3CX Should Honor Unlimited Extensions for Existing Active Licenses

[jawi]

I am very disappointed with the recent change to the 3CX extension limit.

When we purchased our license, unlimited extensions were part of the license conditions, and we bought the license including updates based on those terms. Now, while the license is still active, the limit has apparently been reduced to 80 extensions.

From a customer perspective, this feels highly unfair and very difficult to justify. At the very least, the original license conditions should continue to apply until the current license period ends and the license needs to be renewed. Changing such an important limitation during an active license term creates the impression that customers cannot rely on the conditions under which they originally purchased the product.

I understand that vendors may change their licensing models for future renewals or new customers. However, applying such a restriction to existing active licenses is, in my opinion, extremely customer-unfriendly and raises serious contractual concerns.

I would expect 3CX to honor the original terms for the remaining duration of existing licenses.

 

[Eduardo Neves]

I would like to express my concern regarding the recent licensing changes introduced by 3CX.

For many years, one of the strongest arguments when presenting 3CX to customers was the licensing philosophy promoted by the company itself: "Unlimited Extensions" and "Don't pay per user." Those messages appeared prominently on the official website and became part of the value proposition that many partners, including us, used when recommending the platform.

I fully understand that every software vendor has the right to evolve its licensing model. In many cases, those changes are necessary and even beneficial for the long-term sustainability of the product.

However, the transition from a model that proudly promoted unlimited extensions to one that directly limits the number of extensions according to the purchased simultaneous call capacity represents a significant change in direction. More importantly, it is a very difficult change for partners to explain to existing customers who made their purchasing decisions based on the previous licensing philosophy.

A common example is a customer with around 100 extensions but only one or two simultaneous calls most of the time. Under the previous model, this was a perfectly reasonable deployment. Under the new licensing model, the customer may now be required to purchase a much larger license simply to keep the same number of extensions, despite having exactly the same usage profile.

From the customer's perspective, this can be difficult to understand because the additional cost is not associated with increased call volume or greater system utilization. It is simply required to preserve an existing deployment.

This is not intended as criticism of 3CX's right to change its licensing strategy. Rather, it is constructive feedback from a long-time partner who genuinely wants the platform to continue succeeding.

I hope the product management team will consider the impact that this change has on existing customers and partners, and perhaps evaluate alternatives or transition mechanisms that better accommodate organizations with many users but low concurrent call volumes.

Thank you for taking the time to read this feedback.

 

[Alphabetic]

It's probably in those same T&Cs that says they reserve to right to change whatever they want.. and there was also plenty of communication that this was going to happen..

Yes its unfortunate, but if people werent abusing the unlimited extensions then we probably wouldnt be here.