5 ms·

This article really bothered me. Sparrow made a ton of money with only a small handful of people working on the product. It was extremely profitable and popular

This article really bothered me. Sparrow made a ton of money with only a small handful of people working on the product. It was extremely profitable and popular. I don't think any developers working there would have problems with Ramen noodle salaries with all the money that they were making. When Google comes knocking on your door with eight figures, what do you expect them to say? How altruistic do you expect someone in that position to really be? They developed and designed a hit app that everyone loved and the team was snapped up. They don't owe anyone anything, it was their own decision, and although they were profitable and could have continued working on their products into the future, they chose to take a huge payday. This has nothing to do with Apple, a 30% cut, or them not making enough profit because they definitely were.

achompas 14y ago
These developers worked hard to ship the best Gmail client on iOS or OS X. Why is everyone angry about their comeuppance? Software is a business, just like any other. Every project -- even open source projects!! -- needs money to operate, and many times these projects -- yes, even open source projects!! -- organize around businesses or foundations. See Enthought and Continuum for two examples: they exist, among other things, to support development of scientific computing libraries for Python. Does this hurt for people who bought Sparrow? Not really. You paid them $10 for their app. Google offered them up to $25 million. You still have a functioning Sparrow app, and once that stops working you'll return to Mail.app until a new amazing mail app comes along. Perspective, people. This is a website focused on tech entrepreneurship, and you guys are flipping out over a company sale?
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  > Why is everyone angry about their comeuppance? Because, as of now, a tool they've come to rely on is essentially done. It won't get updated, and should future versions of an OS that it runs on changes something, there is no promise of a fix. This could be solved if the code base was released publicly, but that hasn't happened yet. > Does this hurt for people who bought Sparrow? Not really. You paid them $10 for their app. The people behind Sparrow were very public about features they were working on that will never get implemented. I know I almost bought Sparrow because of those public statement. There is also the expectation that buying into an app, it will continue to get updates so it will continue to work. Now, time invested into Sparrow is essentially a time bomb. Eventually it will stop working, and the user will have to switch. Sparrow is free to take the money. However, how they handled this was a slap in the face to it's paying customers.
  - achompas 14y ago
    Because, as of now, a tool they've come to rely on is essentially done. I relied on Spool. They got bought, I was bummed, then I moved on. This isn't the end of mail apps as we know it. Eventually it will stop working, and the user will have to switch. To Mail.app. Or Gmail. Or any other number of email clients out there. I'm sure some customers are disappointed. But at some point it's not about the customers--it's about you. If you want to sell your company, you're going to do it no matter what customers want. Customers can't know whether a company is the "sell now" type a priori, and that sucks, but it's also the nature of business.
    - ianstormtaylor 14y ago
      True, but you are proving the OPs point about having subscription-based pricing. I remember when I first bought Things when it cost $50 and they still haven't even shipped proper syncing. I felt like my money was stolen from me. If they had subscription pricing, they'd actually have to care about their customers post purchase. We'd have the power to stop their income stream much more directly.
    - sunkencity 14y ago
      Yep, this is the reason open source tools are the best to "rely" on. I prefer open-source code editors, because if I'm gonna take the effort to master their more advanced features, I want them to stay available. I'm thinking of switching back to mutt for email.
    - jasonlotito 14y ago
      > I'm sure some customers are disappointed. But at some point it's not about the customers--it's about you. If you want to sell your company, you're going to do it no matter what customers want. Customers can't know whether a company is the "sell now" type a priori, and that sucks, but it's also the nature of business. That's fine. And I'm not expecting companies to come out and say that. I'm also not against them selling out. What I am against is software companies not providing an upgrade path. An easy solution would be to open source Sparrow. There. Done. And don't think this is all about Sparrow. It's about indie developers in general. It's a warning. Sell your products! We'll buy! But understand that if we come to rely on your products that we've paid for, when you effectively stop development on it, you are doing your customers harm. It's why I prefer open source tools (and yes, I've taken advantage of this fact). And the tools I do buy are from companies that have proven they will continue to invest in their products. Hopefully that explains it more clearly. I'm not against them selling themselves. However, I feel like they slighted their customers. Especially since I know some of those customers had expectations based upon comments they'd made.
- k-mcgrady 14y ago
  Charging your customers, promising features, and then selling your business and going back on those promises is not good business. It's usually great to see startups get bought and winning but in this case they had a profitable business and they screwed their customers. Not to mention the half price sale they had days before the acquisition. If they knew the acquisition was happening this week and they did that sale to have a few big days before shutting down it was a really scummy move. >> "Software is a business" It is, but selling an app for 18 months and then selling your company is not. It seems to be ingrained in tech culture that you should sell your business. Why are so few companies aiming to become profitable and build a sustainable business? I understand companies like Instagram with no revenue stream selling, but Sparrow had a solid revenue stream.
nfarina 14y ago
I think the general source of frustration with Sparrow's acquisition is the feeling that something beautiful just got end-of-lifed. And of course that this is just the latest in a line of could-have-beens like PushPopPress, Tweetie, etc. And I had a similar train of thought as the OP: "I wish Apple could make the App Store even more profitable, so we can have more great independent developers like Marco and TapTapTap that continue to make great apps without being gobbled up by large companies eager to put talent into unrelated areas." I don't know if it's possible, and of course no one can fault Sparrow for cashing out. But there it is.
brianyu 14y ago
I am definitely happy for them. Because, after all, we all work for making impacts. While sparrow is already making an impact on people using Mac and iOS devices. It is only a subset of people that can be benefit from their effort. But joining Google, maybe they get to improve the Gmail experience for everybody. I think this is the most logical thing to do.
codex 14y ago
How do you know Sparrow made a "ton of money?". I haven't seen any references to that effect. Given that they aimed to get people to buy something given away by both Apple and Google, I'd expect the opposite.
- terhechte 14y ago
  They're fairly high on the App Store top grossing chart.

