussions / Sitefinity 4.0 RC

Sitefinity 4.0 RC

183 posts, 0 answered
  1. Markus
    Markus avatar
    2763 posts
    Registered:
    25 Nov 2005
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Jason

    I agree to some part, but why would you think to have a right to that:

    Quote
    Allow ANYONE that owns a license to any site with a subscription to have access to upgrade to the 20,000 Enterprise version for free.
    Unquote

    You get a free version of standard editions (which is kind of what we had before) but you are correct it's a step back if you talk about the concurrent users. To me lots of the stuff to limit smaller versions has somewhat a clinicle and artificial feel to it.

    Markus
  2. Tod Madderra
    Tod Madderra avatar
    3 posts
    Registered:
    13 Aug 2009
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post

    Your comments surrounding load-balancing indicate you do not understand your customers or are completely out-of-touch with common hosting architectures used by SME's today, or both.  Your assumptions about what people spend on hosting are WAY off and your implication that only cash-rich companies have web demand dynamics greater than 1 server are patently ridiculous.  The purpose of load-balancing is to provide consistency of web response!!!  Anyone that knows anything about hosting would not cast that aside and say only larger companies must have cash and therefore should pay $$$ for reasonable performance.

    If a company has considerable cash lying around as you imply, they will have a full site dev team that will resist the constraints of your product anyway.  Your product IS for the companies that need the function, but are spending more in line with 3.7 pricing.  I could have swallowed a 100% price increase, but 800% for "standard?!!!"  That is just irresponsible.  It is a shame as I do value Telerik's product, but a shift of that magnitude is simply arrogant and a complete disservice.  Do I want you to improve the product?  Sure.  Will I pay more for higher value?  Sure.  However, v4 suggests that I should use (and pay for) a nuclear reactor to heat my coffee!!!

    Also, many of your responses cast your customers as some kind of unreasonable, greedy free-loafers.  I personally resent that and believe it highlights the obscure mentality of the current management which actually creates a far greater concern with .Net/AJAX/RadControls that we chose, perhaps unwisely, for our core app.  Why would I assume that you would not take a similarly ridiculous approach with that licensing model next go-round?  As another post stated, "this is more than a bad taste in our mouth."

    I hate to do it, but it is time to shop for a new controls vendor as well.  Supplanting the controls will be costly, but I cannot risk the unpredictability and unreasonableness of the current Telerik management shown here.

  3. Chanan Zass
    Chanan Zass avatar
    123 posts
    Registered:
    21 Aug 2012
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    We've decided to count to 10 and move on, continuing to work with Sitefinity.
    But perhaps it's important to explain that the source of all the rage is expressed perfectly by Jason above (text in bold).
    This is true especially for some of us who have "donated" to Sitefinity code and resources that today make up part of the product.
    Consulting with a marriage consultant (your business partners) should not substitute and should better be accompanied by talking to your wife and kids.
  4. mattc
    mattc avatar
    105 posts
    Registered:
    11 Aug 2007
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    hi Grisha, Georgi and Ivan

    Thanks for clearing up the users question. I ran up a copy of beta 2 to refresh myself, and I understand now I think. 

    Basically put: Anyone in the Backend Users role counts in the concurrent user pool, any other roles don't count!?

    During the add user wizard you get a checkbox asking whether you want to add the user to this role. Adding the new user to any of the admin or editing roles automatically puts them in the Backend Users role.

    Matt
  5. Georgi
    Georgi avatar
    3583 posts
    Registered:
    28 Oct 2016
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hi mattc,

    I've updated the thread, since there were some things to add here.

    Any user belonging to the Backend Users role or to the Administrators role who authenticates within a Sitefinity 4.0 website is counted towards the concurrent user limitation. It doesn’t matter whether this backend or admin user authenticates by logging into the public facing website, backend administration area, or a third-party application using our RESTful Web Service APIs. That user is removed from the concurrent users count when he personally logs off, he is forcefully logged off by an administrator, or his session expires. The session expiration time can be controlled from the configuration settings of Sitefinity.

