3 ms·

Hate to be that guy, but: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/21/3174803/sparrow-for-windows-never-existed http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/21/3174803/sparrow-for-win

by gonzo 14y ago

Hate to be that guy, but: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/21/3174803/sparrow-for-windows-never-existed http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/21/3174803/sparrow-for-window...

iamdave 14y ago
Corollary: I absolutely hate it when media outlets use the term "a source". Yes, I do understand that sometimes 'source' is used because the other party requested or requires anonymity for the continuity of their current endeavors or whatever other reason. But with the current state of news delivery operating at Warp 10 with the added bonus of somehow being able to run a hyperdrive engine at the same time and less research actively being done before a story is thoroughly debunked, it irks me.
- m0nastic 14y ago
  I think it's especially silly in the case of a "source" from a really small startup. This isn't like a "source" at Proctor and Gamble, it's what, like one of five people?
  - pbiggar 14y ago
    Or their friends, or people they spoke to at a party or conference. And so on.
    - m0nastic 14y ago
      I suppose. So a person contacts the article author and says "I spoke with them at a party or conference, and they denied knowing anything about a Windows client." That's a credible source? Of course not.
      - pbiggar 14y ago
        Credibility isn't binary. What's credible for one news organization says nothing about what another organization/journalist/court-of-law-in-the-UK believes is credible. There are many more ways to establish credibility - does your story add up, do you know things you wouldn't without having inside info, can the journalist verify that info with a known insider, have you been a credible source in the past, are you personally known to the journalist, are you a known person in the community, do you have a proven connection to the primary source, etc.
codeka 14y ago
Not to sound harsh, but what's described here sounds totally believable. Someone who loved Sparrow on Mac wanted to bring it to Windows. He got the blessings of the developer to do it, was even lucky enough to have a few meetings with them. But none of that implies any sort of formal relationship or gives any reason why the Sparrow team (or Google) should have any sort of responsibility toward him. It sucks he got burned, but I honestly don't think he has anyone to blame but himself. If you're going to do so much work, either make sure you own the work (and can sell it yourself if the company no longer wants it) or have some legal agreement in place that you get paid for it. Don't leave yourself in a situation where the other person changes their mind and you've got no recourse to recoup your loses.

by gonzo 14y ago

Hate to be that guy, but: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/21/3174803/sparrow-for-windows-never-existed http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/21/3174803/sparrow-for-window...

iamdave 14y ago

Corollary: I absolutely hate it when media outlets use the term "a source". Yes, I do understand that sometimes 'source' is used because the other party requested or requires anonymity for the continuity of their current endeavors or whatever other reason. But with the current state of news delivery operating at Warp 10 with the added bonus of somehow being able to run a hyperdrive engine at the same time and less research actively being done before a story is thoroughly debunked, it irks me.

m0nastic 14y ago
I think it's especially silly in the case of a "source" from a really small startup. This isn't like a "source" at Proctor and Gamble, it's what, like one of five people?
- pbiggar 14y ago
  Or their friends, or people they spoke to at a party or conference. And so on.
  - m0nastic 14y ago
    I suppose. So a person contacts the article author and says "I spoke with them at a party or conference, and they denied knowing anything about a Windows client." That's a credible source? Of course not.
    - pbiggar 14y ago
      Credibility isn't binary. What's credible for one news organization says nothing about what another organization/journalist/court-of-law-in-the-UK believes is credible. There are many more ways to establish credibility - does your story add up, do you know things you wouldn't without having inside info, can the journalist verify that info with a known insider, have you been a credible source in the past, are you personally known to the journalist, are you a known person in the community, do you have a proven connection to the primary source, etc.

codeka 14y ago

Not to sound harsh, but what's described here sounds totally believable. Someone who loved Sparrow on Mac wanted to bring it to Windows. He got the blessings of the developer to do it, was even lucky enough to have a few meetings with them. But none of that implies any sort of formal relationship or gives any reason why the Sparrow team (or Google) should have any sort of responsibility toward him. It sucks he got burned, but I honestly don't think he has anyone to blame but himself. If you're going to do so much work, either make sure you own the work (and can sell it yourself if the company no longer wants it) or have some legal agreement in place that you get paid for it. Don't leave yourself in a situation where the other person changes their mind and you've got no recourse to recoup your loses.