Regarding access level 1b

Dear Arkady, what you write is a matter of terminology. 1. Everything that you rent is not your property. In the broad sense of the word. 2. For cloud boxes, the box owner role is assigned to the partner to whom you pay money. Because - you are not the owner of the box, but the client. Because it was the partner who bought the box and rented it to you. If you want to become the owner of the box - put the box on your server (buy activation keys) and take ALL risks for the safety of data, server maintenance, etc. 3. Any user with the "admin" role can mow down and add any users, except for changing the "owner" (owner'a). This restriction is made only because in OneBox's business model it is the partners who are engaged in attracting and servicing customers. And somehow it’s not cool if a partner has spent time and money on attracting a client, and the client is like “I don’t like you - I’m leaving for another.” Okay, go away, but the box will have to create another one and transfer the data there. However, if you disagree with your partner kindly and no one is throwing anyone, then the partner has the opportunity to change the owner. But this is his decision, not the end client. Thank you.

[quote] Miroshnichenko Maxim OneBox CEO wrote: Dear Arkady, what you write is a matter of terminology. 1. Everything that you rent is not your property. In the broad sense of the word. 2. For cloud boxes, the box owner role is assigned to the partner to whom you pay money. Because - you are not the owner of the box, but the client. Because it was the partner who bought the box and rented it to you. If you want to become the owner of the box - put the box on your server (buy activation keys) and take ALL risks for the safety of data, server maintenance, etc. 3. Any user with the "admin" role can mow down and add any users, except for changing the "owner" (owner'a). This restriction is made only because in OneBox's business model it is the partners who are engaged in attracting and servicing customers. And somehow it’s not cool if a partner has spent time and money on attracting a client, and the client is like “I don’t like you - I’m leaving for another.” Okay, go away, but the box will have to create another one and transfer the data there. However, if you disagree with your partner kindly and no one is throwing anyone, then the partner has the opportunity to change the owner. But this is his decision, not the end client. Thank you. [/quote] If the owner of our box was the company that owns the software, then I wouldn’t have any questions, but now I have them, because now the third party is the owner, only because you and your company decided, in this way, to build the document flow and streamline relationships in the sale of licenses by partner companies to end users. You made such changes quite recently without informing your customers. As a client, I don’t care how you distribute your product, when I contacted the company, I wrote a cooperation request directly to your site, the request was forwarded by YOUR company to partners. So it was not me who chose how to build a relationship with your company as the owner of the product. You just 'thrown' me as a client, giving a carrot to partner companies, previously there were no such things in access, which means that the changes that are now displayed in 1b occurred quite recently, and the registration of mediation between partner companies with a client was processed by your company in a completely different way, and now you have given them such a 'gift' to yourself, but in fact you have limited the client, and carefully monitor the chain, if the end user does not pay the partner's company, then the partner's boxes will stop buying from you. Your company, as the owner, could very easily write these new terms in such a way that the sub-license based on the master license (which is sold to the partner company) includes these rights, but you did not. You decided to put things in order between partner companies at the expense of end users, as I wrote at the very beginning (and I turned out to be 100% right) this is not a decision that I, as an end user, will applaud. Trust in your company and product is now ZERO.

All that you wrote is only your vision of the situation, and it is not correct. Because here we create the product and set the rules, not you. The model that OneBox has now has been around for at least 1.5 years. It is written about this here https://1b.app/ru/prices/#collaboration_scheme_and_risk_notification - here it is specifically written what and how. And recently there was another post https://1b.app/ru/forum/onebox-official-news/14252-pro-model-workoti-onebox-partnerov-i-vnedrenie/ We have not sold ANY CLOUD directly to anyone, everything is only through partners. So your claims about "I was not warned" are not accepted. [quote] Vartanov Arkady wrote: Trust in your company and product is now ZERO. [/quote] Well, then go away. We have ZERO confidence in you as a client. Go make claims to Google "it was I who entered a request there and you showed me the issuance of sites, I did not decide with whom and how to work." Did you expect such a response from me? :)

[quote] Miroshnichenko Maxim OneBox CEO wrote: All that you wrote is only your vision of the situation, and it is not correct. Because here we create the product and set the rules, not you. The model that OneBox has now has been around for at least 1.5 years. It is written about this here https://1b.app/ru/prices/#collaboration_scheme_and_risk_notification - here it is specifically written what and how. And recently there was another post https://1b.app/ru/forum/onebox-official-news/14252-pro-model-workoti-onebox-partnerov-i-vnedrenie/ We have not sold ANY CLOUD directly to anyone, everything is only through partners. So your claims about "I was not warned" are not accepted. [quote] Vartanov Arkady wrote: Trust in your company and product is now ZERO. [/quote] Well, then go away. We have ZERO confidence in you as a client. Go make claims to Google "it was I who entered a request there and you showed me the issuance of sites, I did not decide with whom and how to work." Did you expect such a response from me? :) [/quote] We have had a normal relationship with a partner company so far and remain so, but I will not ignore the issue of boxing ownership by a third party, in fact, there are 2 solutions for me in this situation: either stop working with your company altogether; or switch to the payment tariff according to the data (which, according to the partner company, is purchased from you directly, which solves the problem of box ownership by 3rd parties). In all these options, the partner company will lose, and this one is even more relevant for them in light of the fact that we were going to increase the number of licenses. Which option to choose, we will make this decision based on the priority of the tasks that we set for our business at the moment. Regarding expected / did not expect such an answer, I will tell you this, maybe somewhere someday we will cross paths, perhaps on some forum, and I will gladly share my opinion with you again on this situation, such an attitude towards customers worth not forgetting.

[quote] Vartanov Arkady wrote: either stop working with your company altogether; or switch to the payment tariff according to the data (which, according to the partner company, is purchased from you directly, which solves the problem of box ownership by 3rd parties). [/quote] No, this is incorrect. The end customer cannot directly buy anything from us at all. Even the tariff for the data - you pay money to the partner, and the partner pays OneBox'y cost price.