The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by luriel » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 1:34 PM UTC

technoslut wrote: post #20

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…

> 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.

I don't use a Mac, and don't even know what Quicksilver was until I checked, but this was posted 17 hours ago:

http://blog.qsapp.com/post/27644282840/ss69-release-quicksil...

Maybe development didn't follow at the same pace as before, but to say it "fell apart" when they are very close to releasing 1.0 seems not very accurate to this outside observer.

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

#32

Post by andybak » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 1:35 PM UTC

mmcdan wrote: post #16

fallenhitokiri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but worst case scenario is you are forced to switch to a different client not that you lose any data. So actually not that critical.

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

#33

Post by ivanmilles » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 1:36 PM UTC

There's also the very basic disappointment that a piece of good software won't grow to maturity. I finally found a mail client that restored my faith in SMTP as a communications medium; a mail client that had me managing email exclusively on my iPhone. A mail client that broke away from email as a metaphor for paper envelopes with written messages on pulp.

I liked handling email in Sparrow. It felt modern, and now it won't get any better.

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

#34

Post by franzus » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 1:38 PM UTC

zhoutong wrote: post #22

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…

> independent software developers tend to be less entrepreneurial than startup founders

Why is that? Because they have a working monetization model when they launch?

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

#35

Post by nirvana » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 1:39 PM UTC

hboon wrote: post #24

antr wrote: post #14

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?

I think github would be the exception that proves the rule, because the github investment isn't a typical "Venture" investment- it was much closer to a late stage hedge, or hedge fund investment.

This was a company that was profitably growing like crazy and thus could effectively dictate terms. Whatever A16H's exit expectations are here, I'm pretty sure they are rather long term, and on the order of "github goes public" rather than "github is shut down after an aquihire."

Yesterday I was watching a presentation where Steve Blank said that the pyramid has shifted-- the big VCs have replaced IPOs and private equity, and everyone has moved up the stack. (So now instead of needing VCs for your first investment, for instance, there's accelerators like YC, then angels, then super angels.)

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

#36

Post by frontsideair » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 1:42 PM UTC

vog wrote: post #2

This posting is very true, and this is exactly why I prefer Free Software when it comes to sustainability. Even if the developers' revenue plan (services, merchandising, whatever) turns out to not be sustainable, at least the remaining software is free (in the sense of freedom) such that others can fork it and can take care of it. In that sense, Sparrow could have made a great move, since they don't plan to make any…

That's exactly what I had in my mind immediately after reading the article. I'm no Mac user, but seeing loyal users let down, I just wish the app was free software.

I don't think Google will release it as free software, but if they made it open from the start, maintaining it would be a possibility.

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

#37

Post by nirvana » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 1:43 PM UTC

Could it simply be that Google is willing to so overpay for engineers that it makes sense for Sparrow, which, in previous times would itself be a nice successful small business (like eudora used to be, etc.)

Back in the day, Sparrow might have grown over 5-10 years to be a big company to get swallowed up... but now, companies like google are so desperate for talent that they cut them off too early by making absurd offers?

As much as I hate working for big companies (and refused googles constant, persistent pursuit to go work for them) I'd be tempted by a $25M "Signing bonus" (or whatever a Sparrow Founder's split of that is....)

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

#38

Post by nirvana » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 1:44 PM UTC

antr wrote: post #14

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…

FWIW, I was an early employee at a startup that was acquired around 1998 for around this amount of money.

In those days this wasn't considered an "acquihire" but a "successful exit" or a "base hit". (e.g.: not a failure but not the success that pays for all the other companies in the VC firms cohort that year.)

The VCs got about 5X on their money and because of liquidation preferences and other shenanigans, I, and the other employees, pretty much got screwed.

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

#39

Post by jfager » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 1:50 PM UTC

For me it's as simple as knowing a product I like is not going to be developed anymore, and having a complete lack of faith in Google to use them to turn out anything near as good.

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

#40

Post by carsongross » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 1:50 PM UTC

The reason sparrow had to sell is because they didn't have a recurring revenue model. This is what limits all "pay once" desktop (and mobile) software: either they have to charge prohibitively high amounts or they have to get you to upgrade frequently. The former limits adoption and the latter is tricky and encourages feature bloat.

I now want to pay for the desktop software I like as a subscription: it keeps the developer fed and on call, and doesn't put undue pressure on them to add features, while still keeping their revenue from me contingent on the continued usefulness of their product.