13 ms·

This is getting extremely frustrating. Sparrow is a fabulous email client both for iOS and Mac. I love and use both daily and this is fairly devastating. I was

by rglover 14y ago

This is getting extremely frustrating. Sparrow is a fabulous email client both for iOS and Mac. I love and use both daily and this is fairly devastating. I was really looking forward to the products development, growth, and future releases. To read this announcement and hear that they won't be working on their apps but on Google projects is sad. To bigger companies: chill out with the "acquihires." If anything, do what Facebook did with Instagram and keep them working on their product. It would be awesome to see the guts of Sparrow used in a Google branded Gmail client or similar (hopefully that happens, but I'm reluctant based on this statement).

BlackNapoleon 14y ago
Agreed. Sparrow needed to be acquired by Apple. Period. Imagine iOS mail with Sparrow's gestures and organization? Fantastic.
- rogerchucker 14y ago
  I think Google was the best destination for Sparrow simply because sparrow was created for Gmail. If Apple acquired it then it's focus would be iCloud email which is garbage.
  - justauser 14y ago
    If I read the grandparent correctly(and I do agree), the best destination is not Apple, Google or anyone for that matter but rather to stay in the game as an independent. Where are the small companies that are building for sustainment? All of these product disappearances do have a long-term effect of causing users to hesitate before signing up to use your offering.
    - rogerchucker 14y ago
      I disagree with this romanticism that a company should always be built for sustainment. A small company has only two ways of being successful - either disrupt and be radically different or fill in a piece of the puzzle that a bigger company has not achieved. If you look at the nature of the product the Sparrow team developed - an iOS/Mac client - it wasn't radical. So being gobbled up by an appropriate bigger company is natural course for that startup.
      - justauser 14y ago
        So I should read this as all of the small business owners in the world should either just give up or strive to be acquired by ACME corp? I think we have a very different understanding of the word "successful."
      - minikites 14y ago
        It's important for software like a mail client to be platform-neutral. What if Facebook bought Camera+ and only let you export photos to Facebook?
        rogerchucker 14y ago
        Camera and mail apps don't need to be platform-neutral simply because the content and output of those apps are platform-neutral themselves. Mail apps push and pull apps from servers which can be accessed from other outlets/apps. As for camera apps, as long as they are saving a local copy (like Camera roll), other apps will still be able to access those photos. So yes, convenient form of sharing like direct export-from-app may be lost but the real output would still be platform-neutral.
    - rglover 14y ago
      That's exactly what I'm talking about. Especially in the case of a product that had revenue/customers, I can't see why you'd want to quit just to go get a job. Sure you'll make some money and your work may have a larger scope to impact, but why not be known as that awesome company that makes awesome things?
      - omgsean 14y ago
        To quote Krusty the Clown: "They drove a dump truck full of money up to my house!"
      - rogerchucker 14y ago
        If my memory serves me right, a startup that builds apps to improve the experience of a pre-existing service doesn't stay for long as an awesome company that makes awesome things. It usually either plateaus out or gets gobbled up eventually.
    - franzus 14y ago
      > Where are the small companies that are building for sustainment? Can't build much sustainment if you have to sell your flag ship product fur $9.99.
  - veidr 14y ago
    I think it might be a good destination for the Sparrow creators, but this is not the best outcome for those of us who are Sparrow users. I agree iCloud mail is garbage, but frankly so is Gmail. The sentiment that it would be better if Apple had bought it, I think, is more of a wish that some of Sparrow's awesome would rub off on the standard iOS mail client, since it is a similar app for the same platform.
- pippin 14y ago
