Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

Hi Navin,

On one hand you say: "as some of your colleagues (including Shaun Walker) pointed out: ...won't other module vendors feel that DotNetNuke Corp is going to build modules and go after the same market segment as theirs?"

On the other hand you say: "There are over 8,000 modules and skins on Snowcovered. We acquired two. Both in terms of the number of modules and revenue share of the module market, this is minuscule. This is not a strategy."

If your intentions are "minuscule", then just assure us that your "strategy" is not to go after broader market segments. Period. Your admission of how minuscule this purchases is (in terms of scope) completely negates your "colleagues" main concern for no longer offering O-DL/O-SE in the community market. Given this fundamental flaw in your purported justification, one can only wonder what your real motivations are to withdraw valuable IP from the community that has financed (from our purchases) and help build (from our feedback).

The removal of O-DL and O-SE seriously impact the ability to deliver enterprise class solutions on the CE edition. You must be aware of this.

Chris

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

It seems that by acquiring this module and taking this approach you HAVE left Xepient customers at a dead end.

They are no longer able to purchase this module to use for new clients, as they have done in the past!

I've read very little about this aquisition (this blog and a forum thread), but if DNN didn't want to maintain this as a stand-alone module, why acquire it?

Why not seek a license to use it within PE?

Now DNN Corp have rushed into such decisions, distancing itself even further from the CE community (the core that supported DNN to where it is today) why suggest DNN Corp is competing with module developers by merely offering a module for sale as it has been for years?

How does this change the module marketplace?

And if continuing to maintain and develop the module really could mean DNN Corp is competing where it doesn't want to, then simply don't. Continue to make the module available as it has been in the past and say that no further versions are expected. At least those Xepient customers you "won't" leave at a dead end can still access the module they have invested in and know the future for it wil be limited.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

I would like to second the concern of several contributors. If corp gets onto the market place and remove good (or best) modules from access to the community then this will directly undermine the quality and vitality of the community edition.

It is true that the market place is fairly big, but in the multitude of module many do not cut it for professional implementation... Quantity does not equal quality.

The problem does not lie into the acquisition of the modules IP; this is probably a good thing. The problem is with the removal of these modules from the market place. I don't understand the argument that the removal is necessary as it would require more resources to maintain independent releases. This maintenance work will still needs to be done for the incorporation of the modules into professional edition, so where is the difference?

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

Chris, I have to admit I do not understand your logic... I personally do not see the "fundamental flaw in your purported justification".

As much as it may appear to some that DNN Corp was totally clueless in regards to the acquisition of the Xepient modules, I have to admit that there was a lot of careful thought and deliberation which went into this announcement..

From the moment that DNN Corp announced Professional Edition, we made it very clear that our goal was to sell a "complete solution". This approach conformed to the "open core" business model and was comprised of the DotNetNuke core framework, some proprietary extensions ( we take advantage of the same extensibility points which are available to the community ), and professional support. And alhough we knew that some of the proprietary extensions we created would have business value on their own, we deliberately made a decision to NOT offer them independently from the complete solution. We imposed this restriction on ourselves because we wanted to absolutely avoid a situation where we would be competing with module vendors.

If DNN Corp offered Open Document Library as a stand-alone module on Snowcovered, would it not send a message that we are now in the "module business"? Would this not set a precedent which would make other module vendors worried in terms what other types of modules we would introduce in the future? If developers feel there is unfair competition in a market, they will go elsewhere for opportunities. This would be devestating for the DotNetNuke ecosystem, as the module vendors provide a tremendous amount of professionalism, innovation, and value to the platform.

From a consumer perspective, we did realize that the Open Document Library acquisition would cause some discomfort. However, the fact that a comparably priced document management solution is still available ( DMX by Bring2Mind ) does provide a suitable alternative for those using Community Edition. Not to mention that in the DNN ecosystem we have seen time and again how the laws of supply and demand instill healthy competition amongst module developers, so I would not be surprised to see some other offerings emerge in the near future.

çiçekçi,çiçek,online çiçek siparişi

Thank you very much for sharing I wish you success.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

*cross posted from forum thread*

Hi everyone,

Unfortunately we seem to be in a situation where the interests of vendors is pitted against those of integrators (specifically those that rely on ODL). Let me reiterate why module vendors are keen to keep DNN Corp out of the CE market.