    Regards,
    Georgi
    the Telerik team
    Do you want to have your say when we set our development plans? Do you want to know when a feature you care about is added or when a bug fixed? Explore the Telerik Public Issue Tracking system and vote to affect the priority of the items
  6. Truman
    Truman avatar
    7 posts
    Registered:
    12 Nov 2010
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    I think small businesses feel pushed out. This also kills the flow of the community which consists of small businesses, hobbists, self-employers, industry gurus, etc. No employees from enterprises are going to hang out in the forums, build plugins, write blogs, etc for Sitefinity. Why do you think most of the complaints are negative? Because you are pushing the very same community that invested to where it is today. It is very obvious that you want to focus on enterprises and think a price tag will do that. That's fine if that's what you want, but don't think that enterprises are going to contribute back.

    The new pricing is the same bad taste I get from SaaS models. You might as well have said that all editions are rented out, unless you want to buy it for $20K. I do not want it all for nothing, but the limits are the problem. I have no problem paying for features, but paying for features with limits is insulting.

    I say at the very least, double the user concurrency limits, remove the item limit restriction from SBE, and lower the support for all editions.. even removing support completely from SBE. The community of developers and partners are supposed to be your first line of defense for support, so I do not know why you are handicapping the system in place of support for your editions.

    And where did offering the source code come from. I wouldn't want it even if you gave it to me. If I need the source code, then that's a bad design. You are also opening up the door to many problems where enterprises are going to try to do some weird things when they could have done it all through the API, then they will call you an unlimited times to fix their spaghetti code of mess that's on a core level. Even unlimited support can't fix that. Bad idea... just to compensate for the heavy price tag. You can also kiss upgrades goodbye from enterprises who change the source code, think of the amount of support it would take to do that one properly. Why would you also want to risk the source code getting out only to result in the emergence of a new or existing competitor? By offering the source code, you are just increasing load on the support team for stuff that enterprises could have hired the Sitefinity team or one of your partners to do. AND if it is done by the Sitefinity team or partners, that will just loop back into the growth of Sitefinity's features. Enterprises would never release or show the changes they made to Sitefinity.

    All these factors are quickly removing possibilities of organic growth from the community. I can see the CMS slowly mutate to something that service a handful of enterprises which have bureaucratic requirements, while leaving the needs of common businesses. Let's hope Sitefinity draws a little more inspiration from its roots.


  7. Phill Hodgkinson
    Phill Hodgkinson avatar
    362 posts
    Registered:
    10 Nov 2004
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Truman Well said!! I too wouldn't want the source code even if they gave it to me. This is really an option that makes no sense to me at all. If Source Code is required by the odd Enterprise client it should be a "call for source code licensing options". It shouldn't be something that the rest of us have to pay for by this out of whack pricing model.

    I've been quite disappointed by this whole thing as I'm a small developer and my target market is small business so this affects me greatly. My clients don't like any change unless it's "more for less" and not the other way around. I must say that I do think that SF (and it's source code) is worth far far more than 20k, but what if I don't want the source code but all the other features? How is it there isn't an ultimate edition without source code as it surely has to be the bulk of that 20k price tag.

    Regards,
    Phill
  8. Alison
    Alison avatar
    5 posts
    Registered:
    14 Apr 2010
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hi there,

    Can anyone help us understand why the Release Candidate release has been pushed back again? As recommended in last week's webinar we are planning a "real world" project with 4.0 and the postponements of the release date are causing significant concern on our team.

    Any information would be much appreciated.

    Alison
  9. Gabe Sumner
    Gabe Sumner avatar
    440 posts
    Registered:
    09 Sep 2007
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Truman: And where did offering the source code come from. I wouldn't want it even if you gave it to me. If I need the source code, then that's a bad design. 

    It's frequently a requirement for large enterprise projects.

    Truman: If Source Code is required by the odd Enterprise client it should be a "call for source code licensing options". It shouldn't be something that the rest of us have to pay for by this out of whack pricing model.