  From The Verge: Our sources also noted that Google isn't ruling out native Gmail clients for platforms beyond iOS and Android, and emphasized that Google wants to bring polish, "beauty," and ease of use to all of its Gmail experiences across platforms (a suggestion that a native client for Mac and PC might be in the offing). Sparrow, apparently, is a way to get there. http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/20/3172365/sources-google-sparrow-25-million-gmail-client http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/20/3172365/sources-google-spa...
  - BlackNapoleon 14y ago
    Won't mean anything without PUSH email enabled by Apple.
- brandall10 14y ago
  From what I recall Sparrow was essentially a spin-off from R&D work done at Apple that Apple did not want to incorporate into their mail app... the dev went off and partnered with a designer to build a polished product from that work. An acquisition by Apple would be an interesting turnabout. Of course market validation is a great equalizer.
rogerchucker 14y ago
Clearly Sparrow was created for Gmail - so it's in Google's best interest to use those guts to enhance the Gmail app and dump the Sparrow app itself eventually. I thought that statement about not adding features is a clear indicator of that. I don't see why one would get frustrated with that or ... feel devastated about it.
- minikites 14y ago
  What if you don't use Gmail?
  - sidcool 14y ago
    Don't use GMail? What kind of a cruel person would do that to himself? (Sarcasm intended)
- mey 14y ago
  Like when Microsoft bought Lookout? edit: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/12/24.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/12/24.html
  - larrywright 14y ago
    Actually, this is a counterpoint. There was a period of time where Lookout was unavailable, but then it was incorporated into Outlook proper. The search in Outlook 2010 is very fast.
- tvon 14y ago
  A good app has been EOL'd so the developer(s) can go work on a known crappy app. We've gone from "known good" to "hopefully this will work out and the gmail iOS app will be good"... how is that not frustrating if you're a fan of the iOS apps? As for the Sparrow desktop app, well, obviously Google isn't going to be developing a native desktop app for Gmail...
  - wyclif 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ozataman 14y ago
Agreed. Sparrow had finally evolved enough to be a really good, fast and practical email client. I was waiting eagerly to see what else they would add to the product to make it better. This is really quite frustrating. At least spin off the product, or make some sort of deal to devote some devel time to it. It has many uses that Gmail proper can't satisfactorily provide, such as offline usage and super-fast switching among multiple accounts.
- alttab 14y ago
  Sounds to me like there is still a market for non-shitty client mail apps. The Sparrow guys obviously eyed Google as an acquisition strategy, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was their plan all along. That said, if someone fills the gap Sparrow leaves, assuming they don't fully deliver in the Google Apps experience, there is still a market to be served. At least for the time being.
w1ntermute 14y ago
> This is getting extremely frustrating. Sparrow is a fabulous email client both for iOS and Mac. I love and use both daily and this is fairly devastating. I was really looking forward to the products development, growth, and future releases. To read this announcement and hear that they won't be working on their apps but on Google projects is sad. I think it's a matter of perspective. As someone who doesn't use and has no intention of ever using OS X or iOS, this is great news for me! I've been hearing a lot about Sparrow's revolutionary UI, but haven't benefited at all because they don't support Linux, Android, or Windows. Now, there's a very good chance that some of Sparrow's UI features will be incorporated into the Gmail web UI and into the Gmail apps for Android phones and tablets.
- angrow 14y ago
  > Now, there's a very good chance that some of Sparrow's UI features will be incorporated into the Gmail web UI and into the Gmail apps for Android phones and tablets. Why acquire a whole company if all you want is to re-use some of their good UX ideas? You get those for free with the app. Presumably the talent was another draw for Google, but will breaking up/subsuming the team defeat that purpose?
- rglover 14y ago
