Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition

elezea.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 202 posts

Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition

#11

Post by jiggy2011 »

antihero wrote: post #10
jiggy2011 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or at the very least , a promise from the developers that the product will become open source if one of a number of conditions are met.

As a British person who voted Lib Dem, I'd need a lot more than a "promise" to quell my worries.

If it was part of the license agreement? I don't know how enforceable this would be in practice though.

Perhaps a neutral third party gets code access and a contract with the developer and users as to when/if it will be released?

Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition

#12

Post by fallenhitokiri »

antihero wrote: post #8

Perhaps we should only pay for development of open-source software, so we actually own what we're paying for.

I don't use Sparrow so please correct me if I am wrong.

The applications are still fully functional and are working perfectly fine until Apple changes anything they heavily depend on or something replaces imap.

You own your copy of Sparrow and it still works.

Imagine you buy a BMW and in 10 years you cannot get the required fuel anymore. Does this mean you only pay for a new car when you get all plans for the engine and the whole construction or do you just buy another car? (I know that the comparison doesn't work 100%)

Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition

#13

Post by mrschwabe »

Thing is, Sparrow was relatively cheap. And as I understand, they had a team of 5. So perhaps they were not as 'self-sustaining' as we assumed.

I guess the take-away is that, if you're going to remain independent - you had best charge a premium. In fact, Sparrow already was a premium app - so it is conceivable they could have doubled or tripled the price of their product with minimal impact on the size of their customer base.

Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition

#14

Post by antr »

In 1998 we wouldn't of complained - at least me.

It is 2012, and when I purchase software, I don't buy into the premise that this software is going to be static for perpetuity, and this is because of the fast-paced nature of OS, platform and web evolution.

I "marry" the software I love, and I am very happy to pay for upgrades. I upgrade my Mac the day after a new OS X version is released, not only that, but I use non-large company software every day for years: Panic, Bjango, Made@Gloria, etc.

When I buy software, I don't only buy into the software I get, but I support it because I think it has a bright and better future. If I knew the developer was to stop development going forward, I would simply not support it.

Going forward, if I find that a small/medium developer has received capital from an angel or VC, I am going to stay away from it (I already decided not to use Foursquare, Path, Highlight, Kik and many other mobile apps for this reason) - the investor will have the need to flip the company, whatever the outcome for the software is.

Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition

#15

Post by jiggy2011 »

fallenhitokiri wrote: post #12
antihero wrote: post #8

Perhaps we should only pay for development of open-source software, so we actually own what we're paying for.

I don't use Sparrow so please correct me if I am wrong. The applications are still fully functional and are working perfectly fine until Apple changes anything they heavily depend on or something replaces imap. You own your copy of Sparrow and it still works. Imagine you buy a BMW and in 10 years you cannot get the required fuel anymore. Does this mean you only pay for a new car when you get all plans for the engine…

I think the broader point that doesn't analogise so well with cars is network effects and compatibility.

Even cars from the 1950s are compatible with modern roads, also they can have a lead additive put into the fuel, or the owner can convert the car to run on unleaded petrol.

If your program is old and closed source (in this context , old cars are basically open source since they can be repaired by anyone with relatively standard knowledge and tools).

I never used Sparrow, but I'll assume that at least they worked with standard email protocols like IMAP and POP3 making a switch to another mail client feasible. Imagine instead that they had used some proprietary (and possible patented) web service API. Then their users would really be in trouble, and this is a sort of model many startups seem to be going for.

Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition

#16

Post by mmcdan »

fallenhitokiri wrote: post #12
antihero wrote: post #8

Perhaps we should only pay for development of open-source software, so we actually own what we're paying for.

I don't use Sparrow so please correct me if I am wrong. The applications are still fully functional and are working perfectly fine until Apple changes anything they heavily depend on or something replaces imap. You own your copy of Sparrow and it still works. Imagine you buy a BMW and in 10 years you cannot get the required fuel anymore. Does this mean you only pay for a new car when you get all plans for the engine…

For something as critical as email, "fine until Apple changes anything" is not good enough, given that Apple has a habit of changing things.

Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition

#17

Post by albertzeyer »

fallenhitokiri wrote: post #12
antihero wrote: post #8

Perhaps we should only pay for development of open-source software, so we actually own what we're paying for.

I don't use Sparrow so please correct me if I am wrong. The applications are still fully functional and are working perfectly fine until Apple changes anything they heavily depend on or something replaces imap. You own your copy of Sparrow and it still works. Imagine you buy a BMW and in 10 years you cannot get the required fuel anymore. Does this mean you only pay for a new car when you get all plans for the engine…

Obvious thing: Some security vulnerability is found which gives attackers access to your system or so.

Or: There is some bug which gets active let's say after year 2013 or after 10k mails or so.

Or: (I don't know Sparrow so not sure if this applies.) You have created/build some app-specific content/database (like have done all your mail tagging with Sparrow) so you want to re-use it on future Apple hardware. Now assume that Apple introduces some new architecture (like an ARM MacBook) or makes some incompatible API changes in future MacOSX versions. Either you can't upgrade your hardware/OS or you will loose the app-specific work.

Etc.

Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition

#19

Post by toddmorey »

I'm not upset about the acquisition. I'd be happy if Google was acquiring them to put extra muscle behind developing the app. But they are moving the developers to other projects. That means a fast, native email client for Mac isn't on Google's agenda. So I'm back to Mail.app or the browser. Gmail on Chrome is good, but for me and a lot of other users of Sparrow, it's not a replacement for the real thing.

Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition

#20

Post by technoslut »

antihero wrote: post #8

Perhaps we should only pay for development of open-source software, so we actually own what we're paying for.

I don't believe that changes the situation at all.

An example of this is Quicksilver on the Mac. It's considered to be one of the best Mac apps ever and the developer who made it, decided to open source it after he decided to take a job at Google. Quicksilver development fell apart afterwards.

My point is that people who used the app did so because of the talent of the developer. A community can't always make up for that hole.

Post reply on HN