    The availability of source code did not inflate the price of the enterprise edition.  For now, this is one of the differentiators of the enterprise edition.  In the future, the enterprise edition will have other benefits.

    Phil: My clients don't like any change unless it's "more for less" and not the other way around.

    This sentence perfectly explains why we have no desire to cater to this audience.  The resources needed to service these customers continues to climb while the benefits of servicing these customers continues to fall.  Regarding the "less for more", Sitefinity 4.0 has many new features not in 3.x (details).

    Gabe Sumner
    Telerik | Sitefinity CMS
  10. Anthony
    Anthony avatar
    108 posts
    Registered:
    29 Sep 2008
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

    Hi mattc,

    I've updated the thread, since there were some things to add here.

    Any user belonging to the Backend Users role or to the Administrators role who authenticates within a Sitefinity 4.0 website is counted towards the concurrent user limitation. It doesn’t matter whether this backend or admin user authenticates by logging into the public facing website, backend administration area, or a third-party application using our RESTful Web Service APIs. That user is removed from the concurrent users count when he personally logs off, he is forcefully logged off by an administrator, or his session expires. The session expiration time can be controlled from the configuration settings of Sitefinity.

    Regards,
    Georgi
    the Telerik team


    What that is saying is that if I have an intranet that requires authentication to see the pages, anyone who tries to login to see the page and happens to be a member of backend user role of the site will count against the CALs even if they are not changing any pages and just logging in to see content?  Maybe this should be only people logged in AND in the /sitefinity admin folder?

    That seems very excessive and further restricts people with an already limited user license.  My plan was that maybe I could get away with the Pro edition because while people have to log into the intranet, as long as they are not editing pages they will not count.  This now seems like it is untrue.

    Help me out here....

  11. Phill Hodgkinson
    Phill Hodgkinson avatar
    362 posts
    Registered:
    10 Nov 2004
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Gabe If the source code doesn't inflate the price of the Premium Edition, what you're saying is you're giving away the source code for free? That's a great deal!

    This sentence perfectly explains why we have no desire to cater to this audience.
    The issue with this is that up until you made the announcement of SF4 pricing, you DID cater to this audience. After waiting for over a year for SF4 to find out that over night you're no longer catering to the Small Business market is a real kick to the groin.

    To use Microsoft SBS Server as an example (not quite apples to apples but close) they used to only allow 50 users and then they changed to to 75 users, the price did go up but such a small amount that it didn't affect the purchase decision of the client as it was around a 20% increase or less.

    In the end it's Telerik's choice to target the market they want to, it's just really unfortunate how you went about it. As mentioned already, I think you're going to really miss the active community that was made up largely of Small Business users (i.e. think of yourself and SelArom before you joined Telerik, how would you have explained the price jumps to your clients then?)

    Regards,
    Phill
  12. Andrei
    Andrei avatar
    553 posts
    Registered:
    27 Nov 2008
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    mattc, perfect and simple explanation about the concurrent users. Now I get it.

    I am so glad to see Telerik reconsidering some of the features for the Standard version.
    One feature I think is absolutely crucial is the Network Load Balancing feature. I think the Standard version should include the Network Load Balancing and have the farm limited to two servers. You can't have medium sized businesses take risks with just one server. This feature will push people up the scale to 8K. 

    Otherwise, Sitefinity 4.0 looks really good.
  13. Markus
    Markus avatar
    2763 posts
    Registered:
    25 Nov 2005
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Gabe

    I have been long standing behind Telerik and accepted every decision they made so far, but sentences like this

    Quote
    This sentence perfectly explains why we have no desire to cater to this audience.  
    UnQuote

    just makes me feel like, let's say it mildly: unwelcome. The Garage Developer. I hope this is just some bad phrasing in the heat of all the bashing you are taking at the moment,  and not the way Telerik thinks - because this would contradict everything I got to know about Telerik.