  A great point. But still no excuse to have their existing customers left behind. All of their customers (myself included) invested in the product because it was good, because it worked extremely well, and because it solved problems. I didn't invest in their work at Google. Where does that leave me? The biggest concern I have with this is the same thing that happened to Tweetie: the one company that should have scooped it up did and then completely changed it into something that barely represented the existing app (and more or less dropped an interest in the desktop client).
  - lloeki 14y ago
    > All of their customers (myself included) invested in the product because it was good, because it worked extremely well, and because it solved problems. I didn't invest in their work at Google Even worse, I invested in Sparrow because I vastly prefer desktop apps like Sparrow to web apps like GMail. That's sad.
calinet6 14y ago
I'd love to see it open-sourced as an alternative to abandonment, but I doubt that's going to happen.
loceng 14y ago
I imagine the talent will help make Google's products overall better, and that will include a fabulous email client - and all you'll need is Chrome to run them.
joe-mccann 14y ago
> To bigger companies: chill out with the "acquihires." Easy for someone to say whom doesn't run the M&A and Strategy department for a multi-nation corporate conglomerate engaged in one of the most competitive spaces for talent acquisition and retention.
- rglover 14y ago
  You're right, I don't. But at this point, it seems like gluttony. Eating for the sake of eating. Sure they'll gain some value out of the team and their insights into email, but is their contribution going to be more so within Google than outside of it?
  - brk 14y ago
    At $10 a license I'm going to guess that the Sparrow guys weren't rolling in Ferrarri's and Brazillian models. It's quite possible that this was actually a way for them to continue doing something they love (coding) without financial stress hanging over their heads.
ben0x539 14y ago
In any other context I'd hope for them to open-source their efforts if they're giving up on the project anyway, but I guess that's not the iOS way.
rhizome 14y ago
What you are experiencing is tantamount to the motivation that birthed the GPL.
samstave 14y ago
All these aquisitions are more insidious, they are being done by the big players to stifle diversity in the market and continue to solidify their leads on online services under the guise of talent acquisition to better their companies - rather its an effort to prevent that talent from building something that would be a detriment to their positions.
- ralfn 14y ago
  It baffles my mind, anyone would actually believe this. This whole, Google, is evil for hiring the authors of an app you like. Either they will put them to good use, or make less money.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    You're saying that they will make more money through being acquired by Google than by owning their own company that sells a popular product?
    - ralfn 14y ago
      Either that, or Google will loose money on this transaction. Im suggesting, that Google has the intent to maximize profits. So, if turns out bad for us, as consumers, it turns out bad for Google.
  - samstave 14y ago
    It baffles my mind that anyone would fall for all these companies being altruistic. This isn't as simple and one dimensional as calling a company "evil" - this is about the long term. Startups in the valley are getting acquired earlier and earlier in their existence as google and Facebook and eventually overlap in their services and audience appeal. The acquiring of the teams is defensive in that they take that team and their IP etc off the market from their competition. It is offensive in that it squashes any possibility that whatever service it was the startup had would compete for their similar service. In cases like instagram, it was an obvious choice for Facebook as Facebook is the largest picture sharing service which also wraps all sorts of meta data around the users who are viewing those pics. Thus, with instagrams reach it fractures attention from facebooks services/user. By acquiring them and ultimately layering the instagram features into facebooks pic offering the attention is not diverted from Facebook. Attention is the resource that social services are harvesting from their users and monetizing. If you're not looking at it from this perspective, then I don't believe your critically thinking about what it is that the Internet is, or how to build something that will last. Companies that provide features, utility and services that keep the attention of users (especially when providing no physical product) are those that will have longevity. So, capturing those that would build things that direct user attention away from your product is critical to these huge companies.
