3 ms·
So there was a change in ownership that precipitated this. I can understand the author was wronged. But what if things were done slightly differently, i.e. the
by jollyllama 4y ago
So there was a change in ownership that precipitated this. I can understand the author was wronged. But what if things were done slightly differently, i.e. the owner of ManyCam EOL'd the product, sold his business, and a "new" equivalent product were released? Technically, the agreement wouldn't be violated in the same way, but the effect would be the same. Would the author be just as upset, or would this be more understandable?
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoI think it would still be irritating, but significantly less so. When a company buys another out and continues using a piece of software's name, they're doing so because that brand has built up some level of awareness and goodwill with the market. That awareness and goodwill is directly the result of its existing, satisfied customers. Alienating those satisfied customers while still cashing in on the reputation they built for you violates not only a basic sense of fairness, but probably in this case contractual obligations. On the other hand, if you strip the existing software for parts, and put out something substantially different under new branding, at least you're giving something up.
- jollyllama 4y agoYes, the branding was the thing I was not accounting for.