1. Level playing field.
DNN creates a quality platform. But there would not be the adoption there is today without the availability of the addons the vendors make. This interdependence is evident to both sides, and valued. We (the vendors) know DNN is not going to screw us over, and DNN knows we won’t screw them over. Keep in mind they could make changes to the core that benefit one or the other extension. The architectural development of the platform is not a trivial matter and as time goes on more and more livelihoods are at stake. DNN Corp acknowledges this and has always tried to be fair to the community in this regard. Although I may regret not having seen changes I proposed introduced into the core, I applaud them for this impartiality. Becoming a vendor themselves, next to us, would shatter this. In fact, the vibe I was picking up from a number of (successful) module vendors was that they’d consider putting energy into migrating to another platform. If the “separation of power” is destroyed, it might be better to go somewhere else where it’s less risky.

2. Contribution to DNN effort.
I am a core team member and have contributed countless hours, free of charge, to DNN's open source software. I am not the only vendor that has done this. In fact, many of us saw this as a way to do something in return. We sell some closed source stuff and give away some free stuff to help the platform. In my case I also help out with user groups, internationalization, general DNN community health, and conferences. When DNN enters the market we are in currently, it means I will be making contributions to my competitor. This feels awkward to say the least. I wouldn't be surprised to see a withdrawal of part of the eco-system from contributions to the core effort if DNN abandons the separations of power. So what benefits some of you in the short run will end up hurting you in the long haul.

Until now vendors have not been very publically vocal in this debate. In part because (1) we are far fewer than integrators, and (2) the relationship with DNN is delicate and we handle it with care. But I can tell you the last week has seen a lot of (emotional) emails back and forth between vendors and between vendors and DNN Corp. It is up to DNN Corp to weigh the interests of one group within the DNN eco-system with another. This is not an enviable position to be in. I appreciate Shaun's efforts in explaining our side of the story.

Finally: no one can guarantee you'll have module XYZ at your disposal forever. The ODL purchase was just one scenario. I have been approached by an entity in the past that wanted to acquire the IP for DMX and then use it in a proprietary product and completely pull it from the market. You must realize that it is hard to build a sustainable and growing business on a 100 dollar module on SC. I found a solution by complementing sales with services. When you purchase a module for a business critical application you should ask yourself: is this vendor able to live off what I am paying him? It may not be easy to answer, but given that single digit SC sales per week can put you in the top 10, you might get an indication of what it returns.

Peter

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

*cross posted from forum thread



I felt I had to chime in on this thread. It's a difficult one to be involved in but I think it is indicative of where the community may head in the future.

As with many significant issues, there really is no good or right answer. Yet, those who favor one position tend to fight so fervently for it, it becomes difficult to fully appreciate the perspectives of others in the community.

Part of the problem, I think, stems from the fact that there was no warning from DNNCorp about this move. Individual customers and integrators feel that the carpet has been ripped out from underneath them and are understandably frustrated. The biggest concern is: will existing customers be well cared for. From what I understand, DNNcorp/Xepient will continue to support them.

Assuming that happens, it would seem the anxiety and tension seems to revolve around the future: will future customers be able to purchase ODL outside of PE and, if so, is that a valid role for DNNCorp to play in the ecosystem?

From an individual customer/integrator perspective, the answer is "yes, yes, yes!". This makes sense. If you know a product, it's much easier to keep using that product and if DNNCorp now stands behind it, that makes it all the more rational to support it's continue sale.

Consider for a moment the perspective of the module vendors. Module vendors are not funded by VC's. They are rightfully concerned by the possibility of DNNCorp stepping into their arena and competing directly. They produce the modules that individual customers and integrators rely on for their businesses and they take that responsibility very seriously. Many of them work 16 hour days and are on-call for the remaining 8, so that they can provide quality modules to their customers.

As the owner of Snowcovered, DNNCorp now has near complete control over how modules are sold. This gives them enormous power to control the market. It is essential that they be neutral in this endeavor. If they were to start selling modules directly, they would cease to be an impartial player in the marketplace and would now have motivation to favor one module over another. Would you want to compete with a well-funded corporation who also controls the means of distribution? This state would drive existing vendors out of the market and prevent new vendors from entering it. The market as a whole would suffer.