crag 14y ago
Yeah we got screwed. They just dropped the app. They are promising "big fixes" but that's about it. Lovely. This is the bad side of "trusting" startups and their apps. Pisses me off. I mean (to all you startup guys out there), if you have no intention of continuing your work, AT LEAST OPEN SOURCE THE CODE so some of us can jump in and maintain it!
- dave5104 14y ago
  I would argue that just open sourcing the code could have even worse effects on the app/brand than a simple end of life. Clearly if the app in question had a good following, it was a decent product created by folks who knew what they were doing. By open sourcing it, anyone could jump in and that anyone may not be qualified to make the best product decisions. Maybe I'm just being too sentimental here, but I'd rather the product go out in a nice light rather than watching it slowly creep downhill to death.
  - crag 14y ago
    I guess it would depend on who jumped in to maintain it. I mean, look around. There are many high quality open source apps. Just saying.
    - mh- 14y ago
      mobile ones? graphical, desktop ones? not _that_ many
- slantyyz 14y ago
  > Yeah we got screwed. If the current version basically does the job that it's supposed to, then how did you get screwed? It's not like you spent hundreds of dollars on the app. The Mac version is only $10 for crying out loud.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    No more updates, it could stop working anytime (like next week) when there is a new OS release.
tptacek 14y ago
You really feel OK asking big companies not to outbid you for other people's work? Why is it OK to demand a ceiling to a developer's compensation?
- justauser 14y ago
  Who was demanding a ceiling on the compensation? By expanding into a Windows userbase(size and subset of customers willing to pay presumed to be larger than the Apple userbase), the ceiling potentially could have been of cathedral proportions. If Sparrow lacked the desire or skill to expand to Windows, nothing limited them from creating other Appleland products. They already had a great reputation which would have lowered the hurdle for the potential success of product number two. If my paying $9 for a widget is not good enough isn't it ok to tell me things are not going as well as expected and you're looking for solutions? If you leave me in the dust and come back next week as Parentco Widget Version 2 then at the very least you'll cause me to raise my eyebrows.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    You are, when you say "hey big companies, stop waving money at these guys". However much you think you're offering to Sparrow's developers, it's presumably less than Google was offering.
    - justauser 14y ago
      Can you point to me where I said that? My posts have been to the effect of "hey little companies, if you're open to being waved to by big companies then let me know before I buy into your company's offerings."
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Here is a clue for you. When a startup offers you its products for $9.99 or $2.99, they are open to be bought by big companies. There. Now you don't have to ask them to disclose things anymore.
awicklander 14y ago
The free market is a bitch.
Terretta 14y ago
> * If anything, do what Facebook did with Instagram and keep them working on their product.* As far as I recall, Instagram kept working on their product because the US Government required them to pending regulatory approval -- which could come as soon as August: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/zuck_your_instagram_is_developing_1DtDw5CI1H91MVnmQlvPQO http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/zuck_your_instagram_is...
tlogan 14y ago
It seems like a lot of people don't like this acquisition. However, I think it will be much bigger outrage if they raised the price of their software or they started requiring some kind of subscription.
mapleoin 14y ago
That's one of the big arguments in favour of Free Software.
andrewfelix 14y ago
If I was Mac user I'd be pissed. As a Windows user I'm looking forward to what they can bring to GMail. Sparrow and Coda are two programs I've always wanted to use regularly.

