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

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

#121

Post by jiggy2011 » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 5:44 PM UTC

keithpeter wrote: post #25

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…

"Of course, I hope the hue and cry about this will suggest to google that Sparrow might be worth maintaining after all." Or open source the app code? c.f Intellicad when Microsoft bought Visio

I've never used Sparrow, but how difficult would it be from a technical standpoint just to produce a copycat application?

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

#122

Post by notthemessiah » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 5:45 PM UTC

bookwormAT wrote: post #111

"If you’re not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold." This statement is complete nonesense and I do not understand why it keeps appearing everywhere. You are almost always paying for apps and services, and you are never the product being sold. Sometimes you pay with cash, sometimes you pay with ad impressions. But you always pay and you are always the customer that needs to be satisfi…

"If it's not being bought, it must mean that it is sold" is just bad logic, plain and simple. It's just a nonsensical retort to an attempt to pigeonhole technology facilitating transactions into stupid categories that were made for a paradigm of classical economics, but still falls within the confines of the paradigm.

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

#123

Post by rahoulb » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 5:50 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #121

keithpeter wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Of course, I hope the hue and cry about this will suggest to google that Sparrow might be worth maintaining after all." Or open source the app code? c.f Intellicad when Microsoft bought Visio

I've never used Sparrow, but how difficult would it be from a technical standpoint just to produce a copycat application?

Technically not difficult. But Sparrow does nothing that any other email client out there does - the great thing about it is its "feel".

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

#124

Post by jiggy2011 » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 5:56 PM UTC

technoslut wrote: post #46

luriel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sounds like a great idea for a kickstarter.

I'd still take "basic bugfixing and maintenance" over "gone completely" however.

I suppose in some sense it's a bit like owning a classic car, the warranty and support from the manufacturer is long since gone but there exists a community of owners and refurb businesses keeping it alive.

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

#125

Post by chernevik » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 5:57 PM UTC

If you build something of strategic value to a big player, they'll pay more for it than the present value of its expected cash flows. They're expecting improvements in cash flow in other, non-competing products, which they can realize but which the original product will never see. Big players will "overpay" for something of strategic importance.

So if the hope is that buying small products will free you from the big players, yeah, that was always dubious, at least in the corners interesting to those players.

On the other hand, Sparrow got built, didn't it? And whatever you liked about it just got a big fat Market Stamp Of Approval. It wouldn't be surprising for similar features to start appearing in other mail clients, some of them open source. Maybe someone will build Sparrow The Sequel ("Google didn't get every egg in the nest . . ."). VCs just got more interested in pitches for email software.

How much this matters depend on what you want. If you want freedom from "you are the product", the complaint makes more sense to me. But if what you want is more innovation, well, Sparrow's DNA just demonstrated its ability to generate returns. And returns on innovation more generally have been validated. So it isn't clear to me that buying Sparrow "failed" to push innovation forward.

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

#126

Post by jiggy2011 » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 5:58 PM UTC

rahoulb wrote: post #123

jiggy2011 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never used Sparrow, but how difficult would it be from a technical standpoint just to produce a copycat application?

Technically not difficult. But Sparrow does nothing that any other email client out there does - the great thing about it is its "feel".

Would the "feel" be difficult to reproduce? Maybe someone in a country unhindered by the DMCA could reverse engineering it and find whatever the secret sauce was.

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

#127

Post by BasDirks » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:05 PM UTC

After residing in unix-land for almost a year I decided to come back to Mac OSX just 2 days ago, and after re-downloading my purchased apps, the announcement by the Sparrow team was the second mail I picked up. Fuck.

Thinking back, in unix-land no such jokes were pulled. Something abandoned? another trooper taking over. How the $#&% can you charge money for something _non-open-source_ and then just leave it to rot?

I would pay a hundred bucks for a similar app (or a monthly fee) if I'd be assured that the developers were dedicated to ME and THEIR PRODUCT.

Sparrow is above average. Congrats, I loved you for that. But you sinked your goddamn ship before it got half way. I'm only this pissed off because it could have been so much more. I will wait and see what glorious work you do for Google. I (and all the people who paid you money) await your work with great anticipation. Good luck.

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

#128

Post by SoftwareMaven » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:06 PM UTC

Zirro wrote: post #119

ben1040 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is spot on. Thanks to the App Store, the days of paying $30+ for boxed software and paying again every year or so for version n+1 (assuming it comes out at all) are pretty far back in the rear view mirror now. I paid $10 for Sparrow and got far more than $10 in value from it. So while I am disappointed that the best email app I have seen is EOL'd now I did get a decent value and I can't complain a whole lot. I a…

"How do we recalibrate people's expectations about the value of software back to pre-2008 levels?" As someone who wasn't quite old enough to be interested in following this when it happened, I feel the need to ask: Why did the App Store affect pre-2008 price-levels as much as it did? Were most apps this cheap at the launch of the App Store, or did it lower over the year(s)? Did Apple set any guidelines for the price-…

The early days of the App Store were a gold rush. People were able to make a good chunk of money off a $5 app. That brought in investment dollars (angel or internal corporate development) that allowed prices to be lowered because there was less direct need to have revenue and costs line up. Over time, that pushed the prices down lower.

Customers became accustomed to getting an amazing app for $0.99 (or even free), so they complain at best and refuse to buy at worst if the price is much higher.

Apple never provided any guidelines on pricing. The market went where it wanted to.

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

#129

Post by Evbn » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:09 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #57

Obviously, those arguments are somewhat metaphorical. Paying $2.99 (or even $2,999) for software doesn't guarantee its sustainability. It doesn't move the needle. It's more like voting where your individual vote doesn't count but you still feel that its important to vote. Especially if you voice an opinion and try to convince others (something that probably has more effect than voting). I think we are talking about m…

"Ads or subtracts" is a delightful description of the profit proposition for Google products :-)

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

#130

Post by webwright » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:09 PM UTC

phil wrote: post #104

webwright wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very very true. Their overall top grossing US rank (on iPhone) was stabilizing in the 500-700 range (after generally declining for months[1]), which equates to tens of thousands of dollars per month from my understanding. I'm sure they made some from their Mac app as well. This is GOOD MONEY, don't get me wrong. But you'd have to really love self-employment to take this over a $2M payout and a $200k comp pack…

Mac app had a run rate of over $1m its first six months, per this interview: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-26/tech/30036420... Who knows what was happening internally, but on the surface: strong team of 5, $1-1.5m revenue their first year, tremendous reputation and another product in the pipeline. What more could you ask for to make a long term go of it?

Talking about run rates in the first 6 months is iffy. The run rate difference between #5 and #26 (where they are now on the Mac App Store) grossing are huge. Order of magnitude huge. How much of that $500k was when they were featured and making their initial splash? What's their daily run rate now at #26? What's the trend? I'd wager it's been down steadily if it's anything like the iOS app store.

I don't know about the Mac App store, but on the iPhone, their daily revenue was in a state of decline. There is SO much gravity in the app store. Stuff falls-- it's the natural state for almost all apps unless you have an ARPU or some marketing hack to counteract it.

I'm not saying they were in a crappy position-- though I'm not sure that a $2.99 / $9.99 email client is a good business bet for 5 engineers. Email is complex/weird and users will want support-- with a LTV of $2/$6, it's really hard to afford to support them well. You can't afford marketing. You're competing with $200k comp packages for your team.