[repsilat]

Nobody is arguing this is a legal problem, they're arguing that this is a moral problem.

Users did buy into the Sparrow thing because they expected updates/maintenance etc etc. Their purchase was contingent on the ongoing support of the service, they would not have bought a product they thought would be discontinued.

Now, you can argue that they should have known that the service might disappear without warning, that they should never have used it if there was the possibility of them being bought, but where does that leave us? Should people just stop buying popular apps created by small companies? Should people insist on a legally binding "community promise" to open-source a product if active development stops?

This also neglects the fact that users are statistically credulous - as a group they're simply not rational enough to seriously consider the possibility of the developer being acquired. The Sparrow guys had to have known this, so they either did something unethical when they sold the app or they did something unethical when they sold the company. The blog post says that it is fine to take advantage of them for their credulity, but that's not an ethical position, that's just Ayn Rand.

[18pfsmt]

>Nobody is arguing this is a legal problem, they're arguing that this is a moral problem.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The comment above the one to which you are replying states:

"Maintenance" means that they will fix major issues that the paying customers are legally entitled to (such as bugs that make the app unusable).

It's almost like you completely ignored this to make some point about Ayn Rand.

>Now, you can argue that they should have known that the service might disappear without warning

What service? We are talking about a downloadable application that is locally stored on the user's device until they delete it. It will not stop working. I've been using an old version of Thunderbird for a while now simply because I haven't felt like upgrading and setting up all my GPG stuff again.

These things may seem like nitpicks, but I think the nuance here is important and is being skipped over in favor of complaining about something. The reaction is way overblown in my opinion.

[repsilat]

> The comment above the one to which you are replying states:

>> ...fix major issues that the paying customers are legally entitled to...

Ah craps. You're right, I skipped over that comment and assumed the one I was replying to was making a different point. I look like an ass, and it serves me right. I'd delete or edit the post to make a retraction, but HN has decided that it's important to keep my mistakes around for posterity.

[res0nat0r]

From what you said above it sounds like Microsoft should also still be releasing and providing you patches for Windows 95. You paid a one time fee for an application, if you wanted support and updates for it forever you should have expected to be paying a monthly / yearly fee. If at the time the updates stop coming, then the company should just stop charging you the ongoing support fee.

Expecting lifetime support for a one time flat payment of almost nothing is pretty silly.

[repsilat]

The "lifetime support" argument doesn't follow from anything I said. Users may not have been savvy to the possibility of the software being discontinued in this fashion, but they certainly understand that an end-of-life is inevitable. They're used to free updates over the natural lifespan of the product, and they feel that there's been a breach of courtesy when the natural lifespan of a product is willfully cut short.

[Sayter]

What defines the natural lifespan of a product?

[repsilat]

I don't know. I know that Windows 95 has long since reached the end of its natural lifespan, and that users feel that Sparrow's life was "cut short". I'm sure there isn't a sharp dividing line, but we don't really need one in this case - it's clear which side this falls on.

[res0nat0r]

Sparrows lifespan is whenever the developers feel like not supporting it anymore.

[durga]

Any software out there has a lifetime. Some go sooner, some later. What's the big deal?

Nice opportunity for an fast opportunistic developer to go and develop a kickass alternative and start selling it..