by rglover 14y ago

BlackNapoleon 14y ago

Agreed. Sparrow needed to be acquired by Apple. Period. Imagine iOS mail with Sparrow's gestures and organization? Fantastic.

rogerchucker 14y ago
I think Google was the best destination for Sparrow simply because sparrow was created for Gmail. If Apple acquired it then it's focus would be iCloud email which is garbage.
- justauser 14y ago
  If I read the grandparent correctly(and I do agree), the best destination is not Apple, Google or anyone for that matter but rather to stay in the game as an independent. Where are the small companies that are building for sustainment? All of these product disappearances do have a long-term effect of causing users to hesitate before signing up to use your offering.
  - rogerchucker 14y ago
    I disagree with this romanticism that a company should always be built for sustainment. A small company has only two ways of being successful - either disrupt and be radically different or fill in a piece of the puzzle that a bigger company has not achieved. If you look at the nature of the product the Sparrow team developed - an iOS/Mac client - it wasn't radical. So being gobbled up by an appropriate bigger company is natural course for that startup.
    - justauser 14y ago
      So I should read this as all of the small business owners in the world should either just give up or strive to be acquired by ACME corp? I think we have a very different understanding of the word "successful."
    - minikites 14y ago
      It's important for software like a mail client to be platform-neutral. What if Facebook bought Camera+ and only let you export photos to Facebook?
      - rogerchucker 14y ago
        Camera and mail apps don't need to be platform-neutral simply because the content and output of those apps are platform-neutral themselves. Mail apps push and pull apps from servers which can be accessed from other outlets/apps. As for camera apps, as long as they are saving a local copy (like Camera roll), other apps will still be able to access those photos. So yes, convenient form of sharing like direct export-from-app may be lost but the real output would still be platform-neutral.
  - rglover 14y ago
    That's exactly what I'm talking about. Especially in the case of a product that had revenue/customers, I can't see why you'd want to quit just to go get a job. Sure you'll make some money and your work may have a larger scope to impact, but why not be known as that awesome company that makes awesome things?
    - omgsean 14y ago
      To quote Krusty the Clown: "They drove a dump truck full of money up to my house!"
    - rogerchucker 14y ago
      If my memory serves me right, a startup that builds apps to improve the experience of a pre-existing service doesn't stay for long as an awesome company that makes awesome things. It usually either plateaus out or gets gobbled up eventually.
  - franzus 14y ago
    > Where are the small companies that are building for sustainment? Can't build much sustainment if you have to sell your flag ship product fur $9.99.
- veidr 14y ago
  I think it might be a good destination for the Sparrow creators, but this is not the best outcome for those of us who are Sparrow users. I agree iCloud mail is garbage, but frankly so is Gmail. The sentiment that it would be better if Apple had bought it, I think, is more of a wish that some of Sparrow's awesome would rub off on the standard iOS mail client, since it is a similar app for the same platform.
pippin 14y ago
From The Verge: Our sources also noted that Google isn't ruling out native Gmail clients for platforms beyond iOS and Android, and emphasized that Google wants to bring polish, "beauty," and ease of use to all of its Gmail experiences across platforms (a suggestion that a native client for Mac and PC might be in the offing). Sparrow, apparently, is a way to get there. http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/20/3172365/sources-google-sparrow-25-million-gmail-client http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/20/3172365/sources-google-spa...
- BlackNapoleon 14y ago
  Won't mean anything without PUSH email enabled by Apple.
brandall10 14y ago
From what I recall Sparrow was essentially a spin-off from R&D work done at Apple that Apple did not want to incorporate into their mail app... the dev went off and partnered with a designer to build a polished product from that work. An acquisition by Apple would be an interesting turnabout. Of course market validation is a great equalizer.

rogerchucker 14y ago

Clearly Sparrow was created for Gmail - so it's in Google's best interest to use those guts to enhance the Gmail app and dump the Sparrow app itself eventually. I thought that statement about not adding features is a clear indicator of that. I don't see why one would get frustrated with that or ... feel devastated about it.

minikites 14y ago
What if you don't use Gmail?
- sidcool 14y ago
  Don't use GMail? What kind of a cruel person would do that to himself? (Sarcasm intended)
mey 14y ago
Like when Microsoft bought Lookout? edit: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/12/24.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/12/24.html
- larrywright 14y ago
  Actually, this is a counterpoint. There was a period of time where Lookout was unavailable, but then it was incorporated into Outlook proper. The search in Outlook 2010 is very fast.
tvon 14y ago
A good app has been EOL'd so the developer(s) can go work on a known crappy app. We've gone from "known good" to "hopefully this will work out and the gmail iOS app will be good"... how is that not frustrating if you're a fan of the iOS apps? As for the Sparrow desktop app, well, obviously Google isn't going to be developing a native desktop app for Gmail...
- wyclif 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ozataman 14y ago

Agreed. Sparrow had finally evolved enough to be a really good, fast and practical email client. I was waiting eagerly to see what else they would add to the product to make it better. This is really quite frustrating. At least spin off the product, or make some sort of deal to devote some devel time to it. It has many uses that Gmail proper can't satisfactorily provide, such as offline usage and super-fast switching among multiple accounts.

alttab 14y ago
Sounds to me like there is still a market for non-shitty client mail apps. The Sparrow guys obviously eyed Google as an acquisition strategy, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was their plan all along. That said, if someone fills the gap Sparrow leaves, assuming they don't fully deliver in the Google Apps experience, there is still a market to be served. At least for the time being.

