6 ms·

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

by 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.
- grisha 14y ago
  Will you still prefer desktop app if you get all its benefits with web app?
  - toddmorey 14y ago
    Because you really don't get all the benefits of a native app with a web app. It's getting better, the gap is closing, but it will be a while before web apps are an enjoyable an experience as a native app. I think Sparrow was actually a good proof point of that.
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      More than that - apps like Sparrow move the goalposts actually. It was such a superior to experience to even the best native clients of the day that it widened the gap between web and native once again.
      - untog 14y ago
        What was so much better about it? I tried it and was unimpressed. Search was slower and worse than web, for one. That surprised me.
        knewter 14y ago
        sometimes I'm surprised by this sort of thing, but then I remember that Google is INSANELY GOOD AT SEARCH and I stop being surprised when that plays out.
- jsz0 14y ago
  That's exactly why they had to kill it. If you don't use the web app you don't see GMail ads.
  - lazyjones 14y ago
    Do you really need to see gmail ads, or does it suffice if they can associate your client IP address with your email content and show you suitable ads the next time you visit a site with AdSense / doubleclick?
    - Vivtek 14y ago
      At their scale, even statistical advantages pay off.
untog 14y ago
All of their customers (myself included) invested No you didn't. You bought. There was no investment, you should not expect a 'return'.
- dhimes 14y ago
  If they changed their workflow to incorporate the product, they invested.
  - pbiggar 14y ago
    In that case, they should be delighted on their return from this acquisition!
backspace 14y ago
Simply put: that's a risk you take for being an early adopter. Deal with it, there's a good chance it will happen with any/all early adoption startup products out there.
- crag 14y ago
  "... an early adopter" Hardly. Sparrow has been out for a few years.
  - backspace 14y ago
    5 people in a small startup and not many mainstream users. It's very much early adopter.
  - stephenr 14y ago
    The initial release was February 2011. How is that "a few years"?
    - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
      Version 1.0 came out in February of 2011. However, there were 7 Public Betas before that. The first one came out on October 4, 2010 [1]. By the time version 1.0 was released, Sparrow already had hundreds of thousands of users [2]. (Granted, October of 2010 still isn't ‘a few years’ a go.) [1] http://blog.sparrowmailapp.com/post/1262858384/40-000-sparrows http://blog.sparrowmailapp.com/post/1262858384/40-000-sparro... [2] http://blog.sparrowmailapp.com/post/2497742134/150000dwnlds http://blog.sparrowmailapp.com/post/2497742134/150000dwnlds
lotyrin 14y ago
The wants of the many outweigh the wants of the few.
- ryanhuff 14y ago
  Especially if the "many" are dead presidents.
mindcrime 14y ago
And now you've gotten lesson #1 on why F/OSS solutions have one huge advantage over their proprietary counterparts: If the original developers of a F/OSS app decide to drop it, you have choices. In the best case, another group of devs may simply fork the project and keep it going, or you ('you' in the general sense here) may choose to bring development in-house, or contract with a 3rd party to maintain and upgrade the app. Now you might argue that some of those choices aren't that appealing, or that it's not guaranteed that someone else will pick up the app and run with it... but look at the scenarios with a closed-source, proprietary app: If the devs drop it, you're f%!#d, end of story.
- AceJohnny2 14y ago
  Yes, F/OSS has that huge advantage... but even though I'm an F/OSS advocate, I think it's naive to ignore the economics of such projects. They have a much harder time getting off the ground, especially those aimed at a mass market to which you'll have trouble selling a support plan. There are business models, but they're more complicated and don't provide as much income. I do wish companies that abandon projects would OSS them more often though.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    I do wish companies that abandon projects would OSS them more often though. Agreed. But to their credit, Google have some history of open-sourcing things[1][2][3][4], so maybe there's a chance that this product will be released as well. At least one can hope... [1]: http://code.google.com/opensource/ http://code.google.com/opensource/ [2]: http://code.google.com/opensource/projects.html http://code.google.com/opensource/projects.html [3]: http://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google http://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google [4]: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/ http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/
- ralfd 14y ago
  With open source it is often the same. I am looking at you Mozilla Thunderbird.

