Well, congrats to Marco for having a successful and sustainable business where he has the option and leverage to decide what he wants to do when these offers come knocking.
Most startup/bootstrapped companies are not in that position. Most end up failing and winding up with nothing, but there are some that will end up with these talent acquisition situations.
Remember, both sides (the acquirers and the acquirees) have to agree to the deal. Google doesn't just come along and say "we want to acquire you for your talent" and the other side has no say in the matter.
In this situation you are faced with a choice. Talent acqs happen because a) the acquire target is not really doing that well, and b) they have a group of people that work well together that the acquiring company wants to keep together to do great things under their umbrella.
Given the choice between: keep working on your low-to-modest traction product which isn't producing a lot of revenue and wonder how you might pay rent next month OR a multi-million dollar check/stock offer at a large, successful company... which would you choose? I would take the check in that situation. Sometimes you can't achieve your world-changing vision before your investor and personal money are gone.
The goal of a company should be to succeed and be self-sustaining, of course. But sometimes that doesn't happen, and these talent acqs happen for a reason.
I didn't get that from Marco's post at all. I heard a developer saying "stop blaming indie developers for accepting generous offers from companies and start supporting their products instead".
I obviously can't speak for Marco, but I think what I take umbrage with is when developers plan this out from the beginning -- create a product/company that drives just enough attention to ensure an acquihire. The result ends up being pretty detrimental to the community.
Given the choice between: keep working on your low-to-modest traction product which isn't producing a lot of revenue and wonder how you might pay rent next month OR a multi-million dollar check/stock offer at a large, successful company... which would you choose?
I would also choose the latter. I'll be the first to admit I'm not trying to change the world or 'disrupt and industry' or anything lofty like that. But I think there are quite a few people who would eschew the big check for the opportunity to do something tremendous, and they deserve to be lauded.
I don't think this was a plea to developers to not sell up, I think it was a plea to people to support small companies to make not selling up a more appealing option.
Personally, I think that software should be protected by copyright only if its source code is placed in escrow and made available (a) when the copyright expires or (b) when the software ceases to be commercially available / supported (just as you can legally photocopy copyright books and pay a nominal per-page fee if they're out of print).
The purpose of copyright is to provide a limited monopoly in the interest of creating, in the long term, a public good. Without the source code, we never get the public good. Under this proposed law, Sparrow (and other, similar, products) would have to become open source once it was unsupported, or would not be protected by copyright in the first place.
In this specific case though, Sparrow was far from a low-to-modest traction product. Judging from their ranking history, they've been consistently in the Top 50 grossing overall on the Mac App Store[1], and Top 20 grossing utilities on the iPhone[2]. That's likely worth $2000-3000/day in revenue.
Those numbers are sustainable if you have a small team (1-3 people), but I'm not sure how big Sparrow's team was. Either way, I would say that they were in a very similar position to Instapaper, except the only difference being they had raised some VC funding (with all that implies regarding needing an exit in the future).
In Sparrow's case, though, one has to say that it looks as if they had a sustainable business. After all, they were always in the top 30 of the App Stores. That should equivalent to a lot of money.
I'm the author of the popular Mac Instagram Client "InstaDesk" (http://www.instadesk-app.com) and I can only confirm this. The reason why I started this whole thing was because I was fed up with working in corporations and not being able to control my life. Now I can enjoy the sun during the day, outside, sitting at a lake, and work late into the evening - or vice versa work at the lake.
Even if a huge corporation would offer me a lot of money, I still wouldn't want to join since I would loose so much more. Money doesn't make me happy, freedom does. So, as long as InstaDesk (or other, future, apps) generate enough money for me to survive, I really doubt I would sell (with the exception that if the offer is, just as Marco said, really good and the continuation of InstaDesk is guaranteed).
However, a free life where I'm not obliged or controlled by anybody is just so so so good. (I say this after having worked in IT companies and startups since 2000).
So yeah, support the products you love, and spread good news about them, and give them good reviews.
