Tapatalk now wants us to pay monthly to disable the Smart Banner and Tapatalk Signature!

[Digital Phoenix]

I'm not sure what you think my "implied intention" is, since I think I've been pretty clear on the issue, but re-read BirdOPrey5's posts above to see the inconsistency in his replies - clearly the "anti-TapaTalk signature" add-ons written by BoP and Daniel are intended to defeat TapaTalk's branding free option (i.e. paid premium upgrade) on sites where TT is running and not only for "cleaning up" sites after TT is removed.

Nevermind then, I did misread.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

I'm not sure what you think my "implied intention" is, since I think I've been pretty clear on the issue, but re-read BirdOPrey5's posts above to see the inconsistency in his replies - clearly the "anti-TapaTalk signature" add-ons written by BoP and Daniel are intended to defeat TapaTalk's branding free option (i.e. paid premium upgrade) on sites where TT is running and not only for "cleaning up" sites after TT is removed.

I never claimed mine was for after you uninstall Tapatalk, I believe I asked if it was changed to use language saying you should only use it after removing Tapatalk, would that satisfy your moral objection to the software? It was a curiosity more for the XF people.

I acknowledge this mod is in murky waters. I can understand why to some it's the same as removing branding from a free mod that requires branding be enabled, but it is also different for reasons mentioned in this thread. A moral decision anyone using it has to make for themselves.

 

[Digital Phoenix]

I can fully understand your stance and even applaud it but I sincerely question whether this particular move by Tapatalk qualifies for such treatment given that the end user can at present disable or customize their signature to remove all mention of Tapatalk. It smacks of nickel and diming rather than legitimate brand protection. I won't dignify this move by classing it as brand promotion...

Agreed. It's not branding, it's pure spam.
It's simply a case if Tapatalk saying.
Give us your money or we'll spam your site.

 

[The Sandman]

I acknowledge this mod is in murky waters. I can understand why to some it's the same as removing branding from a free mod that requires branding be enabled, but it is also different for reasons mentioned in this thread. A moral decision anyone using it has to make for themselves.

Which brings me back to my original decision, which was that TAZ would not host an add-on like this - discuss it all you want, host it on another site (preferably your own - why bring "murky waters" to someone else's site?) - perhaps TapaTalk will change its policies based on your feedback. Stranger things have happened....

 

[The Sandman]

Agreed. It's not branding, it's pure spam.
It's simply a case if Tapatalk saying.
Give us your money or we'll spam your site.

It's your choice whether or not to run their software. If you do you also get whatever strings are attached, same as any other software.

 

[Digital Phoenix]

It's your choice whether or not to run their software. If you do you also get whatever strings are attached, same as any other software.

Which is why I don't use it.
I also used to visit several forums using the app, but since mobile layouts have advanced so much, I prefer to use responsive views rather than an app.

 

[The Sandman]

Which is why I don't use it.
I also used to visit several forums using the app, but since mobile layouts have advanced so much, I prefer to use responsive views rather than an app.

There you go!

 

[Digital Phoenix]

There you go!

Lol.

Anyway, my point was that it's a ****ty buininess practice. 'Give us money or we'll spam your ****.'

 

[The Sandman]

Lol.

Anyway, my point was that it's a ****ty buininess practice. 'Give us money or we'll spam your ****.'

You could make that point about any paid branding removal option. Perhaps this time it's gone too far - if so hopefully TapaTalk will come up with something more acceptable.

 

[Digital Phoenix]

You could make that point about any paid branding removal option. Perhaps this time it's gone too far - if so hopefully TapaTalk will come up with something more acceptable.

Not really, a link in the bottom of your footer is one thing, and pretty much acceptable. But to spam 'copyright' in every single post made by the app? That is definitely going too far, imagine if BirdOPrey5 or any other author tried that for an add-on, there would be an absolute riot.
It's time people start voting with their feet, but some admins seem to scared to do so.
Sure, you'll lose a few members, but with the way the internet ebbs and flows, more will come to replace them... Eventually.

 

[The Sandman]

a link in the bottom of your footer is one thing, and pretty much acceptable

Maybe, but this is not the first time an add-on has been criticized for "overzealous" branding. Whether they're just trying to recoup development costs or trying to make a profit, they're either looking for the free advertising branding gives them or the fee to remove the branding. Done properly, it can workout for all involved. Done badly, it can backfire. It's really just Marketing 101....

 

[Digital Phoenix]

Done properly

The key point here is 'when' it's done properly, yes it can benefit all involved. Otherwise you're going to have a storm on your hands along with the situation we've had here, people developing addons to counter the 'overzealous' behaviour.

Now as to the actual topic, I somewhat agree with removing it from TAZ, Insofar that if Tapatalk decides to create a fuss over it, it would potentially leave TAZ liable.

 

[Rasty]

No, I haven't discussed any of my mods with VB either. I don't know nor care if VB cares about allowing posts to be in more than one forum for example, but that does defeat a fundamental limitation of the software.

Defeat versus enhance

 

[Anton Chigurh]

Spot on. I didn't realize until recently that many are using Tapatalk for free, and this is making a lot of things clear. If you want to remove the signatures after uninstalling Tapatalk, fair enough. But if you are running their app without paying their fee, that is just theft.

First of all its never HAD any kind of fee for the admins/site owners. Ever. Until now, and that is ONLY if you "upgrade" to their new "premium services." There was NEVER any kind of agreement that site owners had to tolerate TT posting spam, and in fact until this NEW premium service thing came about, we used to have the FREE option to turn these TT spam sigs off, globally on our sites.

Now it's, "We're going to spam you unless you pay the 10 bucks annually, with spam you never agreed to allow."

So how can the mod check if tapatalk is installed if tapatalk has to be removed to use the mod?

Have the mod look for file, 'mobiquo' on the server? That has to be there if the site has TT.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

Have the mod look for file, 'mobiquo' on the server? That has to be there if the site has TT.

The directory is customizable and stored on tapatalk's server, not locally.

 

[Citizen K]

The directory is name customizable (set in both ACP and Tapa site owner panel) yes but it nevertheless has to reside locally. I suspect most site owners just upload the standard mobiquo folder to forum root though.

 

[Anton Chigurh]

The directory is customizable and stored on tapatalk's server, not locally.

It's stored locally on all the sites I have that use TT.

 

[Anton Chigurh]

The directory is name customizable (set in both ACP and Tapa site owner panel)

Yeah it can be re-named, but like you I doubt many do that.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

Suppose if it's installed, but if it's installed it shouldn't be used. I guess the mod would have to scan all the directories to find tapatalk files to determine if the tapatalk files were on the server but the add-on was uninstalled. Just theory.

 

[Digital Phoenix]

the folder/files remain on the server even if the addon is removed