8 ms·

“Inbox is an email company. Google is an advertising company. This product is our focus, and will not be ‘discontinued’ unexpectedly.” Burn! Very amusing. But

by Agathos 12y ago

“Inbox is an email company. Google is an advertising company. This product is our focus, and will not be ‘discontinued’ unexpectedly.” Burn! Very amusing. But for all we know they will be acqui-hired, maybe even by Google, and then shifted to a different project.

personZ 12y ago
Indeed, the probability of this being discontinued, if it follows normal trends, is dramatically higher than pretty much any Google product, and worse the notion that the "product is their focus" is specious: getting investment cash or a buyout is their focus, as it is with virtually all startups. Moralizing or taking shots at competitors is a dangerous tactic when you live in a glass house.
- GuiA 12y ago
  > Moralizing or taking shots at competitors is a dangerous tactic when you live in a glass house. Especially when you all live in the same glass house.
- pfraze 12y ago
  FWIW, inboxapp is self-hosted and under AGPL, so it's forkable.
  - bugsbunnyak 12y ago
    AGPL with Contributor License Agreement, just to be crystal clear.
    - spicyj 12y ago
      Presumably you need to sign the CLA only to contribute back to the master branch.
      - grinich 12y ago
        Yep.
    - slgeorge 12y ago
      In fairness they're a new company and probably only have a basic view on how they're going to make money. They just licensed their core code under 'free software' so it makes sense for them to have a CLA. It will give them some flexibility as they figure out their commercial path - though I can't actually find the CLA on their site. Anyway, in comparison good luck finding a 'free software' license for the Gmail API, or a CLA - and that's from a company that's benefited from Open Source more than any other.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      Is this viral like the gpl? Does the use of the inbox backend, hosted by me, require release of the full source to the entire app that uses the inbox backend? My brief reading of the agpl seems to say yes. Which makes this an interesting toy but nothing more...
      - icebraining 12y ago
        Yes, the AGPL does require the release of the source of any code built on components licensed under it. Chances are they'll have a commercial license, though my salary disputes your assertion that an AGPL base can only be used as a toy - we have contracts with some of the largest companies in my country.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  Yes. See Sparrow for details / confirmation.
- PeterGriffin 12y ago
  I'm an idiot, but I'm willing to believe there are still people out there who love what they do, and would stand by it, even if Corporation X comes knocking on the door with a pot of gold. I'd rather cheer for them and be disappointed, than dismiss them in advance and live my life perceiving the world through a cynical lens. Huh. I didn't know I can write so dramatically. You catch my drift, though.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    I think the point the parent comments are trying to make, factually correct or not, is that it's not entirely within the control of the people/company developing the product to determine whether they accept a buy-out if they have accepted outside money. It's not cynicism to point out when people make statements they may not have the ability to back up. Whether that's actually the case is less clear to me though, after following some of the other comments from the developers here.
    - grinich 12y ago
      Working on a problem you care deeply about with great people is already a pot of gold. It's something that money literally cannot buy, and much harder to create than than cash in one's bank account. And as for control, maybe I should just say it explicitly: we have raised investment but are still in full control of the company (aside: it'd be nuts if we weren't at the stage), and plan to keep it that way going forward. In fact, our investors decided to invest explicitly because they believe our team is the best able to make decisions on growing a sustainable business and solving the developer platform challenges. No matter how good the VC, they obviously don't have the background+skills+focus to design APIs (and likewise shouldn't). One of our investors likes to say, "We're in your corner, but not in your kitchen," which I've always thought framed the relationship well. I know there's lots of cynicism in the tech world with buyouts/acqui-hires and swarmy VCs, so I can understand where this reaction comes from. And unfortunately I don't have a solid rebuttal other than saying "trust me" with the test of time. Clearly that doesn't work for the HN skeptics. :/ It's also worth pointing out that not all acquisitions are terrible. Google Docs came from an acquisition. So did Google Earth. Facebook continues to run Parse, and Instagram, and Beluga via FB Messenger. Sometimes these acquisitions legitimately make sense, but I think the important thing is keeping the right people in positions to make those decisions when the time comes, and not the people who are just looking for the immediate financial return.
grinich 12y ago
I said this in the other thread and I know it sounds cliché, but we're not planning to "go away" or get acquired or something. We've always positioned this company as a long-term play, and made that very clear when hiring, raising money, etc. It's just not possible to go after something big if you plan to "flip" the company quickly.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- JonnieCache 12y ago
  In that case, you should probably make a big fancy statement to that effect. It would be popular, people are very concerned about the issue of services being acquired and binned these days, it's such an obvious pattern. If you are not legally/politically able to make such a statement, then these casual assurances are worthless, and ultimately misleading.
  - chatmasta 12y ago
    Your two paragraphs are logically irreconcilable. Obviously, they cannot legally or politically make a statement like "we will never get acquired." You tell them not to make that statement if they can't. But then you also tell them they should make the statement? People need to chill. This looks like an awesome product and platform, and it doesn't seem like it will require any data lock in (you can always move your emails from place to place, and it looks like they won't necessarily even require you to store emails on their servers. Worst comes to worst, if they shut down, I imagine they would provide migration utilities. These guys are clearly pretty smart. If someone is going to build this product, they seem like a good choice.
    - JonnieCache 12y ago
      >Your two paragraphs are logically irreconcilable. That's the point.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
programminggeek 12y ago
This got people talking. It's a smart angle to get noticed and to get press. The goal is not to beat Google, it's to not run out of money and die as a company. To that end, taking a swing at Google is a smart move.
- personZ 12y ago
  They would have gotten exactly the same press (TechCrunch) minus that commentary. But with that commentary they instantly cloud their announcement with two immediate thoughts- -abandonment. You know, I wasn't thinking of it, but now it's top of my mind. -delusion. If a funded company talks about the misled motivations of others, I instantly question their self-honesty or delusion. I mean throughout this thread we see claims of not being bought out, etc. You don't take VC money if those things aren't always on the table and top of mind. The selling out already happened. I don't think it was good at all. Instead of talking about the product or its place, people are talking about that commentary, and not in a complimentary way. As an aside, "Inbox App" brings you to http://inboxapp.co/ http://inboxapp.co/. There's also http://inbox.com http://inbox.com (which is a decided two generations ago site), and then http://inboxapp.com http://inboxapp.com.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
Yuuuuuup. If you're a company that wants to prove that you actually care about providing services that customers can rely on then you need to make a financial and legal commitment to that statement. Create a legal entity tasked with carrying out continuing operations in the event that the company shuts down, set up a bond or other funding source set aside which will provide enough operating budget for operations at some level to be continued for a year or several years.
ulyssesgrant 12y ago
It's Sparrow all over again :[
- alex_doom 12y ago
  And now I'm sad.
recursive 12y ago
I don't even understand what the intention is with the scare quotes. Are they suggesting that google would claim to discontinue gmail, but not actually discontinue it?
aagha 12y ago
They should add to their site that they will not, in any circumstance, ever sell out to anyone. Ever.
- nolok 12y ago
  You mean like Oculus ?

