Important BufferBox Update • Hacker News Board

Re: Important BufferBox Update

#11

Post by georgewfraser » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 7:38 PM UTC

There's still swapbox, growing fast.

Re: Important BufferBox Update

#12

Post by nathancahill » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 7:52 PM UTC

paddy_m wrote: post #8

nathancahill wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way (outside of founder stubbornness) to reverse this norm? It's a pity that this has become the trend.

Pay for products. Use companies that have a real business model.

Could the answer be "Charge for products"?

Re: Important BufferBox Update

#13

Post by ycnewbie » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 7:57 PM UTC

matkam wrote: post #5

n00shie wrote: post #3

I am very disappointed to see this. I have been using BufferBox since the beginning, and it provided immense convenience for both myself, and all of my friends who used the service as well. I was worried that something like this would have happened when they were acquired by Google, and now it has :(

Any alternatives out there?

In San Francisco, there's Swapbox. Don't know about in Canada

Re: Important BufferBox Update

#14

Post by Edmond » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 8:04 PM UTC

dabit wrote: post #4

Is this Whatsapp's future? Stay tuned.

Probably not... way too many users. I think fb would take a lesson from Instagram and leave WhatsApp relatively independent. Besides, only an insane person would pay $19 billion for a company just to shut it down :)

Re: Important BufferBox Update

#15

Post by plumeria » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 8:28 PM UTC

$37 million dollars to waste...

Re: Important BufferBox Update

#16

Post by jonny_eh » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 8:58 PM UTC

paddy_m wrote: post #8

nathancahill wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way (outside of founder stubbornness) to reverse this norm? It's a pity that this has become the trend.

Pay for products. Use companies that have a real business model.

Was BufferBox free? I thought they charged $.

Re: Important BufferBox Update

#17

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 9:07 PM UTC

jonny_eh wrote: post #16

paddy_m wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay for products. Use companies that have a real business model.

Was BufferBox free? I thought they charged $.

[deleted]

Re: Important BufferBox Update

#18

Post by brianbreslin » Fri, Feb 21, 2014, 9:40 PM UTC

plumeria wrote: post #15

$37 million dollars to waste...

well I am assuming that google saw some strategic reason for spending that $.

Re: Important BufferBox Update

#19

Post by gillier » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 2:44 AM UTC

"Important Foo Update" is almost always actually a "Downdate"

Re: Important BufferBox Update

#20

Post by mcpherrinm » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 9:38 PM UTC

jonny_eh wrote: post #16

paddy_m wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay for products. Use companies that have a real business model.

Was BufferBox free? I thought they charged $.

Ostensibly they did, but early on they had so many coupon codes and promotions that I never once actually paid for it. And then it went free for a year after the Google acquisition.