achompas 14y ago

These developers worked hard to ship the best Gmail client on iOS or OS X. Why is everyone angry about their comeuppance? Software is a business, just like any other. Every project -- even open source projects!! -- needs money to operate, and many times these projects -- yes, even open source projects!! -- organize around businesses or foundations. See Enthought and Continuum for two examples: they exist, among other things, to support development of scientific computing libraries for Python. Does this hurt for people who bought Sparrow? Not really. You paid them $10 for their app. Google offered them up to $25 million. You still have a functioning Sparrow app, and once that stops working you'll return to Mail.app until a new amazing mail app comes along. Perspective, people. This is a website focused on tech entrepreneurship, and you guys are flipping out over a company sale?

jasonlotito 14y ago
> Why is everyone angry about their comeuppance? Because, as of now, a tool they've come to rely on is essentially done. It won't get updated, and should future versions of an OS that it runs on changes something, there is no promise of a fix. This could be solved if the code base was released publicly, but that hasn't happened yet. > Does this hurt for people who bought Sparrow? Not really. You paid them $10 for their app. The people behind Sparrow were very public about features they were working on that will never get implemented. I know I almost bought Sparrow because of those public statement. There is also the expectation that buying into an app, it will continue to get updates so it will continue to work. Now, time invested into Sparrow is essentially a time bomb. Eventually it will stop working, and the user will have to switch. Sparrow is free to take the money. However, how they handled this was a slap in the face to it's paying customers.
- achompas 14y ago
  Because, as of now, a tool they've come to rely on is essentially done. I relied on Spool. They got bought, I was bummed, then I moved on. This isn't the end of mail apps as we know it. Eventually it will stop working, and the user will have to switch. To Mail.app. Or Gmail. Or any other number of email clients out there. I'm sure some customers are disappointed. But at some point it's not about the customers--it's about you. If you want to sell your company, you're going to do it no matter what customers want. Customers can't know whether a company is the "sell now" type a priori, and that sucks, but it's also the nature of business.
  - ianstormtaylor 14y ago
    True, but you are proving the OPs point about having subscription-based pricing. I remember when I first bought Things when it cost $50 and they still haven't even shipped proper syncing. I felt like my money was stolen from me. If they had subscription pricing, they'd actually have to care about their customers post purchase. We'd have the power to stop their income stream much more directly.
  - sunkencity 14y ago
    Yep, this is the reason open source tools are the best to "rely" on. I prefer open-source code editors, because if I'm gonna take the effort to master their more advanced features, I want them to stay available. I'm thinking of switching back to mutt for email.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    > I'm sure some customers are disappointed. But at some point it's not about the customers--it's about you. If you want to sell your company, you're going to do it no matter what customers want. Customers can't know whether a company is the "sell now" type a priori, and that sucks, but it's also the nature of business. That's fine. And I'm not expecting companies to come out and say that. I'm also not against them selling out. What I am against is software companies not providing an upgrade path. An easy solution would be to open source Sparrow. There. Done. And don't think this is all about Sparrow. It's about indie developers in general. It's a warning. Sell your products! We'll buy! But understand that if we come to rely on your products that we've paid for, when you effectively stop development on it, you are doing your customers harm. It's why I prefer open source tools (and yes, I've taken advantage of this fact). And the tools I do buy are from companies that have proven they will continue to invest in their products. Hopefully that explains it more clearly. I'm not against them selling themselves. However, I feel like they slighted their customers. Especially since I know some of those customers had expectations based upon comments they'd made.
k-mcgrady 14y ago
Charging your customers, promising features, and then selling your business and going back on those promises is not good business. It's usually great to see startups get bought and winning but in this case they had a profitable business and they screwed their customers. Not to mention the half price sale they had days before the acquisition. If they knew the acquisition was happening this week and they did that sale to have a few big days before shutting down it was a really scummy move. >> "Software is a business" It is, but selling an app for 18 months and then selling your company is not. It seems to be ingrained in tech culture that you should sell your business. Why are so few companies aiming to become profitable and build a sustainable business? I understand companies like Instagram with no revenue stream selling, but Sparrow had a solid revenue stream.

nfarina 14y ago

I think the general source of frustration with Sparrow's acquisition is the feeling that something beautiful just got end-of-lifed. And of course that this is just the latest in a line of could-have-beens like PushPopPress, Tweetie, etc. And I had a similar train of thought as the OP: "I wish Apple could make the App Store even more profitable, so we can have more great independent developers like Marco and TapTapTap that continue to make great apps without being gobbled up by large companies eager to put talent into unrelated areas." I don't know if it's possible, and of course no one can fault Sparrow for cashing out. But there it is.

brianyu 14y ago

I am definitely happy for them. Because, after all, we all work for making impacts. While sparrow is already making an impact on people using Mac and iOS devices. It is only a subset of people that can be benefit from their effort. But joining Google, maybe they get to improve the Gmail experience for everybody. I think this is the most logical thing to do.

codex 14y ago

How do you know Sparrow made a "ton of money?". I haven't seen any references to that effect. Given that they aimed to get people to buy something given away by both Apple and Google, I'd expect the opposite.

terhechte 14y ago
They're fairly high on the App Store top grossing chart.