    I finally am not sure anymore about the concurrent users :-)

    Quote

    Any user belonging to the Backend Users role or to the Administrators role who authenticates within a Sitefinity 4.0 website is counted towards the concurrent user limitation. It doesnt matter whether this backend or admin user authenticates by logging into the public facing website, backend administration area, or a third-party application using our RESTful Web Service APIs. That user is removed from the concurrent users count when he personally logs off, he is forcefully logged off by an administrator, or his session expires. The session expiration time can be controlled from the configuration settings of Sitefinity.

    Georgi

    UnQuote

    If the above mentioned stuff is true then the concurrent users really is a joke. But I don't believe it yet.



    @all

    Again. Hold your horses and stop throwing more dirt in the air. Cool down for 3-5 days and see what happens.

    Cut them some slack. Telerik has always supported me as a small business owner in a way nobody can expect. So give them some credit for the past 3 years and don't (sorry) piss them off.

    Regards Markus

  14. Jaime
    Jaime avatar
    28 posts
    Registered:
    01 Mar 2010
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Clarifying the definition of concurrent users doesn't help me at all. I have understood it perfectly and I'm still in a bind. I will have many page editors, contributors and admins.

    When chatting with a sales rep about this issue yesterday, they said that they did a lot of research with clients and partners about how they use Sitefinity. They said an overwhelming majority said they didn't even need 5 concurrent logins. I find this hard to believe. But if it happens to be true, why didn't they ask me how I used Sitefinity? I would have been happy to share my thoughts. 

    This leads me to one thought; if the majority of current Sitefinity users don't even need 5 concurrent logins then why limit this so tightly? If having concurrent users isn't that big of a deal to the majority of users, then why single out the few that need this?

    I'm going crazy here with this one issue: 3.x = unlimited concurrent users --> 4.0 SE = 5

    Can you not see how ridiculous this is? 
  15. bleutiger
    bleutiger avatar
    153 posts
    Registered:
    23 Oct 2008
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Here, Here, Jaime!

    I second this sentiment. 

    Knowing that we are in the same boat.  We were never asked about how we use the product either.  And it was well known to the sales team when we purchased our licence that we would need unlimited users for admin purposes as well.
  16. Gabe Sumner
    Gabe Sumner avatar
    440 posts
    Registered:
    09 Sep 2007
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Phil:  The issue with this is that up until you made the announcement of SF4 pricing, you DID cater to this audience. After waiting for over a year for SF4 to find out that over night you're no longer catering to the Small Business market is a real kick to the groin.

    I'm not sure we catered to this audience, but the price point did make it a natural fit.  

    In any event, point taken.  I think all of us understood that we were looking at a transition.  In 6-months I'm sure I'll have more perspective and a lot of ideas about how this could be handled better.  However, we understood that $899 was not going to allow us to create the product & service that we wanted to deliver.  We also understood that we had a large community of customers delivering extremely high-value web sites for an extremely low (or in some cases free) price for small business customers.

    For these customers, the small business edition is our compromise.  We tried to structure the limitations & price based on the feedback we received from the community.  We allowed others to define the requirements of a small business / budget web site.  Although, as you can imagine, opinions on this were diverse.

    However, this still left our huge pool of current customers.  To address this we created a huge number of discounts for current customers.  Our sales department (sales@sitefinity.com) is also working with one-on-one with customers to help them create a migration strategy.  Our goal is get all customers on the 4.0 platform.  We're giving away thousands of dollars in software during the next few months.  I'm not asking for praise, but hopefully you can have some appreciation for the people who championed this cause and Telerik for allowing this to happen.

    Which now leads us to the future...  There is an understanding that we may no longer be a good fit for these small projects.  Web site shops who cater to these budget projects may find that Sitefinity is no longer a good tool for their task.  I don't feel good about this, but I'm not sure what to do about it.  If we severely compromise this new pricing then we also threaten Sitefinity's future.

    Markus.. Phrases like .... just makes me feel like, let's say it mildly: unwelcome. The Garage Developer. I hope this is just some bad phrasing in the heat of all the bashing you are taking at the moment,  and not the way Telerik thinks - because this would contradict everything I got to know about Telerik.

