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

41–50 of 202 posts

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

#41

Post by rogerchucker »

officemonkey wrote: post #3

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…

If the Gmail app becomes good enough thanks to the Sparrow team, then I don't see any loss for the user.

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

#42

Post by rogerchucker »

carsongross wrote: post #40

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 dev…

Nobody outside the developer community will ever pay for any software on a recurring basis, especially if free alternatives are available.

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

#43

Post by hboon »

nirvana wrote: post #35
hboon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publ…

> 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.)

I agree.

An additional value which VCs provide that hasn't been eroded that much is credibility to enterprises. It's a good guess that Github took the investment so they appear more credible to enterprises, i.e. they are going after Perforce and ClearCase

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

#44

Post by dr_ »

I've downloaded Sparrow on my iPhone and used it for a bit but then later switched back to the native email app, primarily because of the lack of push notification at the time of its initial release. I wonder how much of this sale has to do with the updates to email in ios6, such as the ability to attach photos directly from the mail app. Can they differentiate enough to continue to keep an active user base? if not its hard to beat a native app.

Can't comment on the Mac, haven't tried it.

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

#45

Post by betterth »

rogerchucker wrote: post #41
officemonkey wrote: post #3

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…

If the Gmail app becomes good enough thanks to the Sparrow team, then I don't see any loss for the user.

How about any user not using Google email?

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

#46

Post by technoslut »

luriel wrote: post #31
technoslut wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...…

Much of what is left of Quicksilver today is about fixing bugs and keeping it on life support which is why I used the term "fell apart" instead of "dead". This was an app that the developer stopped programming for in 2006 and the bug fixing didn't really start until last year. Th plug-ins to other apps are part of what made Quicksilver great and most still don't work and haven't been updated since that time.

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

#47

Post by spartango »

albertzeyer wrote: post #17
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…

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 assu…

The first two are valid, but in the specific case of Sparrow, all the "state" is held in the mail provider(GMail via IMAP) or FB, which is nice.

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

#50

Post by joshstrange »

toddmorey wrote: post #26
antihero wrote: post #8

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

This makes me wonder if you could open source a project like this and still sell it through the App Store. Then there would be a paid version (that's easy to acquire and pay for) as well as the code being shared with the community. Anyone could still get the app for free, but I'd be willing to bet most people would financially support the project if given such an easy and integrated means to do so.

You can, I am on my phone right now so i can't give specifc examples, but there are apps I paid for through the OS X App Store that are open-source. It was easier to get it through the app store and I got to support the developers. I prefer this model because anyone can contribute back to the collective whole and abandonware is less of a problem.
Post reply on HN