The only problem (in this context) is that it has to be a fairly large amount of money, and all in one chunk. Seriously, if Facebook offered you $10MM for instadesk, under the condition that you'd have to work for them for one year, you'd turn that down? No way. You'd be silly not to take it, because you could put in your one year and then be free for (basically) ever.
As someone who sold his company last year and is now experiencing life as a salaried employee again, amen to this... Freedom > money in the vast majority of cases.
I'm with you on that. I'm doing a start-up just so I can enjoy the sun during the day, and work at night when I can't do anything outside anyways! I feel like now that we've got it backwards. We're not farmers, we don't need to work in daylight anymore...
>If you want to keep the software and services around that you enjoy, do what you can to make their businesses successful enough that it’s more attractive to keep running them than to be hired by a big tech company.
Nice words, but I doubt it matters. Sparrow got nothing but support for their entire company history. Every review was golden. Every user was a paid user. And they still sold out.
This is a series of nonstatements. Obviously, Sparrow did not get so much support that Google's offer was unattractive. Post as many gold stars as you want: if Google is outbidding the user base, it's hard to blame the developer for accepting their offer.
So now that I've paid for instapaper for iPhone and iPad, I don't have to give Marco any more money. That means the only way he stays in business as the product grows (being that I am not a revenue source anymore) is by either a) figuring out an additional revenue stream from the data or b) discontinuing the apps I paid for and charging me for new ones.
The same goes for sparrow. These one-time purchase apps don't have continued revenue per user. So we can write rants on the internet all we want about "don't give in to the acqui-hire," but obviously the benefits of taking google's money greatly outweighed the future of trying to run a business by selling an app on the App Store.
Instapaper isn't entirely without other revenue. The web interface displays ads, and he offers a $1/month subscription that improves some features. (I pay for it so that I can send larger compilations to my Kindle.)
Great point.
I guess we can draw parallels to other purchases we make. When I purchase a car, I get the car I paid for in that current state, they wont 'update' it for free, nor do we as consumers expect that.
The app industry has created a covenant of sorts that says, pay for the software, and we will update it for x period of time going forward. Which is great for consumers but to be frank, kind of a bad deal for developers (considering most apps we buy are relatively inexpensive).
Either developers have to adapt the more common pay for updates model (Sparrow 1 = 4.99, Sparrow 2 = 8.99) or it will be a pure 'create the best x' keep adding features so they can amass more and more users.
Or Instapaper v2? Paid upgrades have been around since the dawn of software, and there are plenty of companies that have been around long enough to show it works quite well. Adobe is a great example, and Microsoft as well although they've obviously diversified a lot in the past decade.
Well, sure, I paid $20 or whatever for Sparrow (twice, actually), and I get the impression that tons of other people did too, but it didn't make much difference, did it?
And it never will -- there are always going to be developers who are in it for the money and will leave you high-and-dry (which is heartbreaking, in a very-small-violen way, but fine).
My own takeaway is if you don't want your apps to disappear, use open source apps.
(Except for some reason, open-source apps seem to tend to be terrible, UI wise. Not sure why this is, though I have a couple half-baked theories.)
I'm very confused by all of the anger at Google and Facebook for acquiring these companies. The companies look like they were designed to get talent acquired in the first place! They both have very small teams (2--5), Sparrow at least appears to have taken very small amounts of funding (just seed a year or two ago), and I can't name a consumer desktop application (especially a really generic one like mail with tons of free competitors) that has become a major $1bn+ (or even $100m+) business in the last several years. There probably aren't enough eyeballs for ads, and App Stores have made consumer software cost expectations too cheap. What's more, Sparrow is pretty much designed to make Google's offering better.
Is this interpretation wrong? Could these small teams have built independent companies (rather than attractive teams for talent acquisition) on Mac desktop software in 2012?
> App Stores have made consumer software cost expectations too cheap.