by Agathos 12y ago

personZ 12y ago

Indeed, the probability of this being discontinued, if it follows normal trends, is dramatically higher than pretty much any Google product, and worse the notion that the "product is their focus" is specious: getting investment cash or a buyout is their focus, as it is with virtually all startups. Moralizing or taking shots at competitors is a dangerous tactic when you live in a glass house.

GuiA 12y ago
> Moralizing or taking shots at competitors is a dangerous tactic when you live in a glass house. Especially when you all live in the same glass house.
pfraze 12y ago
FWIW, inboxapp is self-hosted and under AGPL, so it's forkable.
- bugsbunnyak 12y ago
  AGPL with Contributor License Agreement, just to be crystal clear.
  - spicyj 12y ago
    Presumably you need to sign the CLA only to contribute back to the master branch.
    - grinich 12y ago
      Yep.
  - slgeorge 12y ago
    In fairness they're a new company and probably only have a basic view on how they're going to make money. They just licensed their core code under 'free software' so it makes sense for them to have a CLA. It will give them some flexibility as they figure out their commercial path - though I can't actually find the CLA on their site. Anyway, in comparison good luck finding a 'free software' license for the Gmail API, or a CLA - and that's from a company that's benefited from Open Source more than any other.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    Is this viral like the gpl? Does the use of the inbox backend, hosted by me, require release of the full source to the entire app that uses the inbox backend? My brief reading of the agpl seems to say yes. Which makes this an interesting toy but nothing more...
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Yes, the AGPL does require the release of the source of any code built on components licensed under it. Chances are they'll have a commercial license, though my salary disputes your assertion that an AGPL base can only be used as a toy - we have contracts with some of the largest companies in my country.
alexqgb 12y ago
Yes. See Sparrow for details / confirmation.
PeterGriffin 12y ago
I'm an idiot, but I'm willing to believe there are still people out there who love what they do, and would stand by it, even if Corporation X comes knocking on the door with a pot of gold. I'd rather cheer for them and be disappointed, than dismiss them in advance and live my life perceiving the world through a cynical lens. Huh. I didn't know I can write so dramatically. You catch my drift, though.
- kbenson 12y ago
  I think the point the parent comments are trying to make, factually correct or not, is that it's not entirely within the control of the people/company developing the product to determine whether they accept a buy-out if they have accepted outside money. It's not cynicism to point out when people make statements they may not have the ability to back up. Whether that's actually the case is less clear to me though, after following some of the other comments from the developers here.
  - grinich 12y ago
    Working on a problem you care deeply about with great people is already a pot of gold. It's something that money literally cannot buy, and much harder to create than than cash in one's bank account. And as for control, maybe I should just say it explicitly: we have raised investment but are still in full control of the company (aside: it'd be nuts if we weren't at the stage), and plan to keep it that way going forward. In fact, our investors decided to invest explicitly because they believe our team is the best able to make decisions on growing a sustainable business and solving the developer platform challenges. No matter how good the VC, they obviously don't have the background+skills+focus to design APIs (and likewise shouldn't). One of our investors likes to say, "We're in your corner, but not in your kitchen," which I've always thought framed the relationship well. I know there's lots of cynicism in the tech world with buyouts/acqui-hires and swarmy VCs, so I can understand where this reaction comes from. And unfortunately I don't have a solid rebuttal other than saying "trust me" with the test of time. Clearly that doesn't work for the HN skeptics. :/ It's also worth pointing out that not all acquisitions are terrible. Google Docs came from an acquisition. So did Google Earth. Facebook continues to run Parse, and Instagram, and Beluga via FB Messenger. Sometimes these acquisitions legitimately make sense, but I think the important thing is keeping the right people in positions to make those decisions when the time comes, and not the people who are just looking for the immediate financial return.