So, now that the IP has been purchased and no one seems to be happy, what should be done to try and mitigate the damage?

I think DNNCorp should do now what they should have done earlier. First and foremost, existing customers should be supported. Second, the company should give 2-3 months notice that the product will be removed from the market. The warning should be displayed prominently on the product's page. This gives potential customers and integrators the ability to make a reasoned decision about whether to buy into the product.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

I can understand how keeping the product on Snowcovered would have forced DNN Corp to support the product and therefore be a competing Module Vendor/Developer.

I do wonder why DNN Corp wouldn't have just seeked a license to use it within PE? Maybe even changed the name of it to avoid confusion? The module could have stayed in CE/Snowcovered for future customers wanting it. Seems like it would have been a win/win because then DNN Corp would also continue getting sales of it within Snowcovered as well as having it within the PE. So I guess I am curious why this wasn't the direction?

I agree with Kelly regarding the concerns/anxiety as there was no warning. We have to wonder 'what's next' if this was such a surprise. As a major player in the DNN community and ecosystem, as we continue to grow (including additional staff and resources) news like this can really throw out some concerns...

-Chad
www.datasprings.com

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

*cross post summary from my post in the forums

Why can’t DNN Corp come right out and say what's next on their agenda? Why can't they define this "complete solution" we keep hearing about when it comes to DNN Pro? I still don't think the original question that was the start of this post has been answered. Why was the Xepient IP acquisition a good thing? We've heard that it was a good business transaction and that it made sense for both parties, but what does that actually mean for DNN Pro?


Believe it or not, I have no problem with DNN Corp being a module builder. I know it may not be in their best interest, but it doesn't bother me as long as we know the intentions. I'm not excited about the idea of having to compete with DNN Corp, but I know it's a possibility. Just to be clear, I said module builder, not vendor, but they could be a module vendor too. I know there has been some confusion between selling actual modules in the market versus building them and including them in the Core. DNN Corp is building modules, how they distribute them doesn't matter. My point is, I think the intentions of DNN Pro have become very blurry and the Community deserves some clarification.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

The biggest weakness of the current DNN software is document content search. If you purchased this module to apply to all edition, I think most of the community would be very happy. The quickest way to dismiss all this community concern would be to apply the module to all editions of DNN.
Is there a roadmap for the changes to the search features, so we can all put our two cents into this move?

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

DNN corp does NOT control the distribution of modules and skins as has been said here.

For example, Apple does control all the software that goes onto pretty much every iphone. There is no way to but and install software on an iphone without going through the apple app store and being approved by them.

In contrast, any module or skin developer can sell modules or skins from their own website and anyone who wanted to could theoretically create a competing DNN module store at any time.

I love this about DNN, they are open and honest both in terms of communication and product design.

Keep up the good work and thank you for responding with humility to your critics. We need more people to respond this way in our fractured society.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

As Peter mentioned the contention here is between Developers and Integrators.
DNN Corp purchased 1 of perhaps three viable Document solutions out their.

It is pie in the sky, but I almost wish they would have simply purchase both or the top three and would then be free to integrate them in PE and CE, or make them available at a cost in CE.

There are a number of opportunities in the module space where the number of viable vendors have become quite small and the benefits to integrating into DNN would be a huge benefit.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

As Peter mentioned the contention here is between Developers and Integrators.
DNN Corp purchased 1 of perhaps three viable Document solutions out their.

It is pie in the sky, but I almost wish they would have simply purchase both or the top three and would then be free to integrate them in PE and CE, or make them available at a cost in CE.

There are a number of opportunities in the module space where the number of viable vendors have become quite small and the benefits to integrating into DNN would be a huge benefit.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

I admit to a great deal of fear and trepidation on hearing about the
sale of Xepient's modules to DNN. I am happy for Xepient, and I
wish them nothing but success. We have been using ODL since version 1.4 and have a high financial investment in the modules and our use of them.