Not just that. Previously when you released a paid desktop app, you weren't expected to give out free upgrades to the user. With the App store model, if a user purchases your app at V1, and five years down the line you're making a V4, the user will probably still feel entitled to getting the "update" (note, I said update, not upgrade) for free.
... and I can't name a consumer desktop application (especially a really generic one like mail with tons of free competitors) that has become a major $1bn+ (or even $100m+) business in the last several years.
Exactly. An "exit" can mean a lot of different things depending on the company, situation, financials etc.
If I think you are inclined to accept a talent acquisition if offered, I _will not use your product_. Why would I? It's insane for me to trust my data to someone who's going to throw it away to make a buck.
If you accept a talent acquisition, you will -- and should -- have a devil of a time getting customers at your next venture, having thrown away the customers from your previous one. Tread lightly.
Sorry, but this is wishful thinking. Being acquihired is not going to affect any individual's future ventures in any meaningful way. You might scrutinize every new service's ownership before you click sign up, but you are not even a blip on the radar.
It might be true that overtime this will erode customer's confidence in startups in general, but so will being shut down because the founders are starving. And it's not like major corporations are guaranteeing products for the long-haul either.
Basically, the whole computer industry is one big case of buyer beware. If you really care about your data use open formats, open protocols and free software whenever you can.
Do you not get any value out of using a product while it hasn't been shut down?
Will you singlehandidly cover the developers' living expenses once the savings/investor runway is gone so that they can keep your data from being thrown away?
From an outsiders perspective there is very little you can go on to decide if someone is "inclined to accept a talent acquisition." First, this is a flawed statement to begin with, because startups don't accept talent acquisitions in general, they accept a particular one. The decision is driven by the particular offer, the plan for the post-acquisition timeline, the details of the current trajectory of the business, the long-term benefits to the team, the rapport with the people they are going to be working with, and so on. It's not just about dollar signs and all acquisition offers are very, very different.
This talent acquisitions issue is also fueled by angel investors and VCs telling entrepreneurs that (i) they should not focus on revenues/profit, and (ii) grow fast quickly.
This advice is some of the worst advice to give entrepreneurs, because revenue/profit is fundamental for any company's survival, and growth does not translate to long-term success.
Then again, investors are in a constant conflict of interest with owning a piece of a long-term profitable businesses, and their expertise is not close to knowing how to manage a profitable business. Having said that, VCs are good at flipping startups to cash-rich companies, who seem to care little on value dilution. How many acquired companies have Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, New Corp, etc shut down?
Which makes me think: what is the net value of Venture Capital flips to the economy?
A talent acquisition signals something more than a job offer. It shows that you're able to conceive and build a product that people are willing to use. It also means that you've had experience negotiating terms. This is very important when/if you decide to take an entrepreneurial step after being at the acquihirer.
All things equal, future investors are more likely to trust someone who has had an acquisition in the past. You're more likely to get press exposure. All these things are meaningless if you're building something no one wants, but they definitely help if you're on the right track.
I don't understand the point of talent acquisitions. Couldn't you spend half the amount of money you would have buying the company just giving the developers enormous signing bonuses to come work for you? Why buy out the original investors in the target company when it's the developers you want?
It's really just a huge premium to get a team of people (this is important) who have built something similar to what you want to build (also important).
And you get the IP as well, which is nice. In some cases you're consolidating power and shutting down competitors. It makes a lot of sense in some situations.
Consider the potential fallout of trying to do a "hostile acquihire" -- first, you will kill the relationships with the startups investors, second, you will put the founders in a position where they are screwing their investors. Who wants to go work for a company that undermines your business relationships?
100% agreed. I've been in the same situation a few times lately. However, I do support people who make the decision because I sure would if the right deal were on the table.
Long term though, I'd prefer "talent collaborations" to acquisitions. Did Nike "acquire" Michael Jordan? Sponsoring and supporting, not acquisition.
I'm having a tough time understanding talent acquisitions.