    I apologize Markus & Phil.  It was poorly phrased, as I realized shortly after posting.  We do value all our developers and community, but at some level the quote did demonstrate the futility of trying to please an audience that constantly demands more for less.  

    Gabe Sumner - a proud garage developer
    Telerik | Sitefinity CMS

  17. Truman
    Truman avatar
    7 posts
    Registered:
    12 Nov 2010
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Of course the source code should inflate the price. If it doesn't, this is one of the most expensive CMS out there. Wow man, by far this is more expensive than just about any unlimited e-Commerce shopping cart too. $20K really?

    Unless you have some kind of developer or server license, you can count on an exodus of developers flocking to the next best CMS out there. The entire Telerik base consists of developers, not enterprises. Developers are more loyal to Telerik than their own employers.

    I really want Sitefinity to succeed. If you really think this is the way to do it, then nice knowing ya.
  18. mattc
    mattc avatar
    105 posts
    Registered:
    11 Aug 2007
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hi Andrei,

    Cool, I hope I'm right ;)

    Interesting idea re load balancing. I tend to agree that even for a small sized business I would still run 2 servers but know lots disagree with me.
    Say in Azure, 2 extra small instances come to $876 a year, so not a great cost but a 99.9% SLA from Microsoft, not bad!

    M


  19. Bryan
    Bryan avatar
    62 posts
    Registered:
    20 Jul 2010
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hey Gabe,

    First, I'd like to throw a little sympathy your way.  You are in the unenviable position of being point man in this discussion.  Not that the pricing is terribly unreasonable, its just that folks had an expectation based on previous experiences.

    Anyhow, there are rumblings of the RC release date being pushed back (RE @Alison Gilles).  I am in the same boat here.  Do we know when the RC will be released?  I need to know because I too am trying to launch a project within the next couple of weeks.

    My guess is if the release date has been pushed it is most likely due to the feedback you are receiving here.

    Thanks,
    Bryan
  20. Markus
    Markus avatar
    2763 posts
    Registered:
    25 Nov 2005
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Gabe

    Thanks for trying to softening the blow a bit. But still left some bruises.

    My fear has always been that you would stear away from the small clients. And it seams to somewhat come true. However. I would not mind if you limit SBE Support to community only. The reason you have lot's of cost is not the download bandwith for SBE, nor the key generation - it's your outstanding support.  So cut back on the SBE support and you have a fire and forget product that will just be a nice cash cow.

    a) you would have less to do with our not so advanced programmers -> save money on the support
    b) you could add some featurs (see my x-mas list above) and make SF 4 SBE foolproof
    c) You could sell lot's of SBE
    d) A community would grow for SBE without your top people answering our post
    e) SF 4 SBE could simply be the standard CMS for small business -> yes I think you have the potential

    I don't  like customers who want more for less. But I have customers who expect at least the same for more :-)

    There is a saying. Be nice on your way up you never know who your meet on your way down.

    I kind of understand the votes for not beeing asked. Some of us have provided lot's of ideas on sitefinity.uservoice.com . Probably because beeing busy those ideas where not answered. The betas were so feature incomplete that I think we only understand what's happening when we have the RC in hand or on harddisk.

    @all

    So why not wait for the RC. Set up a demo project and try the concurrent user feature for ourselfes.

    Markus
    Over and out.
  21. bleutiger
    bleutiger avatar
    153 posts
    Registered:
    23 Oct 2008
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    I don't think that many people are as upset about the price as they are about the restrictions.

    Not only did you increase the price...that is to be expected with any product....but you then restricted the products use compared to what we had before. 

    So not only are we paying more but we are recieving less!

    Can you really not see what we are talking about?

  22. Phill Hodgkinson
    Phill Hodgkinson avatar
    362 posts
    Registered:
    10 Nov 2004
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Gabe As Bryan said, you're dealing with a lot of heat here. It made me realize that I should also clarify that none of this is personal, you yourself have been a great evangelist for Telerik long before you were employed by them. The product, especially SF4 is truly amazing and is worth every penny. My frustration just comes from the fact that I have put so many man hours into SF customization and skills and I can't change my target market over night like you can. If I did, I'd be out of business.

