5 ms·

(Michael from Inbox here.) Ouch. We're just a few hackers trying to fix broken developer tools. Any claim is just a claim, for sure. We know that it's a long

by grinich 12y ago

(Michael from Inbox here.) Ouch. We're just a few hackers trying to fix broken developer tools. Any claim is just a claim, for sure. We know that it's a long road to earn trust of other developers. One of the (many) reasons we made the sync engine open source was so that developers could run it on their own metal without trusting us. Transparency is really important to us. This is just the beta announcement of our API. I'd love to hear any comments you have on what guaranteed level of support+performance you would need for a hosted product. We're working on a hosted version now (so you don't have to run it yourself), and developer happiness is the #1 priority.

nawitus 12y ago
But if you believe in the claim, why not sign a contract that brings some validity to the claim?
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  Agreed. Those kind of binding agreements are the only way you can guarantee that something won't change immediately upon acquisition, and an interested party may still buy your company if you have such agreements. They may just have to wait a while to shut you down if that is indeed their plan. However, I don't really know if that's a better alternative than just shutting down upon acquisition, lest a false sense of security be provided to the users.
- bduerst 12y ago
  That makes sense - even if Inbox goes back on their word, there can be grandfathered-in users who have a contractual obligation from Inbox and whoever acquires/resells it. Makes the existing user base much less valuable to possible buyers though :)
- girvo 12y ago
  They've release the code. That's contract enough for me.
GuiA 12y ago
> Ouch. We're just a few hackers trying to fix broken developer tools. And we (gwillen and anyone who agrees with his comment, myself included) are just a few hackers who are tired of having the rug pulled under their feet when $CORP inevitably comes with the big bucks and all claims made by the founders in the early days of the company mysteriously disappear from the homepage. Talk is cheap.
- grinich 12y ago
  I like to think that shipping code is the best argument. https://github.com/inboxapp/inbox https://github.com/inboxapp/inbox But yeah, I totally understand the lousy feeling of being burned when $STARTUP gets acquired or shut down. Wish I could say more to quell your concerns. We're just going to keep working on this every day to earn respect from developers. We don't take it lightly. /edit
  - amirmc 12y ago
    Easiest way to earn the kind of respect you're after is to only make claims you can visibly and tangibly support. You cannot realistically claim you will 'never' get bought out, so don't say it.
    - Kadrith 12y ago
      If the code is released with an Open Source license, haven't they already met the claim? Sure the company could be bought out, but the code can't be. Even if they were bought out the code would still be available and someone else could provide the service and continue development. Releasing the code seems like the best guarantee possible.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
pdonis 12y ago
> We're just a few hackers trying to fix broken developer tools. This may be part of your problem. The way I see it, IMAP and POP suckage is not a developer problem; it's a user problem. As in, users don't care that IMAP and POP suck; they only care that their email works. Most people's email works. In other words, you can make developers as happy as clams and it won't matter, because "making developers happy" is not a sustainable business model. (Particularly if the way you are going to make them happy is to open source your toolkit and give it away for free. Not that that isn't a great thing to do: it's just not a sustainable business model.) I think a lot of the skepticism in this thread is because on some level everyone realizes this, even thought it's kind of an unpleasant truth for developers. A sustainable business model would be: you're going to (a) convince users that, even if their email works now, it will work so much better with your new platform that they'll be amazed; and then (b) get the users to pay for that awesome service. I have seen nothing that indicates you have such a business model. Without it, I have to agree with the skeptics that, from a VC's perspective, you are far more likely to exit as an acquisition than as an IPO. Which means the VCs aren't really investing in your business, they're investing in your talent; that's what they're betting that some large company will be willing to pay for down the road, once you've demonstrated the ability to build something. But once you're acquired, you might end up building something completely different from "a better email".
Splendor 12y ago
When an attack on another company's offering becomes your selling point you're bound to reap some negativity in return.
- hsod 12y ago
  Indeed. It's pretty silly to attack another company and then go all "aw, shucks guys" when someone questions your attack. You made this an issue by making an extraordinary claim, you should stand behind your marketing.
gwillen 12y ago
I don't know if you'll see this comment; as far as I'm aware there's no way to passively monitor HN for replies. But if you do see it, please check my reply to dang's comment for a thought on why I'm so angry about this.