You have a set of people working for the startup and the outside investors in the startup, and you have an outside company trying to purchase them. The outside company offers $X for the company in an acquihire. Let's say all the outside investors own fraction Y of the company. Why can't the outside company offer a total of X * (1-.5Y) in signing bonuses to the people in the startup, leaving both them and the employees strictly better off? Are founders and early employees just walled off with non-competes to make this not realistic?
> I was only able to reject those offers because Instapaper is a healthy business, and the life that Instapaper provides for me and my family is better than what the big companies offered.
The subtext I'm reading here is that none of the offers Marco has received yet are attractive enough for him accept. So he is in the exact-same position as Pulp Wallet and Sparrow then, it's likely that quite a few offers came knocking before the right one came along.
My take on this is: 'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
If you use and love a product, then the developers get acuihired and the product dies, getting upset about it is kind of childish. Get some perspective. You had X months with that product that you loved, it's better than 0 months.
If you built your own product that relied on theirs, well you knew the risks going in. Fare better next time.
I don't understand why people get all bent out of shape when software they use gets shut down. At the end of the day, it's just one app. They're are plenty of other options for email clients, and god knows better ones will come out in the future. People act as if something close to them is going away forever. It's just an email client and you can still use it, it just won't be actively updated.
I also don't understand the impetus behind blaming Google or Facebook and treating it as if they are antagonizing you as a user. They made an offer and the developers accepted it knowing they would not be able to develop their app any more. This course of events is one that the developers actively chose. Frankly, I think it's great that these guys are getting acquired. They worked hard, caught the attention of a big company and were rewarded handsomely. After all, that's why they developed the app in the first place: to make money. There's absolutely no warrant for you to expect that the developers put their lives on hold so that you can have a piece of software.
As for Instapaper, I think that Marco is disconnected. If he is in a position where he has enough money so as to be able to ignore offers for his app and instead run a lifestyle business, fine. I also think that part of his attitude towards a buyout comes from the fact that, despite that he denies it and refers to it in jest, Marco is actually fairly rich. He was one of the earliest employees at Tumblr, a company now worth ~800m. That means that even the most minimal equity would give him a net worth in the millions. That's great for Marco. But I'd imagine that very few people are in his place. A lot of app developers probably dream of being acquired. Who can blame them? Everyone wants money.
So, although Marco has enough money where he can basically ignore the need to sell, most app developers don't. The Sparrow guys obviously didn't.
Yeah it's just a tough situation. Even as a developer, I'm pretty sure I'd have trouble turning down a huge paycheck to go work for a reputable company. I've never built anything that's had a huge fan base though.
What are ways to show appreciation for a company/product you like aside from buying their product, tweeting an occasional praise, and liking their FB content? Is that enough?
Even as a developer, I'm pretty sure I'd have trouble turning down a huge paycheck to go work for a reputable company. I've never built anything that's had a huge fan base though.
The situation when you have built a big fan base or other sort of "attention" asset is that taking a job is surprisingly risky.
I had this situation with a potential acquirer. The job was awesome, the company was great, but the goodwill and potential I've built up is too valuable to part with lightly. Why? The worst case is you get bought out at too low a cost and then, for whatever reason, you're out of a job a month later. Now you have a little pile of money in the bank and.. back to square one. That's a risk regular employed folks don't have.
This is why most talent acquisitions are in the 7 or 8 figures. It's enough money to eradicate the risk of taking on a full time job and losing one's hard-built business assets for most people (even low 7 figures each is enough to pay off mortgages, cars, and have healthy savings).
Sparrow being my favorite app... and Marco's post encouraged me to write a blog about the state of productivity apps in the App Store.
Excellent apps like Sparrow are damn expensive to write. If Apple cares about keeping companies like Sparrow alive (they should) they can do two things to help us.
1) Allow Apps to charge monthly/annual subscriptions.
2) Give ad/social marketing campaign data to devs so they know which of their efforts to attract users is working.
