The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition
1–10 of 202 posts
Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition
#2This 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 more money with their product: publishing their latest code base under GPL.
However, in that case Google might have hesitated to acquire them in the first place. On the other hand, MySQL has been acquired by Oracle despite being Free Software, and despite having existing forks such as MariaDB.
Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition
#3Also, 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 win again."
Of course, I hope the hue and cry about this will suggest to google that Sparrow might be worth maintaining after all. A mail app that people like? That can't possibly be a bad thing, can it?
Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition
#4It's a fair point, but I'd suggest the main reason people get upset is it feels like they've somehow wasted time getting attached to it.
People such as the OP get excited about having this pleasant thing in their life and the implicit relationship in that as long as you buy it, it will continue to improve.
For me it's the same reason early adopters back certain tech products, why fans will follow film directors and why we sometimes get disappointed when they don't follow the path we hope they would take.
Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition
#5>If they don’t — well, at least they’ve eliminated a competitor, and they still win.
Since when was Sparrow a competitor to Google?
Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition
#6>If they don’t — well, at least they’ve eliminated a competitor, and they still win. Since when was Sparrow a competitor to Google?
Adverts-wise, anything that shows Google's content without making ad-revenue for Google is a potential pie-eater they can eliminate.
Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition
#7I guess the problem with this is that in the days of app stores, internet everywhere , automatic updates and 0 day vulnerabilities software suddenly looks very fragile and susceptible to bit rot.
I remember in the late 90s there were still plenty of people around using Word 6.0 which was old at the time but still usable since MS allowed recent versions of Word to create docs compatible with it.
Now, if your favourite app gets pulled from the store (that your device is locked to), gets broken by an OS update or the developers simply release a non reversible update that you don't like you're in trouble. Not to mention the consequences of the vendor going bust or getting bought by a rival.
There seems to be a strong "C'mon just use an iPad and the cloud already!" voice on HN, I guess I can understand why people are somewhat conservative about it.
Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition
#8Perhaps we should only pay for development of open-source software, so we actually own what we're paying for.
Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition
#9Perhaps we should only pay for development of open-source software, so we actually own what we're paying for.
Or at the very least , a promise from the developers that the product will become open source if one of a number of conditions are met.
Re: The real reason we’re upset about Sparrow’s acquisition
#10Perhaps we should only pay for development of open-source software, so we actually own what we're paying for.
Or at the very least , a promise from the developers that the product will become open source if one of a number of conditions are met.
As a British person who voted Lib Dem, I'd need a lot more than a "promise" to quell my worries.