I've been reading the forums and the blogs on DNN and it only
increases my concern that the Community will lose access to a great
enterprise module this way. It sounds to me like we will be locked out of further use of ODL Truthfully we might never use DNN
PE because the pricing is not advantageous for our business model. We don't
need extensive support from DNN and we have a LOT of instances which
would mean we were paying over $50K a year to license PE (because we
run a web farm we would have to pay for each instance on each
server). I have talked to the DNN people about this and despite their insistence that they want to develop a pricing model that works for
Enterprise, to date we have not been given a proposal that remotely
meets our needs. My take is that Enterprise is not targeted for DNN
PE, instead its SMBs that need support and will gladly pay DNN to
provide them with that support.

We purchased ODL because it is the best of breed, (we have been using
it since version 1.5!) and the growth and improvement in the module
justifies our trust and belief in you. At that time, I reviewed the
few modules out there that had the functionality of ODL and found that
they came up short and really could not compare. All along we have
been thrilled at the support and response from Xepient to
help us when we had issues. Not only that, they never balked at
requests for enhancements that I threw their way, instead they
integrated them as improvements. What kind of improvements will be
made to ODL and OSE by the DNN team? Will they have a paid development
staff to respond to bug fixes? Or will users be told, the fix may show
up on the next version of DNN? I made the right decision then but now
it seems that DNN corp is telling us that unless we can go with DNN
PE, we will have to rework our DNN architecture, buy a new module to
replace ODL and deal with the pain and suffering that goes along with
that. (Pain in removing ODL and replacing with DMX or something else)
(Suffering in loss of customer confidence as we haplessly explain,
sorry, you will have to re-learn this module for managing your
documents.)

Our instances are all running on 4.9.5 because the 5.x version is
still too unstable for our purposes. Only recently did I get a tip for
running an upgrade to 5.x that actually let the upgrade scripts work
(use SA in the connect string). I have wondered why the upgrade
information has been so hard to come by on the forums, I've yet to see
any documentation but maybe DNN doesn't want people to be able to
upgrade on their own, they would rather we pay them $5K per instance
and let their engineers 'support' us. The surprise factor may be that
the DNN community is full of very very smart people who have a keen
knack for making things work in spite of odds, conditions, and
roadblocks thrown at them. I would love to use the PE version, I've
tried the trial and its got some great tweaks but there are too many stumbling blocks.
*I ONLY wish that the pricing was more for Main Street than Wall
Street. Has the stratification of our economy bled into DNN too?

I'm very unhappy about the turn of events and hopefully we will be
able to purchase ODL source before it's too late, otherwise we face a
difficult future with our DNN enterprise.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

I admit to a great deal of fear and trepidation on hearing about the
sale of Xepient's modules to DNN. I am happy for Xepient, and I
wish them nothing but success. We have been using ODL since version 1.4 and have a high financial investment in the modules and our use of them.

I've been reading the forums and the blogs on DNN and it only
increases my concern that the Community will lose access to a great
enterprise module this way. It sounds to me like we will be locked out of further use of ODL Truthfully we might never use DNN
PE because the pricing is not advantageous for our business model. We don't
need extensive support from DNN and we have a LOT of instances which
would mean we were paying over $50K a year to license PE (because we
run a web farm we would have to pay for each instance on each
server). I have talked to the DNN people about this and despite their insistence that they want to develop a pricing model that works for
Enterprise, to date we have not been given a proposal that remotely
meets our needs. My take is that Enterprise is not targeted for DNN
PE, instead its SMBs that need support and will gladly pay DNN to
provide them with that support.

We purchased ODL because it is the best of breed, (we have been using
it since version 1.5!) and the growth and improvement in the module
justifies our trust and belief in you. At that time, I reviewed the
few modules out there that had the functionality of ODL and found that
they came up short and really could not compare. All along we have
been thrilled at the support and response from Xepient to
help us when we had issues. Not only that, they never balked at
requests for enhancements that I threw their way, instead they
integrated them as improvements. What kind of improvements will be
made to ODL and OSE by the DNN team? Will they have a paid development
staff to respond to bug fixes? Or will users be told, the fix may show
up on the next version of DNN? I made the right decision then but now
it seems that DNN corp is telling us that unless we can go with DNN
PE, we will have to rework our DNN architecture, buy a new module to
replace ODL and deal with the pain and suffering that goes along with
that. (Pain in removing ODL and replacing with DMX or something else)
(Suffering in loss of customer confidence as we haplessly explain,
sorry, you will have to re-learn this module for managing your
documents.)

