21–30 of 202 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If we hate this, we can either make such talent acquisitions less attractive, or increase the value of software customers.
Talent acquisitions become less attractive when:
- The number of talents available increases significantly
- Economies of scale in software business is less substantial
- There's ethical pressure from online communities
- The act of "selling customers" (through data collection or ads) becomes less profitable or costs more (with things like DNT or ad blockers)
- More people are willing to spend more money on independent software development
- Access to software market is easier (with things like app stores)
- More revenue streams with higher payouts (like high-quality ad networks such as Deck and Carbon)
- Higher potential to get big (with VC money and building platforms/ecosystems)
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 know, I know, don't buy an application based on promises, buy it based on what the application currently offers. Wise words, I have learned.
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…
Also, frankly, I think people chose Sparrow because they weren't happy with the big boy's applications (Apple's Mail.app on Mac OS X, Apple and Gmail's apps on iOS). It's a case of "We don't like Google or Apple's apps, so we're going to _pay extra money_ to get something we like." So when the Sparrow team gets picked up by Google _and_ we hear that Sparrow.app is becoming abandonware, many people think "the bad guys…
Or open source the app code? c.f Intellicad when Microsoft bought Visio
Perhaps we should only pay for development of open-source software, so we actually own what we're paying for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The agreement between the Free Qt Foundation and Nokia gives them right to release the latest Qt version under a BSD-style licence if Nokia stop releasing Qt versions (GPL+LGPL).
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…
Have you stopped using GitHub, if you were a user?
It's all about value creation. Assuming every party here is rational: Google decides to pay for the Sparrow team only because the potential value of these developers is much higher than the price they pay. And Sparrow team accepted the offer only because the big pay check exceeds the value all their own customers combined. If we hate this, we can either make such talent acquisitions less attractive, or increase the v…
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…