Tapatalk vs. Tapatalk Pro. VIP? Pay vs. Ad Free? Huh?

[drewellison]

I'm wanting to use Tapatalk for this forum on my new iPhone 6s. I've been using regular iOS Tapatalk and am getting tired of all the "sponsored" content. Checking out the apple store, there is ...

1. Tapatalk - download free. Can pay for VIP (ad-free) for $0.99/mo. or $14.99 lifetime.

2. Tapatalk Pro - $2.99 in the apple store. Says it's a stripped down version of Tapatalk (?a pro version which is less than the regular version?). It doesn't say if it's ad free or not.

I want ad free, and don't mind paying for the privilege.

Please let us know what version you're using for ad free forum-ing.

Thanks!
Drew

[djg21]

I purchased a license to the Pro version when there was an ad-based version and a Pro version without ads. I was under the impression that the Pro version was generally the same as the ad-based version. In any event, the version I licensed for a couple of dollars works fine. I use it on my iPhone to access the Paceline, and even on my iPad to access a number of other forums. I prefer using Safari on my iPad to access The Paceline.

[gallant]

I purchased a license to the Pro version when there was an ad-based version and a Pro version without ads. I was under the impression that the Pro version was generally the same as the ad-based version. In any event, the version I licensed for a couple of dollars works fine. I use it on my iPhone to access the Paceline, and even on my iPad to access a number of other forums. I prefer using Safari on my iPad to access The Paceline.



I use the Tapatalk pro for iPhone $2.99. My version does not have ads. Absolutely worth the 3 bucks. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ergott]

I don't remember when the 3 version split happened, but if you don't already own the ad free version, you need to get the VIP to remove them. The $15 is well worth it to me. On pizza pie and you get rid of the rather annoying ads and support a great platform. The people there are good with support too.

[rnhood]

It's too bad this forum doesn't provide a mobil site. It really isn't difficult to do.

[smontanaro]

When I visit some web pages (Chrome on Android), it offers to display a "mobile friendly" version. It does this for bikeforums.net, for instance. BF isn't supported by (or doesn't support - who's the culprit?) Tapatalk. Generally speaking, I prefer "mobile friendly" over Tapatalk.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[drewellison]

Thanks for all the input, folks. I ended up buying the $2.99 pro version and the ads have vanished! I'm happy and can start obsessing about something else now.

What's interesting is that in the iOS App Store, the pro version is sold by Tapatalk but the regular version is sold by another developer Quoord Systems. So even though the two apps look identical, they have different subscription methods. It must be some sort of licensing agreement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ergott]

I stand corrected. It wasn't clear to me that the pro version was ad free.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Keith A]

It's too bad this forum doesn't provide a mobil site. It really isn't difficult to do.Once I get over the problem with the secure website issue, I will be looking to upgrade to a newer version of vBulletin. I think starting with version 4, they have a mobile version available as part of the suite...but it looks like there are some 3rd party mobile apps for vBulletin 3.x that I could try first before going to version 4.x.

[Gsinill]

Bringing this back to life...
How many pictures can be attached simultaneously to a single post with Tapatalk Pro?
For the VIP version it says 12 but I can't find this info for the Pro version.
Don't need 12, 4 or 5 would be enough...

[pdmtong]

the ads don't bother me

having to post pictures one at a time doesn't bother me

happy to stay with the free version

what does bother me is posting pictures changes the spacing of the text in my posts so I need to go back on my laptop to edit out the double triple quadruple spacing that gets layered in.

[Lanternrouge]

For me, it's totally worth paying something to be able to more efficiently upload photos.

[Gsinill]

For me, it's totally worth paying something to be able to more efficiently upload photos.

This is the only reason I am looking into Tapatalk.
How long does Tapatalk host pictures?
I.e. all the other hostage services I've used stop at some point causing broken links.

[smontanaro]

I didn't think it was possible to upload pictures. I'm only ever given the option of referring to a URL.

[Gsinill]

I didn't think it was possible to upload pictures. I'm only ever given the option of referring to a URL.

Well, I uploaded a picture from my Photo app on my iPhone via Tapatalk.
When I checked the post, the URL for the picture links to uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com.

[smontanaro]

Well, I uploaded a picture from my Photo app on my iPhone via Tapatalk.
When I checked the post, the URL for the picture links to uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com.

Thanks, I was referring to forums.thepaceline.net. It seems TapaTalk fakes that for The Paceline but allowing uploads to its site.

I gave up on TapaTalk a long while ago. Perhaps I should revisit it and see if this extra feature offsets the things I didn't like about it (mostly incessant spam trying to get me to read a bunch of other forums through their interface, as I recall).

[pdmtong]

Thanks, I was referring to forums.thepaceline.net. It seems TapaTalk fakes that for The Paceline but allowing uploads to its site.

I gave up on TapaTalk a long while ago. Perhaps I should revisit it and see if this extra feature offsets the things I didn't like about it (mostly incessant spam trying to get me to read a bunch of other forums through their interface, as I recall).


IMHO it's the easiest way to post pictures to a thread. and said pictures do not eat into your forum space allotment