w1ntermute 14y ago

> This is getting extremely frustrating. Sparrow is a fabulous email client both for iOS and Mac. I love and use both daily and this is fairly devastating. I was really looking forward to the products development, growth, and future releases. To read this announcement and hear that they won't be working on their apps but on Google projects is sad. I think it's a matter of perspective. As someone who doesn't use and has no intention of ever using OS X or iOS, this is great news for me! I've been hearing a lot about Sparrow's revolutionary UI, but haven't benefited at all because they don't support Linux, Android, or Windows. Now, there's a very good chance that some of Sparrow's UI features will be incorporated into the Gmail web UI and into the Gmail apps for Android phones and tablets.

angrow 14y ago
> Now, there's a very good chance that some of Sparrow's UI features will be incorporated into the Gmail web UI and into the Gmail apps for Android phones and tablets. Why acquire a whole company if all you want is to re-use some of their good UX ideas? You get those for free with the app. Presumably the talent was another draw for Google, but will breaking up/subsuming the team defeat that purpose?
rglover 14y ago
A great point. But still no excuse to have their existing customers left behind. All of their customers (myself included) invested in the product because it was good, because it worked extremely well, and because it solved problems. I didn't invest in their work at Google. Where does that leave me? The biggest concern I have with this is the same thing that happened to Tweetie: the one company that should have scooped it up did and then completely changed it into something that barely represented the existing app (and more or less dropped an interest in the desktop client).
- lloeki 14y ago
  > All of their customers (myself included) invested in the product because it was good, because it worked extremely well, and because it solved problems. I didn't invest in their work at Google Even worse, I invested in Sparrow because I vastly prefer desktop apps like Sparrow to web apps like GMail. That's sad.

calinet6 14y ago

I'd love to see it open-sourced as an alternative to abandonment, but I doubt that's going to happen.

loceng 14y ago

I imagine the talent will help make Google's products overall better, and that will include a fabulous email client - and all you'll need is Chrome to run them.

joe-mccann 14y ago

> To bigger companies: chill out with the "acquihires." Easy for someone to say whom doesn't run the M&A and Strategy department for a multi-nation corporate conglomerate engaged in one of the most competitive spaces for talent acquisition and retention.

rglover 14y ago
You're right, I don't. But at this point, it seems like gluttony. Eating for the sake of eating. Sure they'll gain some value out of the team and their insights into email, but is their contribution going to be more so within Google than outside of it?
- brk 14y ago
  At $10 a license I'm going to guess that the Sparrow guys weren't rolling in Ferrarri's and Brazillian models. It's quite possible that this was actually a way for them to continue doing something they love (coding) without financial stress hanging over their heads.

ben0x539 14y ago

In any other context I'd hope for them to open-source their efforts if they're giving up on the project anyway, but I guess that's not the iOS way.

rhizome 14y ago

What you are experiencing is tantamount to the motivation that birthed the GPL.

samstave 14y ago

All these aquisitions are more insidious, they are being done by the big players to stifle diversity in the market and continue to solidify their leads on online services under the guise of talent acquisition to better their companies - rather its an effort to prevent that talent from building something that would be a detriment to their positions.

ralfn 14y ago
It baffles my mind, anyone would actually believe this. This whole, Google, is evil for hiring the authors of an app you like. Either they will put them to good use, or make less money.
- rhizome 14y ago
  You're saying that they will make more money through being acquired by Google than by owning their own company that sells a popular product?
  - ralfn 14y ago
    Either that, or Google will loose money on this transaction. Im suggesting, that Google has the intent to maximize profits. So, if turns out bad for us, as consumers, it turns out bad for Google.
- samstave 14y ago
  It baffles my mind that anyone would fall for all these companies being altruistic. This isn't as simple and one dimensional as calling a company "evil" - this is about the long term. Startups in the valley are getting acquired earlier and earlier in their existence as google and Facebook and eventually overlap in their services and audience appeal. The acquiring of the teams is defensive in that they take that team and their IP etc off the market from their competition. It is offensive in that it squashes any possibility that whatever service it was the startup had would compete for their similar service. In cases like instagram, it was an obvious choice for Facebook as Facebook is the largest picture sharing service which also wraps all sorts of meta data around the users who are viewing those pics. Thus, with instagrams reach it fractures attention from facebooks services/user. By acquiring them and ultimately layering the instagram features into facebooks pic offering the attention is not diverted from Facebook. Attention is the resource that social services are harvesting from their users and monetizing. If you're not looking at it from this perspective, then I don't believe your critically thinking about what it is that the Internet is, or how to build something that will last. Companies that provide features, utility and services that keep the attention of users (especially when providing no physical product) are those that will have longevity. So, capturing those that would build things that direct user attention away from your product is critical to these huge companies.