Our instances are all running on 4.9.5 because the 5.x version is
still too unstable for our purposes. Only recently did I get a tip for
running an upgrade to 5.x that actually let the upgrade scripts work
(use SA in the connect string). I have wondered why the upgrade
information has been so hard to come by on the forums, I've yet to see
any documentation but maybe DNN doesn't want people to be able to
upgrade on their own, they would rather we pay them $5K per instance
and let their engineers 'support' us. The surprise factor may be that
the DNN community is full of very very smart people who have a keen
knack for making things work in spite of odds, conditions, and
roadblocks thrown at them. I would love to use the PE version, I've
tried the trial and its got some great tweaks but there are too many stumbling blocks.
*I ONLY wish that the pricing was more for Main Street than Wall
Street. Has the stratification of our economy bled into DNN too?

I'm very unhappy about the turn of events and hopefully we will be
able to purchase ODL source before it's too late, otherwise we face a
difficult future with our DNN enterprise.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

I admit to a great deal of fear and trepidation on hearing about the
sale of Xepient's modules to DNN. I am happy for Xepient, and I
wish them nothing but success. We have been using ODL since version 1.4 and have a high financial investment in the modules and our use of them.

I've been reading the forums and the blogs on DNN and it only
increases my concern that the Community will lose access to a great
enterprise module this way. It sounds to me like we will be locked out of further use of ODL Truthfully we might never use DNN
PE because the pricing is not advantageous for our business model. We don't
need extensive support from DNN and we have a LOT of instances which
would mean we were paying over $50K a year to license PE (because we
run a web farm we would have to pay for each instance on each
server). I have talked to the DNN people about this and despite their insistence that they want to develop a pricing model that works for
Enterprise, to date we have not been given a proposal that remotely
meets our needs. My take is that Enterprise is not targeted for DNN
PE, instead its SMBs that need support and will gladly pay DNN to
provide them with that support.

We purchased ODL because it is the best of breed, (we have been using
it since version 1.5!) and the growth and improvement in the module
justifies our trust and belief in you. At that time, I reviewed the
few modules out there that had the functionality of ODL and found that
they came up short and really could not compare. All along we have
been thrilled at the support and response from Xepient to
help us when we had issues. Not only that, they never balked at
requests for enhancements that I threw their way, instead they
integrated them as improvements. What kind of improvements will be
made to ODL and OSE by the DNN team? Will they have a paid development
staff to respond to bug fixes? Or will users be told, the fix may show
up on the next version of DNN? I made the right decision then but now
it seems that DNN corp is telling us that unless we can go with DNN
PE, we will have to rework our DNN architecture, buy a new module to
replace ODL and deal with the pain and suffering that goes along with
that. (Pain in removing ODL and replacing with DMX or something else)
(Suffering in loss of customer confidence as we haplessly explain,
sorry, you will have to re-learn this module for managing your
documents.)

Our instances are all running on 4.9.5 because the 5.x version is
still too unstable for our purposes. Only recently did I get a tip for
running an upgrade to 5.x that actually let the upgrade scripts work
(use SA in the connect string). I have wondered why the upgrade
information has been so hard to come by on the forums, I've yet to see
any documentation but maybe DNN doesn't want people to be able to
upgrade on their own, they would rather we pay them $5K per instance
and let their engineers 'support' us. The surprise factor may be that
the DNN community is full of very very smart people who have a keen
knack for making things work in spite of odds, conditions, and
roadblocks thrown at them. I would love to use the PE version, I've
tried the trial and its got some great tweaks but there are too many stumbling blocks.
*I ONLY wish that the pricing was more for Main Street than Wall
Street. Has the stratification of our economy bled into DNN too?

I'm very unhappy about the turn of events and hopefully we will be
able to purchase ODL source before it's too late, otherwise we face a
difficult future with our DNN enterprise.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

I admit to a great deal of fear and trepidation on hearing about the
sale of Xepient's modules to DNN. I am happy for Xepient, and I
wish them nothing but success. We have been using ODL since version 1.4 and have a high financial investment in the modules and our use of them.

