Even in this moment, they still don't seem to be bothering to open source any of it.
There's a lesson to be learnt here in terms of gaining buyer trust when you're small.
I continue to use our own setup for IRC.
I'm viscerally aware of inverterate corporate capacity for volatility.
Hahahahaha no. They don't. If only they did anything remotely as nice as that.
The API I was using, was shutdown without any communication. (Adsense for ajax - announced at Google I/O 2010). They simply closed my account without paying the money I was owed (substancial sum). I later found out from a Gooler "yeah they decided to shutdown the product".
Beware of relying on anyone, even a big company who says they won't be evil.
How do we overcome this?
(Edit: I was asking a rhetorical question to counter the parent. But great discussion below.)
As time passes and your service stays solid more people will come on board. Something like github is a good example. I doubt many big companies would have considered relying on them early on, but their track record has changed that now.
But since we're on the topic, presenting social proof is also pretty useful. Show customers that people know, show the press that featured you, show them who you are, who your advisors/investors are, show them whose tweeted about you.
(Maybe writing this will be a catalyst to take my own advice for CircleCi)
edit (since I can't reply): logic being that social proof is good for business, but has no substance. It doesn't make it any better for users when it comes to shutting down.
I don't believe I've ever seen you do anything else on HN. I know you to be a reliable person, no reason to think you'd suddenly get fickle and take something I said seriously.
Do you mean to tell me that if somebody rolled up with a check written out for your price you wouldn't light the servers on fire and run for the hills? Realistically the only people who are cared after in any acquisition are the investors so that no bad-blood is in the water for the next acqui-hire. Customers are always left in the dark.
If you want any credibility to the contrary, you'd better start presenting your customers with an SLA that guarantees a detailed transition with a timeline in the case of company failure/acquisition.
Or you can just play PR games. Whatever bare minimum your sense of honesty necessitates.
I'd rather just sit on a happy customer base, but I never thought I'd become a millionaire anyway.
I just want to help people.
> I'd rather just sit on a happy customer base
So everyone else is just in it for the money, but not you? If you can believe it about yourself, perhaps you'd be willing to extend some of that credulity to others?
The list is long. Another recent example was Sparrow. I broke my rule about buying/licensing software from small companies (unless I got the source) with Sparrow. I didn't just buy 1 copy, I (we) brought 15 (for the office). And of course, I got burned. Again.
It will not happen again. Period. Unless you tell me up front your plans - what you plan to do for me, the user, when/if you fail or sell.
Start-ups with more than one product line, sometimes sell off one product and keep the rest acting thesame way big companies do. So, Yext a start-up sold their Felix product line to IAC eg:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/20/iac-buys-yexts-pay-per-call...
An example of a giant doing thesame thing:
http://techland.time.com/2012/04/26/google-sells-sketchup-wa...
I have shown above, an example of start-ups and giants selling a product line. You can Google around for example of tech giants and start-ups with more than one product, killing off a product line.
That said, I'm still using Sparrow on my laptop and desktop machines as well as my iPhone. But probably not for a whole lot longer.
Not that your point is invalid talking about Grove - suddenly everyone who used it has to move in under a month. But I don't get the upset over Sparrow. If it helped you at the time, it should help you now.
Leaving with with a ridiculous "feel-good" blog post.
My point though, this isn't uncommon. And this kind of user treatment is one of the big reasons many tech start-ups have a tough time making the sale.
Now of course, if said company manages to get momentum (like a Dropbox, Github, FB - to name a few) - I guess they are no longer startups.
See Atlassian for an example.
As far as I can see, Grove.io didn't do this. They didn't have any easy means to grow quickly.
Also perhaps they're paying a lot for hosting (At rackspace). I don't know, but there's no reason they shouldn't be making some profit if they have a few paying customers. Shame they can't build on that.
Why can't traditional IRC services be used for this? I'll preemptively counter the end-user configuration side of this by saying it's increasingly easier in a managed workstation environment to deploy images with software required for that worker's tasks preconfigured. Even in a non-managed environment, an IT staff willing to build the packages and make the configuration edits can make accessible an installation candidate stored for access in an infrastructure library so users can save (after proper credentialing and auth checks have been satisfied), install and login.
Security, perhaps? That's always a valid concern to have, but if that's the case I would hope that an adequately planned and designed audit of any service not being managed internally gets the same look. Corollary: perhaps one should not be using anything not managed internally for sensitive matters to begin with; collaboration and non-secure communication where a failure of this system wont halt production or cause the company to incur significant loss however are par.
If I'm off base here, I'm willing to discuss it further. While I loved IT, I had to run for the door after getting burned on multiple opportunities to manage programs and create user friendly but secure policies. And by burned I mean hired to do exactly that, only to end up in hyper-glorified purchasing support roles. shudders
This is exactly the same as Sparrow, TextMate, etc. None of these companies owe you anything to where they should be required, or even expected, to open source their work.
I am making founders aware of this attitude so that they can
1. Realize that there's a problem
2. Distinguish themselves among their competitors by addressing this concern
I'm not aiming to prescribe solutions, just describing the heuristics I presently rely on to determine if a service is likely to become a liability. I always do a fluid cost-benefit analysis beyond the black-and-white I described in my top comment.
That you believed what I said had anything to do with "demanding" free labor of anyone is telling and indicates a defensive posture on the subject.
Not a surprising reaction to have, given that Sentry (your errors-as-a-service project) depends on people trusting you not to just shut it down tomorrow.
Then there's no issue in the hypothetical scenario I laid out.
I'm a Sentry user (of the hosted service) because it's open sourced. I wouldn't have given you a seconds notice otherwise and I doubt I'm alone in that.
Why be so defensive when you're clearly not in a position to be guilty of leaving all your customers up the creek?
One would want to use an external service, because... well... it's a service. You are paying for someone else to maintain the system and care about the uptime, scalability, security, etc. You surely do not imply that you would pay grove.io simply because you can't bring your own IRC server up, do you?
If you're a small startup, putting forward a statement that all the code will be open sourced if you shut down should increase the level of comfort your customers have in the product.
What are the downsides I'm not thinking of? Companies that reuse code across multiple products, perhaps. Product A dies, but uses component Foo in Product B that still exists, and represents some kind of special-value-add.
I actually think the solution is to ignore customers with this view. We'll get their business when we "cross the chasm".
It also limits what you can do with your program. If your program uses code you don't have a license to release, you can't open-source it.
It probably needs to be a contract, as the liquidators might ignore it if it is just a statement, depending what happens to the company.
So it would kinda defeat the point of shutting grove down maybe...
That's their psychological bugaboo, not mine.