by grinich 12y ago

nawitus 12y ago

But if you believe in the claim, why not sign a contract that brings some validity to the claim?

cookiecaper 12y ago
Agreed. Those kind of binding agreements are the only way you can guarantee that something won't change immediately upon acquisition, and an interested party may still buy your company if you have such agreements. They may just have to wait a while to shut you down if that is indeed their plan. However, I don't really know if that's a better alternative than just shutting down upon acquisition, lest a false sense of security be provided to the users.
bduerst 12y ago
That makes sense - even if Inbox goes back on their word, there can be grandfathered-in users who have a contractual obligation from Inbox and whoever acquires/resells it. Makes the existing user base much less valuable to possible buyers though :)
girvo 12y ago
They've release the code. That's contract enough for me.

GuiA 12y ago

> Ouch. We're just a few hackers trying to fix broken developer tools. And we (gwillen and anyone who agrees with his comment, myself included) are just a few hackers who are tired of having the rug pulled under their feet when $CORP inevitably comes with the big bucks and all claims made by the founders in the early days of the company mysteriously disappear from the homepage. Talk is cheap.

grinich 12y ago
I like to think that shipping code is the best argument. https://github.com/inboxapp/inbox https://github.com/inboxapp/inbox But yeah, I totally understand the lousy feeling of being burned when $STARTUP gets acquired or shut down. Wish I could say more to quell your concerns. We're just going to keep working on this every day to earn respect from developers. We don't take it lightly. /edit
- amirmc 12y ago
  Easiest way to earn the kind of respect you're after is to only make claims you can visibly and tangibly support. You cannot realistically claim you will 'never' get bought out, so don't say it.
  - Kadrith 12y ago
    If the code is released with an Open Source license, haven't they already met the claim? Sure the company could be bought out, but the code can't be. Even if they were bought out the code would still be available and someone else could provide the service and continue development. Releasing the code seems like the best guarantee possible.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

pdonis 12y ago

> We're just a few hackers trying to fix broken developer tools. This may be part of your problem. The way I see it, IMAP and POP suckage is not a developer problem; it's a user problem. As in, users don't care that IMAP and POP suck; they only care that their email works. Most people's email works. In other words, you can make developers as happy as clams and it won't matter, because "making developers happy" is not a sustainable business model. (Particularly if the way you are going to make them happy is to open source your toolkit and give it away for free. Not that that isn't a great thing to do: it's just not a sustainable business model.) I think a lot of the skepticism in this thread is because on some level everyone realizes this, even thought it's kind of an unpleasant truth for developers. A sustainable business model would be: you're going to (a) convince users that, even if their email works now, it will work so much better with your new platform that they'll be amazed; and then (b) get the users to pay for that awesome service. I have seen nothing that indicates you have such a business model. Without it, I have to agree with the skeptics that, from a VC's perspective, you are far more likely to exit as an acquisition than as an IPO. Which means the VCs aren't really investing in your business, they're investing in your talent; that's what they're betting that some large company will be willing to pay for down the road, once you've demonstrated the ability to build something. But once you're acquired, you might end up building something completely different from "a better email".

Splendor 12y ago

When an attack on another company's offering becomes your selling point you're bound to reap some negativity in return.

hsod 12y ago
Indeed. It's pretty silly to attack another company and then go all "aw, shucks guys" when someone questions your attack. You made this an issue by making an extraordinary claim, you should stand behind your marketing.

gwillen 12y ago

I don't know if you'll see this comment; as far as I'm aware there's no way to passively monitor HN for replies. But if you do see it, please check my reply to dang's comment for a thought on why I'm so angry about this.