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

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

#131

Post by mgkimsal » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:12 PM UTC

thirdsun wrote: post #109

jiggy2011 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think we have Piracy to thank for this and perhaps to a lesser extent Open Source. There seems to exist a group of people who feel that piracy isn't just something that you do because you can't afford product X and feel marginally guilty about doing but something that is somehow a fundamental human right in a "people who pay for software are mugs" sort of way.

Tell me about it - several of my friends who aren't very tech-savvy would nevertheless go to great lengths in order to have someone jailbreak their iPhones - not to escape the walled garden or other greater reasons, but simply because they heard there's free stuff to get. Of course this isn't limited to software as those are the same people that haven't bought an album in years.

Did they go so far as to pay someone to jailbreak for them? Or buy a jailbreak utility?

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

#132

Post by Evbn » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:12 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #89

rfugger wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sparrow's foundation is imap/smtp...

True, but I expect you use access github through the standard "git commit" , "git pull" type commands. So switching git providers can be done relatively transparently without changing the "UI". Although I guess you would lose whatever extra features github provides, which is partly why I build my git workflow around "standard" git.

What extra features? Github is hosting and a nice UI.

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

#133

Post by mgkimsal » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:13 PM UTC

ryanwanger wrote: post #105

tlogan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many users actually think everything should be free. And they even claim they are 'ripped off' because the free version of software does not do 'X'. And they post bad reviews and send hate emails. (First hand experience). Somehow, thanks for Facebook and Google, people feel entitled to free software and service.

In a support email, someone demanded that we refund his money because our app was a piece of crap. The app has always been free. I told him this and he retorted that he had jail broken his phone, and doesn't pay for apps.

So... he just randomly writes to people demanding refunds for stuff he didn't buy? And somehow imagines that 'refunds' will be processed on purchases that never happened?

Are people really that a) stupid and/or b) evil?

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

#134

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:15 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #94

tlogan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many users actually think everything should be free. And they even claim they are 'ripped off' because the free version of software does not do 'X'. And they post bad reviews and send hate emails. (First hand experience). Somehow, thanks for Facebook and Google, people feel entitled to free software and service.

I actually think we have Piracy to thank for this and perhaps to a lesser extent Open Source. There seems to exist a group of people who feel that piracy isn't just something that you do because you can't afford product X and feel marginally guilty about doing but something that is somehow a fundamental human right in a "people who pay for software are mugs" sort of way.

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by ChemicalHarm » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:23 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…

> When I buy software, I don't only buy into the software I get, but I support it because I think it has a bright and better future.

Eric S Raymond made this point in "The Manufacturing Delusion" (http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/magic-cauldron...). The value of software to a user lies more in the expected future value of updates than in the immediate value of using the software. This is true regardless of whether you pay for the software up front, and regardless of whether you expect to pay for the updates.

I would add this: the cost to a user of software is also much more than its price. To use software means investing time and effort into it, regardless of whether you paid any money for it. Then, as time goes on, you come to rely on the software's presence--you build your habits around the assumption that it is available, and bear the risk of disruption if it suddenly isn't. These hidden, non-monetary costs can be far larger than the monetary price paid, if any.

The problem is that the implicit non-monetary costs on the user side do not represent any benefits for the developer. That the user invested time and took risk doesn't give the developer anything--they only gain the explicit monetary price. But the implicit future benefits expected by the user DO translate directly into future costs for the developer--just as much as the present benefit corresponds to past developer costs!

So there is a big mismatch between what people intuitively feel they are exchanging. On the developer side, Matt Gemmell's comment quoted in the article feels right: "you paid, you got software." But on the user side, the story feels like "I spent time and wrapped my habits around this software, in expectation of its continued improvement, then found out to my surprise that no improvement is coming."

That said, I don't have any new shiny ideas on how to solve this problem. In the end, I agree that the developers of Sparrow owe the users nothing. But I also see why the users are reacting as if somebody took something away from them that they thought they had.

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

#136

Post by rprasad » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:23 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?

As a matter of economics, $25 million in one lump sum is always better than the same $25 million spread out over more than one year.

With the lump sum, you can do whatever you wanted to do, now. With the "annuity", you must continue earning the annuity each year, which significantly limits your options.

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

#137

Post by ozataman » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:24 PM UTC

This is not true for me. I'm happy for the Sparrow team, but I got upset because I feel when I purchased their product, I got into an implicit, unspoken contract with the developers that while the current version of the product was good, there would be continued development and it would become something wonderful next year, and even better the year after.

Now I'm just sad the product will rot over time.

I know the commercial model is broken for this, but I would have been willing to pay more upfront and pay again for periodic major version bumps, assuming pace of development continued.

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

#138

Post by bnegreve » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:29 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #94

tlogan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many users actually think everything should be free. And they even claim they are 'ripped off' because the free version of software does not do 'X'. And they post bad reviews and send hate emails. (First hand experience). Somehow, thanks for Facebook and Google, people feel entitled to free software and service.

I actually think we have Piracy to thank for this and perhaps to a lesser extent Open Source. There seems to exist a group of people who feel that piracy isn't just something that you do because you can't afford product X and feel marginally guilty about doing but something that is somehow a fundamental human right in a "people who pay for software are mugs" sort of way.

> Open Source.

I actually think this is the opposite. Open source users tend to be more informed and thus more understanding to software issues. They post bug reports and even talk to devs when required.

Someone who bought a piece of software will complain until it works as expected.

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

#139

Post by ams6110 » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:31 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…

What does entrepreneurism have to do with it? The goal of most entrepreneurs is the cash-out.

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

#140

Post by ori_b » Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 6:34 PM UTC

Oddly enough, this is exactly what Stallman is on about. Without the source code and the ability to upload that code on to your devices, your programs longevity are subject to the whims of other people.

Even ignoring the whole "code wants to be free thing", the source is important for the longevity of the code. If the software really mattered to you, you would negociate a license that gave you source. Even if you weren't allowed to resell or redistribute, having source that you could hire others to work on if you needed it is important.

In fact, I'd love to see a shift to make proprietary software include the code without license to redistribute the original code; Maybe just patches, maybe nothing. But I'd love to be able to peek beneath the covers and learn, fix things, and/or make sure it runs on new platforms.