[katie hunter]

Originally Posted by nhawk

There are quite a few reasons. But one of the biggest ones is the TMS (template modification system). I can manipulate templates without ever actually touching the templates. So an upgrade to XF has no effect on my add-ons.

Another is the direct access to literally every function in XF. It cuts coding time considerably once you get the idea of how XF works.

And finally, if done correctly one add-on can't interfere with another. So I have very little worry about a mod conflicting with another one. But I still slip up once in a while and have to correct a couple of things here and there with this one.

The entire process is almost like opening a kitchen cabinet and picking what you need to put together a good meal.

But to make it clear, it is not XF, it is the Zend framework http://www.zend.com/en/ and since XF back-end is built using zend, imagine i have a product back-end built using Zend, Cakephp, Yii or any of these wonderful framework, any web developer familiar with the framework and learn it, can create great addons without affecting the main template or hassle.

So credit is to be given back to Zend framework not XF whereas VB uses its own built framework that is built from ground up.

Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5

As we saw from the documents released during the lawsuit they were bound by a 1 year non-compete clause.

XenForo didn't become a thing until the day the non-compete expired.

Part of the lawsuit was the fact VB felt this meant they were competing / breaking the agreement by working on XenForo (before it had a public name.)

The reality is however that the precedent set in both the State of California (where Internet Brands is based) and the UK make non-compete clauses unenforceable as a practical matter. Had those been the only charges in the lawsuit IB may have had the moral highground they would have easily lost the case.

Just as i describe it, opportunists.