annual fee doesn't make a lot of sense for the average homeowner
I appreciate the response and somewhat understand, but your calculator operated for a long time without the time constraints. If services for the average homeowner are not what you are going after, then why impose the time limit at all? This is especially true since you don’t even offer a reasonable paying option for that group of users, who are people like us here on this forum. It’s not like you’re pushing us to a pay option, you’re basically just telling us to pound sand. Is it simply because you no longer want average homeowners using your product?That makes sense to me but IPVM is not particularly built to serve the average homeowner. We do not get many homeowners using IPVM and that's likely a reflection of where our coverage focuses (commercial / enterprise, etc.). We could theoretically implement a less expensive plan with a reduced number of cameras (in line with your suggestion), but I am not sure it would attract enough usage to even justify the time setting that up and the complexity that would add in showing more plan options to everyone.
I understand where you are coming from, we're just not well set up nor do I see how we could be well set up to serve the average homeowner. I am not trying to convince anyone here, just trying to explain the constraints and challenges we are operating under.
That makes sense to me but IPVM is not particularly built to serve the average homeowner. We do not get many homeowners using IPVM and that's likely a reflection of where our coverage focuses (commercial / enterprise, etc.). We could theoretically implement a less expensive plan with a reduced number of cameras (in line with your suggestion), but I am not sure it would attract enough usage to even justify the time setting that up and the complexity that would add in showing more plan options to everyone.
I understand where you are coming from, we're just not well set up nor do I see how we could be well set up to serve the average homeowner. I am not trying to convince anyone here, just trying to explain the constraints and challenges we are operating under.
then why impose the time limit at all?
might make sense to offer a special user account to ipcamtalk members
You could just offer short term paid access to the tool without any support on your end.
I'd be happy to pay a small fee, but $199 for personal use is simply too expensive.@john-ipvm My thought is a one-time payment of $10 or $20 or something for calculator access, but that is of course dev work on your end and I honestly doubt many people would pay for it.
Its a little high, especially when pros wouldn't have a need for this.I'd be happy to pay a small fee, but $199 for personal use is simply too expensive.
especially when pros wouldn't have a need for this.
I made some cardboard triangles to represent my view angles until I could judge a 2.8mm Vs 3.6mm camera in a spot without it.
So the first five pros that pay for membership pay the Google charge for one month. So 60 members pay for the year. You must have way more than 60 members. You have provided it for free for all these years. What prompted the change now?Possibly, what would ipcamtalk provide in exchange? To provide some further context, it costs money to provide the Calculator, most specifically Google Cloud Maps API charges (over $1,000 per month).
You have provided it for free for all these years. What prompted the change now?
...
So if IPCAMTALK is not your company's interest, then why do you even bother coming here?
decided to spring for the $200 paid subscription. Then forgot to cancel
Thanks, will shoot over an email.Email support@ipvm.com and we will review and refund as appropriate
I made an account with IPVM and took advantage when it gave a month free ~2 years ago.I too am in the "technical homeowner" category. A few years back I started playing with the free version of IPVM, which I learned about from this site.
It's a cool tool, very useful, but not $200 useful to the homeowner.