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

91–100 of 202 posts

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

#91

Post by jusben1369 »

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…

I don't understand this argument at all. None of it. It's odd and quite frankly silly. It doesn't matter if the app was $10. Enterprise software companies, that sell for 5, 6 and 7 figures get acquired all the time. Their offerings then get EOL'ed many times. Free doesn't help you. $30 doesn't help you. $1 million doesn't help you. If a larger company believes that acquiring smaller company is attractive and writes a big check then that's what happens. The only determinant I can see is if you want a lifestyle business where you're always the master of your own domain. That seems to be the only reasons folks won't sell (Marco won't move a family to the Valley - at least not unless he gets a LOT of money)

When did we all start pining for everything to be the same forever?

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

#92

Post by FrojoS »

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…

I always thought, or at least hoped, that the economy of scale will allow $0.99 software to be profitable. That software would be so cheap, that you don't think even twice. But because millions do the same, the developers can still become rich.

Right now, there might be a few dozen million clients on the app store. What if someday there will be a few billions?

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

#93

Post by raldi »

webwright wrote: post #74
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 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…

What does "stabilizing in the 500-700 rank" mean?

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

#94

Post by jiggy2011 »

tlogan wrote: post #88
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…

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.

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

#95

Post by webwright »

raldi wrote: post #93
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…

What does "stabilizing in the 500-700 rank" mean?

There's a Top 1000 Grossing Apps list for iPhone that is track-able. They are in that list in the 500-700 range. Here's a screenshot of their graph so you don't have to create an appannie account: https://skitch.com/webwright/eenji/sparrow-rank-history-app-...

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

#96

Post by jiggy2011 »

kenjackson wrote: post #72
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…

"Not everything can or should cost a buck." When I talk to many developers they tell me that everything should be free. How do you recalibrate the consumer's perception of the value of software, when so many developers don't value software either?

I guess they are meaning "free as in freedom" which is something that comes up time and time again thanks to the FSFs insistence on using poor wording.

I don't think that developers don't "value" software. It would be a push to suggest that people who use Linux,Apache or Emacs don't see any "value" to them.

I'm sure if they though about it they could probably assign a high dollar amount that would reflect the utility they receive from these programs.

Personally I don't have a problem either paying for a commercial software or using an open source alternative.

It's when an application is either free (as in $0 or outrageously cheap) and closed source and I can't "get" the developer's business model that I would be very hesitant to rely on it.

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

#97

Post by jiggy2011 »

FrojoS wrote: post #92
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…

I always thought, or at least hoped, that the economy of scale will allow $0.99 software to be profitable. That software would be so cheap, that you don't think even twice. But because millions do the same, the developers can still become rich. Right now, there might be a few dozen million clients on the app store. What if someday there will be a few billions?

It depends how many people are going to use your software which is some function of your marketing, how good it is and how many people would find any use in it at all.

I'm not going to download an app that is useless to me, even if it costs nothing.

Obviously there are only so many people who use email and only so many of those are interested in using an alternative client.

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

#98

Post by hobin »

"This is the core of the disappointment that many of us feel with the Sparrow acquisition. It’s not about the $15 or less we spent on the apps. It’s not about the team’s well-deserved payout. It’s about the loss of faith in a philosophy that we thought was a sustainable way to ensure a healthy future for independent software development, where most innovation happens."

I seriously laughed out loud.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think his idea is silly, and I think he may in fact have a point. However, let's not pretend all those people who complained about the acquisition were doing this because they lost faith in this philosophy. That part is silly. Those people were just being slightly dramatic because they liked a product and it would no longer get updated.

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

#99

Post by TeMPOraL »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #96
kenjackson wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not everything can or should cost a buck." When I talk to many developers they tell me that everything should be free. How do you recalibrate the consumer's perception of the value of software, when so many developers don't value software either?

I guess they are meaning "free as in freedom" which is something that comes up time and time again thanks to the FSFs insistence on using poor wording. I don't think that developers don't "value" software. It would be a push to suggest that people who use Linux,Apache or Emacs don't see any "value" to them. I'm sure if they though about it they could probably assign a high dollar amount that would reflect the utility…

> I guess they are meaning "free as in freedom"

Not necessarily. Most of the software developers use - from IDEs/editors, through version control, synchronization, web stack, to server software and even the basic but important tools like ls or grep - is free. Free as in "free beer". We are used to get tremendous value for free. We are used to give away value for free. And I'm not surprised that many developers (myself included) like this utopia, even if it is not currently sustainable.

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

#100

Post by awicklander »

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.

This is false. Non-developers pay a recurring fee for software all the time.
Post reply on HN