I agree with the sentiment, but the difference between what you have (a healthy business, as you mention) and some other acquisitions is that some see the writing on the wall. True, some businesses throw in the towel too early for an attractive offer, but others know that without being the leader in a space they can't live up to their valuations, investment amount, or can't find a viable and sustainable business model for their product. It all depends on whether you're still having fun at your current business and whether it has a chance at succeeding. It's going to vary from startup to startup.
[+] [-] jazzychad|13 years ago|reply
Most startup/bootstrapped companies are not in that position. Most end up failing and winding up with nothing, but there are some that will end up with these talent acquisition situations.
Remember, both sides (the acquirers and the acquirees) have to agree to the deal. Google doesn't just come along and say "we want to acquire you for your talent" and the other side has no say in the matter.
In this situation you are faced with a choice. Talent acqs happen because a) the acquire target is not really doing that well, and b) they have a group of people that work well together that the acquiring company wants to keep together to do great things under their umbrella.
Given the choice between: keep working on your low-to-modest traction product which isn't producing a lot of revenue and wonder how you might pay rent next month OR a multi-million dollar check/stock offer at a large, successful company... which would you choose? I would take the check in that situation. Sometimes you can't achieve your world-changing vision before your investor and personal money are gone.
The goal of a company should be to succeed and be self-sustaining, of course. But sometimes that doesn't happen, and these talent acqs happen for a reason.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmduke|13 years ago|reply
Given the choice between: keep working on your low-to-modest traction product which isn't producing a lot of revenue and wonder how you might pay rent next month OR a multi-million dollar check/stock offer at a large, successful company... which would you choose?
I would also choose the latter. I'll be the first to admit I'm not trying to change the world or 'disrupt and industry' or anything lofty like that. But I think there are quite a few people who would eschew the big check for the opportunity to do something tremendous, and they deserve to be lauded.
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|13 years ago|reply
I don't think this was a plea to developers to not sell up, I think it was a plea to people to support small companies to make not selling up a more appealing option.
[+] [-] podperson|13 years ago|reply
The purpose of copyright is to provide a limited monopoly in the interest of creating, in the long term, a public good. Without the source code, we never get the public good. Under this proposed law, Sparrow (and other, similar, products) would have to become open source once it was unsupported, or would not be protected by copyright in the first place.
[+] [-] stevenwei|13 years ago|reply
Those numbers are sustainable if you have a small team (1-3 people), but I'm not sure how big Sparrow's team was. Either way, I would say that they were in a very similar position to Instapaper, except the only difference being they had raised some VC funding (with all that implies regarding needing an exit in the future).
[1] http://www.appannie.com/app/mac/sparrow/ranking/history/#vie...
[2] http://www.appannie.com/app/ios/492573565/ranking/history/#v...
[+] [-] terhechte|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] radley|13 years ago|reply
Talent acquisitions happens when you have big potential to compete and are willing to cash out early instead.
Otherwise it's just giving up and getting a job.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] terhechte|13 years ago|reply
Even if a huge corporation would offer me a lot of money, I still wouldn't want to join since I would loose so much more. Money doesn't make me happy, freedom does. So, as long as InstaDesk (or other, future, apps) generate enough money for me to survive, I really doubt I would sell (with the exception that if the offer is, just as Marco said, really good and the continuation of InstaDesk is guaranteed).
However, a free life where I'm not obliged or controlled by anybody is just so so so good. (I say this after having worked in IT companies and startups since 2000).
So yeah, support the products you love, and spread good news about them, and give them good reviews.
[+] [-] Domenic_S|13 years ago|reply
Guess what money buys?
The only problem (in this context) is that it has to be a fairly large amount of money, and all in one chunk. Seriously, if Facebook offered you $10MM for instadesk, under the condition that you'd have to work for them for one year, you'd turn that down? No way. You'd be silly not to take it, because you could put in your one year and then be free for (basically) ever.