I've been reading the forums and the blogs on DNN and it only
increases my concern that the Community will lose access to a great
enterprise module this way. It sounds to me like we will be locked out of further use of ODL Truthfully we might never use DNN
PE because the pricing is not advantageous for our business model. We don't
need extensive support from DNN and we have a LOT of instances which
would mean we were paying over $50K a year to license PE (because we
run a web farm we would have to pay for each instance on each
server). I have talked to the DNN people about this and despite their insistence that they want to develop a pricing model that works for
Enterprise, to date we have not been given a proposal that remotely
meets our needs. My take is that Enterprise is not targeted for DNN
PE, instead its SMBs that need support and will gladly pay DNN to
provide them with that support.

We purchased ODL because it is the best of breed, (we have been using
it since version 1.5!) and the growth and improvement in the module
justifies our trust and belief in you. At that time, I reviewed the
few modules out there that had the functionality of ODL and found that
they came up short and really could not compare. All along we have
been thrilled at the support and response from Xepient to
help us when we had issues. Not only that, they never balked at
requests for enhancements that I threw their way, instead they
integrated them as improvements. What kind of improvements will be
made to ODL and OSE by the DNN team? Will they have a paid development
staff to respond to bug fixes? Or will users be told, the fix may show
up on the next version of DNN? I made the right decision then but now
it seems that DNN corp is telling us that unless we can go with DNN
PE, we will have to rework our DNN architecture, buy a new module to
replace ODL and deal with the pain and suffering that goes along with
that. (Pain in removing ODL and replacing with DMX or something else)
(Suffering in loss of customer confidence as we haplessly explain,
sorry, you will have to re-learn this module for managing your
documents.)

Our instances are all running on 4.9.5 because the 5.x version is
still too unstable for our purposes. Only recently did I get a tip for
running an upgrade to 5.x that actually let the upgrade scripts work
(use SA in the connect string). I have wondered why the upgrade
information has been so hard to come by on the forums, I've yet to see
any documentation but maybe DNN doesn't want people to be able to
upgrade on their own, they would rather we pay them $5K per instance
and let their engineers 'support' us. The surprise factor may be that
the DNN community is full of very very smart people who have a keen
knack for making things work in spite of odds, conditions, and
roadblocks thrown at them. I would love to use the PE version, I've
tried the trial and its got some great tweaks but there are too many stumbling blocks.
*I ONLY wish that the pricing was more for Main Street than Wall
Street. Has the stratification of our economy bled into DNN too?

I'm very unhappy about the turn of events and hopefully we will be
able to purchase ODL source before it's too late, otherwise we face a
difficult future with our DNN enterprise.

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

Thanks Navin, but that doesn't address my concerns about the future of ODL and OSE with the Community edition. It reinforces the notion that these modules will eventually become unavailable to the Community Edition. Will we now have to devote our own development cycles to upgrades to these modules? In no way do I oppose improving the core modules of DNN, there is need to do so. But can we expect that future improvement will be limited to PE and the trickle down to CE?

Re: More Thoughts … DNN Corp Acquires Document Management IP From Xepient Inc.

Navin,

One thing I will say is that there are some thing that absolutely belong in the core feature list.
Not as PE alone feature.

Search that works is one.
I think top quality Document Management perhaps less so but some would argue for this as well.

Entrepreneurs have stepped in and filled the missing gaps which is great but eventually Core features should evolve to a level of quality that are considered first rate.
Whether DNN Corp. purchases or develops the quality doesn't matter.
Here is what matters.
Step one is that you communicate well in advance with the top vendors of that module or function that DNN will be advancing a function, module or feature.

This will allow them to prepare their business model to deal with the new core feature, or they will step up their game and compete at a higher level.

Case in point: Active Modules. I am sure they had some sleepless nights, but they continued to step up their game with their Forum Module,and they diversified their portfolio. Now they are a part of a much bigger and richer web community.

I have used the core forum for some projects, and I have used Active Forums. I have also used a few of their other products.

Just a final note.
I want to say that I am a very happy DNN member and will be for a long time. I am excited by all of the things DNN Corp is doing to improve the PE and CE versions.
The New Taxonomy and Avatar features are two examples that add to the richness of this platform.
Please keep up the sole searching and the crazy workload. It is appreciate