    I hope all this works out in the end, I hope that I can find some clients that are ok with starting at $1,999 but I won't be rushing to upgrade any of my current sites to 4.0 as I can't go backwards in features (i.e. no newsletter functionality). I'll just have to cross my fingers that no major security holes are found after SF3.x is no longer supported.

    Thanks for spending night and day in this thread!

    Cheers,
    Phill
  23. Neil
    Neil avatar
    82 posts
    Registered:
    21 Oct 2006
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    When the final release is hear how will the login required for contentEditable elements within the browser affect concurrent logins.
  24. Brad
    Brad avatar
    3 posts
    Registered:
    29 Sep 2010
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    When we chose Sitefinity over a year ago, a big factor for us was the unlimited concurrent users.  I'm the webmaster for my county and our government has over 40 departments each with multiple web contributors.

    As someone who works with developers on a daily basis I completely the understand the need to charge a fair price for your applications.  Sitefinity is amazing and deserves a new pricing structure.  However, my problem is the seemingly arbitrary 5 concurrent user limit with the Standard Edition.

    Can you possibly consider raising this to 10?  The Standard Edition would then be very appealing for us.

    We can likely get by with 10 concurrent users, but it's hard to swallow at the $7,999 price tag.  I understand that all products increase in price as they mature, but to go from $899 to $7,999 for less concurrent users seems a bit unrealistic.

    I understand that Analytics and perhaps a few other features will be added to various editions- is there anyway that the concurrent users will change, or are they completely cemented?

    Thanks!
    Brad
  25. bleutiger
    bleutiger avatar
    153 posts
    Registered:
    23 Oct 2008
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    So I just got off the phone with Sales.

    Nice guy...he sounded tired... and I think we both saw each others points.  I doubt it is going to change anything for us which still leaves our situation up to the boys and girls that hold the purse strings at our school district so we will see.

    I did get one piece of information though.  Apparently there was a survey sent out to license holders asking about such things as number of editors and how many would be logged in at any given time and basically asking how the product was used.

    I never received any such survey and I was wondering how many of you got one.

    Could you chime in and just say "got the survey" or "no survey here"...I am just curious.

    And for Telerik.  I am not trying to be a jerk here.  I am genuinely curious how many people got this survey and I would love to have Telerik publish the results of the survey as well.
  26. Phill Hodgkinson
    Phill Hodgkinson avatar
    362 posts
    Registered:
    10 Nov 2004
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    I didn't get any survey (not that I can recall). I do remember being told that SF4 Beta would be out in October 09, so maybe the survey was sent out in summer 09? Maybe I filled something out then and just can't remember....

    Phill
  27. Jaime
    Jaime avatar
    28 posts
    Registered:
    01 Mar 2010
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @bleutiger - I didn't get the survey unless it was combined in with their newsletters.
  28. mattc
    mattc avatar
    105 posts
    Registered:
    11 Aug 2007
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post

    I believe there was a survey in August 09, sure someone at Telerik will confirm..

    M

  29. Tod Madderra
    Tod Madderra avatar
    3 posts
    Registered:
    13 Aug 2009
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    I never reveived any survey request.  I typically participate in such exercises and would have noticed if it was reasonably marked.
  30. bleutiger
    bleutiger avatar
    153 posts
    Registered:
    23 Oct 2008
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @mattc  Thanks for chiming in. It seems at least one person remembers it.

    I have been getting newsletters and auto emails Since November of 08 but did not get a survey other than the one that told me to update my profile and gave me 1000 telerik points.  Thanks for that Telerik!

    I am not saying it wasn't sent just that I did not recieve it. I normally participate in surveys too on products I use a lot and love.

    Anyone from Telerik want to chime in.  Now I am really curious.
183 posts, 0 answered
1 2 3 4 5 6 7