grinich 12y ago

I said this in the other thread and I know it sounds cliché, but we're not planning to "go away" or get acquired or something. We've always positioned this company as a long-term play, and made that very clear when hiring, raising money, etc. It's just not possible to go after something big if you plan to "flip" the company quickly.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
JonnieCache 12y ago
In that case, you should probably make a big fancy statement to that effect. It would be popular, people are very concerned about the issue of services being acquired and binned these days, it's such an obvious pattern. If you are not legally/politically able to make such a statement, then these casual assurances are worthless, and ultimately misleading.
- chatmasta 12y ago
  Your two paragraphs are logically irreconcilable. Obviously, they cannot legally or politically make a statement like "we will never get acquired." You tell them not to make that statement if they can't. But then you also tell them they should make the statement? People need to chill. This looks like an awesome product and platform, and it doesn't seem like it will require any data lock in (you can always move your emails from place to place, and it looks like they won't necessarily even require you to store emails on their servers. Worst comes to worst, if they shut down, I imagine they would provide migration utilities. These guys are clearly pretty smart. If someone is going to build this product, they seem like a good choice.
  - JonnieCache 12y ago
    >Your two paragraphs are logically irreconcilable. That's the point.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

programminggeek 12y ago

This got people talking. It's a smart angle to get noticed and to get press. The goal is not to beat Google, it's to not run out of money and die as a company. To that end, taking a swing at Google is a smart move.

personZ 12y ago
They would have gotten exactly the same press (TechCrunch) minus that commentary. But with that commentary they instantly cloud their announcement with two immediate thoughts- -abandonment. You know, I wasn't thinking of it, but now it's top of my mind. -delusion. If a funded company talks about the misled motivations of others, I instantly question their self-honesty or delusion. I mean throughout this thread we see claims of not being bought out, etc. You don't take VC money if those things aren't always on the table and top of mind. The selling out already happened. I don't think it was good at all. Instead of talking about the product or its place, people are talking about that commentary, and not in a complimentary way. As an aside, "Inbox App" brings you to http://inboxapp.co/ http://inboxapp.co/. There's also http://inbox.com http://inbox.com (which is a decided two generations ago site), and then http://inboxapp.com http://inboxapp.com.

InclinedPlane 12y ago

Yuuuuuup. If you're a company that wants to prove that you actually care about providing services that customers can rely on then you need to make a financial and legal commitment to that statement. Create a legal entity tasked with carrying out continuing operations in the event that the company shuts down, set up a bond or other funding source set aside which will provide enough operating budget for operations at some level to be continued for a year or several years.

ulyssesgrant 12y ago

It's Sparrow all over again :[

alex_doom 12y ago
And now I'm sad.

recursive 12y ago

I don't even understand what the intention is with the scare quotes. Are they suggesting that google would claim to discontinue gmail, but not actually discontinue it?

aagha 12y ago

They should add to their site that they will not, in any circumstance, ever sell out to anyone. Ever.

nolok 12y ago
You mean like Oculus ?