Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Jul 2012 23:06 UTC
In the News Okay, so this is entirely new to me. Sparrow is was an email client for Mac OS X and iOS (and Windows), which brought a decent Gmail experience to these platforms - as opposed to Apple's own not-so-good Gmail support and Google's Gmail iOS application which, well, is just a webpage. Google has now acquired Sparrow, and basically all hell has broken loose, to the point of Rian van der Merwe writing that 'we' lost "faith in a philosophy that we thought was a sustainable way to ensure a healthy future for independent software development, where most innovation happens".
Permalink for comment 528054
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by sicofante
by sicofante on Tue 24th Jul 2012 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by sicofante"
Member since:

"earned $10 from each of their thousands of users , and then they got 25 million USD for their company.

Unless the thousands of users are more than 10k they didn't exactly rake in the profits.

Whatever they made selling their software is much more than ZERO, which is exactly what they would have got by giving their software away. Being a prominent app in the OS X market place gives you plenty beyond 10K users, but even that is not the point.

"How on Earth would Sparrow devs and investors become financially healthy by giving away their code?

How do you know they where financially healthy? Actually, you said they where starving.

Maybe you should read my comment again, slowly. They WOULD BE starving if they had gone open source. I know they were financially healthy because they attracted investors (who are financially healthy by definition). You can bet those investors wouldn't be interested in an e-mail application that anyone can download for free. If you believe otherwise, please show examples and make reasonable assumptions that show you're right.

"Now please explain how could they have done that by going open source.

Neither the GPL nor the BSD/MIT license prohibits you from selling your product at a profit.

That's hardly the point. They don't prohibit that, but the effect is exactly the same: once I must publish the code, anyone can compile it and has no need to pay for my work. That's so obvious not even those explaining how to make money from open source consider the option of selling the software itself.

You haven't answered the question.

"Open source applications can only be made by students being fed by their parents or teams sponsored by big corporations

Wow, what a bunch of nonsense. There's plenty of proof to the contrary.

I'm eager to know about a single ONE proof. Just name one small company making a simple desktop app -akin to an e-mail client, which is what we're talking about here- that is making money out of selling it. Just one.

Until I see that proof, I stand by my point: open source desktop applications are made either by students (who are being fed by their parents) or by corporations (who make the money by using the software as a means to sell other products or services).

Edited 2012-07-24 22:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1