4 ms·

This is the weird blind spot I'm referencing in my post. There seems to be this strong belief on HN that because they're a small time software engineer, that t

This is the weird blind spot I'm referencing in my post. There seems to be this strong belief on HN that because they're a small time software engineer, that things we all agree would be unethical under the exact same circumstances from other actors ("some sleazy megacorp") are completely ok. I don't understand why his customers should be forced to eat the cost from his mistake. If a local small business sold me something at a price a little low (so they still made profit, just less than they wanted) would it be ok for them to take the thing away later and demand more money for it?

mikl 4y ago
It’s not a blind spot. Its an acknowledgement of the fact that small time operations are often run by people without MBAs and without lawyers checking everything. Megacorps should be held to a higher standard, because they have the resources to meet them.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  What's the higher standard? "Megacorps are expected to actually honor their agreements"? I'd love to hear you articulate what the difference here is that Megacorps would be expected to catch with their "MBAs and lawyers", but the author of mIRC wouldn't?
  - mikl 4y ago
    MBAs and lawyers would have prevented the sale of perpetual licenses to begin with. Supporting software is a recurring expense, so selling lifetime support for a flat fee is a timebomb that will inevitably end up as perpetual a financial burden, so the more such licenses you sell, the more you set up the company for future failure. That’s an excusable mistake for a small company. Not for a big corporation.
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      "Ongoing cost" has nothing to do with it, if that was true the author would have just cut support but still allowed users to use the software and receive updates.
      - mikl 4y ago
        Making updates is also an ongoing cost. For software as old and complex as mIRC probably a significant one.
        cmeacham98 4y ago
        I'm not asking for the author to write updates if they don't want to. I'm asking that if they do (for whatever reason), that they make their updates available to those who already paid for them (and static file hosting is practically free nowadays).
        mikl 4y ago
        …and given this choice between continuing to work for free, or abandoning his life’s work, it’s not entirely unreasonable that he decided to go for the option of reneging on the perpetual license mistake, even if that is distasteful. For the people who don’t want to pay for a new license, the outcome is the same as if he just shut mIRC down: no more updates. So from that perspective, they’re no worse off. And the people who are happy to pay another $20, they will be able to continue to enjoy the software.
trynewideas 4y ago
It's possible to acknowledge that the act is equally unethical and also relatively much smaller in impact. Not all offenses against humanity are equal. I've had friends who still owe me more money for something two decades ago than the author of mIRC does for my "lifetime" license, and they don't give me anxiety either. > If a local small business sold me something at a price a little low (so they still made profit, just less than they wanted) would it be ok for them to take the thing away later and demand more money for it? If a local small business sold me anything for US$20, provided continuous support for it for more than two decades, and then asked if I could pay another $20 to continue to get support for it, I'd tell them it was still at my parents' house and probably got sold in a garage sale years ago. Nothing I've ever purchased has gotten 23 years of updates and support from its creator, much less something that cost $20, even in 2015, 2005, or 1995 values of $20. Is it normal to receive this service? I'm thankful for the two decades of updates and support, not upset that the author didn't believe mIRC would still be relevant to anyone after nearly a quarter of a century.

mikl 4y ago

It’s not a blind spot. Its an acknowledgement of the fact that small time operations are often run by people without MBAs and without lawyers checking everything. Megacorps should be held to a higher standard, because they have the resources to meet them.

cmeacham98 4y ago
What's the higher standard? "Megacorps are expected to actually honor their agreements"? I'd love to hear you articulate what the difference here is that Megacorps would be expected to catch with their "MBAs and lawyers", but the author of mIRC wouldn't?
- mikl 4y ago
  MBAs and lawyers would have prevented the sale of perpetual licenses to begin with. Supporting software is a recurring expense, so selling lifetime support for a flat fee is a timebomb that will inevitably end up as perpetual a financial burden, so the more such licenses you sell, the more you set up the company for future failure. That’s an excusable mistake for a small company. Not for a big corporation.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    "Ongoing cost" has nothing to do with it, if that was true the author would have just cut support but still allowed users to use the software and receive updates.
    - mikl 4y ago
      Making updates is also an ongoing cost. For software as old and complex as mIRC probably a significant one.
      - cmeacham98 4y ago
        I'm not asking for the author to write updates if they don't want to. I'm asking that if they do (for whatever reason), that they make their updates available to those who already paid for them (and static file hosting is practically free nowadays).
        mikl 4y ago
        …and given this choice between continuing to work for free, or abandoning his life’s work, it’s not entirely unreasonable that he decided to go for the option of reneging on the perpetual license mistake, even if that is distasteful. For the people who don’t want to pay for a new license, the outcome is the same as if he just shut mIRC down: no more updates. So from that perspective, they’re no worse off. And the people who are happy to pay another $20, they will be able to continue to enjoy the software.

trynewideas 4y ago

It's possible to acknowledge that the act is equally unethical and also relatively much smaller in impact. Not all offenses against humanity are equal. I've had friends who still owe me more money for something two decades ago than the author of mIRC does for my "lifetime" license, and they don't give me anxiety either. > If a local small business sold me something at a price a little low (so they still made profit, just less than they wanted) would it be ok for them to take the thing away later and demand more money for it? If a local small business sold me anything for US$20, provided continuous support for it for more than two decades, and then asked if I could pay another $20 to continue to get support for it, I'd tell them it was still at my parents' house and probably got sold in a garage sale years ago. Nothing I've ever purchased has gotten 23 years of updates and support from its creator, much less something that cost $20, even in 2015, 2005, or 1995 values of $20. Is it normal to receive this service? I'm thankful for the two decades of updates and support, not upset that the author didn't believe mIRC would still be relevant to anyone after nearly a quarter of a century.