by rglover 14y ago

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.

grisha 14y ago
Will you still prefer desktop app if you get all its benefits with web app?
- toddmorey 14y ago
  Because you really don't get all the benefits of a native app with a web app. It's getting better, the gap is closing, but it will be a while before web apps are an enjoyable an experience as a native app. I think Sparrow was actually a good proof point of that.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    More than that - apps like Sparrow move the goalposts actually. It was such a superior to experience to even the best native clients of the day that it widened the gap between web and native once again.
    - untog 14y ago
      What was so much better about it? I tried it and was unimpressed. Search was slower and worse than web, for one. That surprised me.
      - knewter 14y ago
        sometimes I'm surprised by this sort of thing, but then I remember that Google is INSANELY GOOD AT SEARCH and I stop being surprised when that plays out.
jsz0 14y ago
That's exactly why they had to kill it. If you don't use the web app you don't see GMail ads.
- lazyjones 14y ago
  Do you really need to see gmail ads, or does it suffice if they can associate your client IP address with your email content and show you suitable ads the next time you visit a site with AdSense / doubleclick?
  - Vivtek 14y ago
    At their scale, even statistical advantages pay off.

untog 14y ago

All of their customers (myself included) invested No you didn't. You bought. There was no investment, you should not expect a 'return'.

dhimes 14y ago
If they changed their workflow to incorporate the product, they invested.
- pbiggar 14y ago
  In that case, they should be delighted on their return from this acquisition!

backspace 14y ago

Simply put: that's a risk you take for being an early adopter. Deal with it, there's a good chance it will happen with any/all early adoption startup products out there.

crag 14y ago
"... an early adopter" Hardly. Sparrow has been out for a few years.
- backspace 14y ago
  5 people in a small startup and not many mainstream users. It's very much early adopter.
- stephenr 14y ago
  The initial release was February 2011. How is that "a few years"?
  - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
    Version 1.0 came out in February of 2011. However, there were 7 Public Betas before that. The first one came out on October 4, 2010 [1]. By the time version 1.0 was released, Sparrow already had hundreds of thousands of users [2]. (Granted, October of 2010 still isn't ‘a few years’ a go.) [1] http://blog.sparrowmailapp.com/post/1262858384/40-000-sparrows http://blog.sparrowmailapp.com/post/1262858384/40-000-sparro... [2] http://blog.sparrowmailapp.com/post/2497742134/150000dwnlds http://blog.sparrowmailapp.com/post/2497742134/150000dwnlds

lotyrin 14y ago

The wants of the many outweigh the wants of the few.

ryanhuff 14y ago
Especially if the "many" are dead presidents.

mindcrime 14y ago

And now you've gotten lesson #1 on why F/OSS solutions have one huge advantage over their proprietary counterparts: If the original developers of a F/OSS app decide to drop it, you have choices. In the best case, another group of devs may simply fork the project and keep it going, or you ('you' in the general sense here) may choose to bring development in-house, or contract with a 3rd party to maintain and upgrade the app. Now you might argue that some of those choices aren't that appealing, or that it's not guaranteed that someone else will pick up the app and run with it... but look at the scenarios with a closed-source, proprietary app: If the devs drop it, you're f%!#d, end of story.

AceJohnny2 14y ago
Yes, F/OSS has that huge advantage... but even though I'm an F/OSS advocate, I think it's naive to ignore the economics of such projects. They have a much harder time getting off the ground, especially those aimed at a mass market to which you'll have trouble selling a support plan. There are business models, but they're more complicated and don't provide as much income. I do wish companies that abandon projects would OSS them more often though.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  I do wish companies that abandon projects would OSS them more often though. Agreed. But to their credit, Google have some history of open-sourcing things[1][2][3][4], so maybe there's a chance that this product will be released as well. At least one can hope... [1]: http://code.google.com/opensource/ http://code.google.com/opensource/ [2]: http://code.google.com/opensource/projects.html http://code.google.com/opensource/projects.html [3]: http://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google http://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label:google [4]: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/ http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/
ralfd 14y ago
With open source it is often the same. I am looking at you Mozilla Thunderbird.