crag 14y ago

Yeah we got screwed. They just dropped the app. They are promising "big fixes" but that's about it. Lovely. This is the bad side of "trusting" startups and their apps. Pisses me off. I mean (to all you startup guys out there), if you have no intention of continuing your work, AT LEAST OPEN SOURCE THE CODE so some of us can jump in and maintain it!

dave5104 14y ago
I would argue that just open sourcing the code could have even worse effects on the app/brand than a simple end of life. Clearly if the app in question had a good following, it was a decent product created by folks who knew what they were doing. By open sourcing it, anyone could jump in and that anyone may not be qualified to make the best product decisions. Maybe I'm just being too sentimental here, but I'd rather the product go out in a nice light rather than watching it slowly creep downhill to death.
- crag 14y ago
  I guess it would depend on who jumped in to maintain it. I mean, look around. There are many high quality open source apps. Just saying.
  - mh- 14y ago
    mobile ones? graphical, desktop ones? not _that_ many
slantyyz 14y ago
> Yeah we got screwed. If the current version basically does the job that it's supposed to, then how did you get screwed? It's not like you spent hundreds of dollars on the app. The Mac version is only $10 for crying out loud.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  No more updates, it could stop working anytime (like next week) when there is a new OS release.

tptacek 14y ago

You really feel OK asking big companies not to outbid you for other people's work? Why is it OK to demand a ceiling to a developer's compensation?

justauser 14y ago
Who was demanding a ceiling on the compensation? By expanding into a Windows userbase(size and subset of customers willing to pay presumed to be larger than the Apple userbase), the ceiling potentially could have been of cathedral proportions. If Sparrow lacked the desire or skill to expand to Windows, nothing limited them from creating other Appleland products. They already had a great reputation which would have lowered the hurdle for the potential success of product number two. If my paying $9 for a widget is not good enough isn't it ok to tell me things are not going as well as expected and you're looking for solutions? If you leave me in the dust and come back next week as Parentco Widget Version 2 then at the very least you'll cause me to raise my eyebrows.
- tptacek 14y ago
  You are, when you say "hey big companies, stop waving money at these guys". However much you think you're offering to Sparrow's developers, it's presumably less than Google was offering.
  - justauser 14y ago
    Can you point to me where I said that? My posts have been to the effect of "hey little companies, if you're open to being waved to by big companies then let me know before I buy into your company's offerings."
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Here is a clue for you. When a startup offers you its products for $9.99 or $2.99, they are open to be bought by big companies. There. Now you don't have to ask them to disclose things anymore.

awicklander 14y ago

The free market is a bitch.

Terretta 14y ago

> * If anything, do what Facebook did with Instagram and keep them working on their product.* As far as I recall, Instagram kept working on their product because the US Government required them to pending regulatory approval -- which could come as soon as August: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/zuck_your_instagram_is_developing_1DtDw5CI1H91MVnmQlvPQO http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/zuck_your_instagram_is...

tlogan 14y ago

It seems like a lot of people don't like this acquisition. However, I think it will be much bigger outrage if they raised the price of their software or they started requiring some kind of subscription.

mapleoin 14y ago

That's one of the big arguments in favour of Free Software.

andrewfelix 14y ago

If I was Mac user I'd be pissed. As a Windows user I'm looking forward to what they can bring to GMail. Sparrow and Coda are two programs I've always wanted to use regularly.