[+] [-] tchock23|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Killswitch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] egillie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackfu|13 years ago|reply
Nice words, but I doubt it matters. Sparrow got nothing but support for their entire company history. Every review was golden. Every user was a paid user. And they still sold out.
(Or maybe Marco means people should join his subscription program: http://www.instapaper.com/subscription )
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tb303|13 years ago|reply
The same goes for sparrow. These one-time purchase apps don't have continued revenue per user. So we can write rants on the internet all we want about "don't give in to the acqui-hire," but obviously the benefits of taking google's money greatly outweighed the future of trying to run a business by selling an app on the App Store.
[+] [-] JeremyBanks|13 years ago|reply
http://www.instapaper.com/subscription
[+] [-] bvlaar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Firehed|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fceccon|13 years ago|reply
If I remember correctly it adds search and the ability to use the full API by 3rd party clients.
[+] [-] smackfu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moron|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dilap|13 years ago|reply
And it never will -- there are always going to be developers who are in it for the money and will leave you high-and-dry (which is heartbreaking, in a very-small-violen way, but fine).
My own takeaway is if you don't want your apps to disappear, use open source apps.
(Except for some reason, open-source apps seem to tend to be terrible, UI wise. Not sure why this is, though I have a couple half-baked theories.)
[+] [-] socratic|13 years ago|reply
I'm very confused by all of the anger at Google and Facebook for acquiring these companies. The companies look like they were designed to get talent acquired in the first place! They both have very small teams (2--5), Sparrow at least appears to have taken very small amounts of funding (just seed a year or two ago), and I can't name a consumer desktop application (especially a really generic one like mail with tons of free competitors) that has become a major $1bn+ (or even $100m+) business in the last several years. There probably aren't enough eyeballs for ads, and App Stores have made consumer software cost expectations too cheap. What's more, Sparrow is pretty much designed to make Google's offering better.
Is this interpretation wrong? Could these small teams have built independent companies (rather than attractive teams for talent acquisition) on Mac desktop software in 2012?
[+] [-] sigkill|13 years ago|reply
Not just that. Previously when you released a paid desktop app, you weren't expected to give out free upgrades to the user. With the App store model, if a user purchases your app at V1, and five years down the line you're making a V4, the user will probably still feel entitled to getting the "update" (note, I said update, not upgrade) for free.
[+] [-] blantonl|13 years ago|reply
Exactly. An "exit" can mean a lot of different things depending on the company, situation, financials etc.
[+] [-] gwillen|13 years ago|reply
If you accept a talent acquisition, you will -- and should -- have a devil of a time getting customers at your next venture, having thrown away the customers from your previous one. Tread lightly.
[+] [-] dasil003|13 years ago|reply
It might be true that overtime this will erode customer's confidence in startups in general, but so will being shut down because the founders are starving. And it's not like major corporations are guaranteeing products for the long-haul either.
Basically, the whole computer industry is one big case of buyer beware. If you really care about your data use open formats, open protocols and free software whenever you can.
[+] [-] shazow|13 years ago|reply
Will you singlehandidly cover the developers' living expenses once the savings/investor runway is gone so that they can keep your data from being thrown away?
[+] [-] gfodor|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antr|13 years ago|reply
This advice is some of the worst advice to give entrepreneurs, because revenue/profit is fundamental for any company's survival, and growth does not translate to long-term success.
Then again, investors are in a constant conflict of interest with owning a piece of a long-term profitable businesses, and their expertise is not close to knowing how to manage a profitable business. Having said that, VCs are good at flipping startups to cash-rich companies, who seem to care little on value dilution. How many acquired companies have Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, New Corp, etc shut down?
Which makes me think: what is the net value of Venture Capital flips to the economy?
[+] [-] rpbertp13|13 years ago|reply
All things equal, future investors are more likely to trust someone who has had an acquisition in the past. You're more likely to get press exposure. All these things are meaningless if you're building something no one wants, but they definitely help if you're on the right track.
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Domenic_S|13 years ago|reply
And you get the IP as well, which is nice. In some cases you're consolidating power and shutting down competitors. It makes a lot of sense in some situations.
