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

181–190 of 202 posts

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

#181

Post by MisterBastahrd »

rogerchucker wrote: post #42
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.

Ever heard of a small company called Adobe? How about Autodesk? Or how about every antivirus company on the planet? They might all not have an explicitly recurring revenue stream, but the updates to the software damned near mandate the purchase of a new license to prevent problems with incompatibility.

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

#183

Post by rmc »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #126
rahoulb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

DMCA is not a problem. The code ie copyrighted. You cannot copy it without permission (which you don't have). You cannot legally "take it apart to look at the code" to build a derived work without permission (which you don't have).

A country without the DMCA still has copyright law.

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

#184

Post by rmc »

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…

MySQL was open source before Sun bought them (you cannot un-open source something). Then Oracle bought Sun.

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

#185

Post by Jach »

ben1040 wrote: post #70
steve8918 wrote: post #60

Unfortunately, this is what you get when you pay $10 for an app. There is a huge disparity when it comes to the cost of apps these days vs the salaries required to sustain the engineers who make those apps. Even at $10/pop, you need to sell a lot of apps just to sustain the salaries of very good engineers, and THIS is what makes great products vulnerable to acqui-hires. The problem is that the $0.99 model of the App…

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…

> 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 think this is overblown. There are a lot of business models, many that don't revolve around app-store-like freemium or one-time $1 purchases. They are waiting to be used. In the enterprise world, I don't think the app store has even made a dent in purchasing decisions.

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

#186

Post by meric »

The philosophy is modelled incorrectly.

Rather than being paying customers of a software costing $15 and expect support forever, be a paying customer of software costing $5 a month and expect support every month, while you're paying.

With regards to perpetuity software, the developer only has incentive to keep on building the product whilst the market is relatively unsaturated. When the entire market has purchased the product, the developer is no longer incentivized to produce new features besides the ones he must build to fulfil his contract (e.g. fixing bugs).

With a monthly subscription model, the developer must continue to improve the product, lest his customers switch to alternatives.

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

#187

Post by idspispopd »

Contrary to the tweets, I think it's perfectly fine to be upset about sparrow no longer being developed.

The days of software being unchanging are gone, that's a pre-internet way of thinking about computing, and it's perfectly fine to be upset that something you rely upon is no longer supporting you into the future.

We live in an era where there is an expectation that our software titles will keep pace with the rapidly changing nature of technology. The business model of ios is simple, the vendor takes 30%, while the developer is free to lure new customers with additional innovations/features without having to worry about the expense of updating everyone who has purchased the title already. It's the life blood of competition and a business model that many titles adhere to.

So whether the developer is updating the code for new devices, adding software features that are relevant to new emerging technologies or simply staying relevant by supporting the latest standards. We treat software like a journey and not a static point. Software titles compete by out innovating each other. The moment this stops the software title is dead, it's competitors overtake it quickly and rarely would any of us rely on a piece of software that is no longer being developed.

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

#188

Post by mgkimsal »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #128
Zirro wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I know I'm not the only one, but I rarely buy iphone/ios apps, mostly because there's often no trial process, and there's no return/refund policy. Yes, it might get abused, but give vendors the ability to do more (time limited trials, functional trials with in-app upgrades, etc). Some vendors try to provide this, but... they're fighting against Apple App Store policies.

Yes, you can argue "hey, it's just $x" ($2? $1? $3?) Over time, those tend to add up, and when there's no recourse, I'd rather just not participate much.

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

#189

Post by technoslut »

EdiX wrote: post #150
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…

To be fair in 2007 leopard's spotlight implemented the 20% of quicksilver's features that most users used 80% of the time. You probably were a quicksilver poweruser, but I don't think there were many of you.

I don't think any Quicksilver user was anything other than a power user.

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

#190

Post by technoslut »

adambyrtek wrote: post #62
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…

After a long hiatus Quicksilver was taken over by a dedicated team of contributors who resumed active development[1]. Open-source worked after all, as this wouldn't be possible otherwise. [1] http://blog.qsapp.com/

I realize that many Quicksilver fans will be upset with my comments but I can't rely on something that was essentially broken for five years and count on it being something I can use a couple of hundred times everyday.

What happens the next time something gets broken after a major OS update? I can't wait for a few months to get it working again.

I'm not saying that open source software is lousy. I use it all the time. It's just that in certain situations you need the person there who created it.

Post reply on HN