[+] [-] gfodor|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petercooper|13 years ago|reply
Long term though, I'd prefer "talent collaborations" to acquisitions. Did Nike "acquire" Michael Jordan? Sponsoring and supporting, not acquisition.
[+] [-] dasil003|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuliyp|13 years ago|reply
You have a set of people working for the startup and the outside investors in the startup, and you have an outside company trying to purchase them. The outside company offers $X for the company in an acquihire. Let's say all the outside investors own fraction Y of the company. Why can't the outside company offer a total of X * (1-.5Y) in signing bonuses to the people in the startup, leaving both them and the employees strictly better off? Are founders and early employees just walled off with non-competes to make this not realistic?
[+] [-] neilparikh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielRibeiro|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andy_herbert|13 years ago|reply
The subtext I'm reading here is that none of the offers Marco has received yet are attractive enough for him accept. So he is in the exact-same position as Pulp Wallet and Sparrow then, it's likely that quite a few offers came knocking before the right one came along.
[+] [-] usea|13 years ago|reply
If you use and love a product, then the developers get acuihired and the product dies, getting upset about it is kind of childish. Get some perspective. You had X months with that product that you loved, it's better than 0 months.
If you built your own product that relied on theirs, well you knew the risks going in. Fare better next time.
[+] [-] ruswick|13 years ago|reply
I also don't understand the impetus behind blaming Google or Facebook and treating it as if they are antagonizing you as a user. They made an offer and the developers accepted it knowing they would not be able to develop their app any more. This course of events is one that the developers actively chose. Frankly, I think it's great that these guys are getting acquired. They worked hard, caught the attention of a big company and were rewarded handsomely. After all, that's why they developed the app in the first place: to make money. There's absolutely no warrant for you to expect that the developers put their lives on hold so that you can have a piece of software.
As for Instapaper, I think that Marco is disconnected. If he is in a position where he has enough money so as to be able to ignore offers for his app and instead run a lifestyle business, fine. I also think that part of his attitude towards a buyout comes from the fact that, despite that he denies it and refers to it in jest, Marco is actually fairly rich. He was one of the earliest employees at Tumblr, a company now worth ~800m. That means that even the most minimal equity would give him a net worth in the millions. That's great for Marco. But I'd imagine that very few people are in his place. A lot of app developers probably dream of being acquired. Who can blame them? Everyone wants money.
So, although Marco has enough money where he can basically ignore the need to sell, most app developers don't. The Sparrow guys obviously didn't.
[+] [-] loeschg|13 years ago|reply
What are ways to show appreciation for a company/product you like aside from buying their product, tweeting an occasional praise, and liking their FB content? Is that enough?
[+] [-] petercooper|13 years ago|reply
The situation when you have built a big fan base or other sort of "attention" asset is that taking a job is surprisingly risky.
I had this situation with a potential acquirer. The job was awesome, the company was great, but the goodwill and potential I've built up is too valuable to part with lightly. Why? The worst case is you get bought out at too low a cost and then, for whatever reason, you're out of a job a month later. Now you have a little pile of money in the bank and.. back to square one. That's a risk regular employed folks don't have.
This is why most talent acquisitions are in the 7 or 8 figures. It's enough money to eradicate the risk of taking on a full time job and losing one's hard-built business assets for most people (even low 7 figures each is enough to pay off mortgages, cars, and have healthy savings).
[+] [-] nilayp|13 years ago|reply
Excellent apps like Sparrow are damn expensive to write. If Apple cares about keeping companies like Sparrow alive (they should) they can do two things to help us.
1) Allow Apps to charge monthly/annual subscriptions. 2) Give ad/social marketing campaign data to devs so they know which of their efforts to attract users is working.
More details are on our blog post: http://blog.selligy.com/post/27652044305/apple-help-the-best...
[+] [-] jonathanjaeger|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bvlaar|13 years ago|reply