I have actually been working on Mailpile "altruistically" for a while, but sorely missed the ability to dedicate myself to it full time. Thus the fundraiser.
Edit: I can't reply to child, so I'll do it here.
It has nothing to do with a free ride. I don't want the product because the solution isn't right for me, but I would much prefer to pay a monthly fee for something than give a 'free ride,' as you call it, to a developer, in advance.
I have no sympathy for the family argument, because I spent a year building a business on the side while I was employed full-time, so that when I quit my job, I could support my family.
I believe there's something to be gained when the venture does not include a parachute.
I think you mean, "I could not disagree more." What you wrote means you agree perfectly. It says that if you take the amount of disagreement between you and your parent, there could not be less disagreement, i.e. there is zero disagreement.
Why do the Mailpiles believe privacy is the best angle to help people the most in taking email back? If you were to work on only one thing to fix email, would privacy be the most important thing to work on?
The counterargument here isn't examples of specific cloud services like Dropbox that people can trust. It's an argument for general global security. Organizations like the United Nations Security Council and NATO generally provide a much stronger joint defense against evil than individual pieces of armor offered to citizens.
So they'd actually be taking home closer to $5416 per month.
Still "sad" (given that average rental rate on a two-bedroom apartments is $2K+ per month in the general bay area), but not quite as much.
I was just saying that the figures others were reporting were overly pessimistic.
First reaction for me was: 'Wow, this is awesome, and I'm looking for something like this. How much do they need? Wow, 100k to build a mail app? No thanks.'
I get that this is a free product and is open source, but I'd like to know what they plan to do after the 100k is gone? Instead of a proposal a) pay us to work on it for a year, I'd like to see proposal b) help us bridge between now and phase 2, which is where we'll x.
I'd just like to see a little more thought put into it.
One core question is: how big a team will we need in a years time to continue development? The answer to that depends on many factors - since this is open source, it is actually perfectly OK to work for a year, ship something awesome and hand off to the community once things are a bit more mature.
However, since we do assume there will still be quite a bit of work to do in a years time, our preferred business model is actually listed in the pitch: backers are joining a community and we will reach out to them again in a years' time and ask them to continue supporting us if they are happy with the work we have done. Mailpile has a broad enough appeal that it may be possible to sustain the team using this model alone, which would IMO be ideal.
However, plan B includes things like grants from human rights / free-speech orgs that need better tools for activists in the field, corporate support from companies unsatisfied with the current crop of tools, and subscription support services (like https://pagekite.net/, SMTP relaying, etc) which help the average Joe run his own Mailpile.
These guys probably have a great product, and are probably great people, and for that reason alone, I feel bad that my comment leads the thread. However, I never said anything that suggested this was a scam, and I don't believe it is. Like I said, people get what they pay for. It's just that I see this trend getting worse, and I think long-term it will hurt crowdfunding.
You also say that you're not suggesting they're running a scam but at the same time you compare their outreach to a money grab.
I don't know, perhaps your arguments are very good ones and I am a heartless bastard because they don't sway me. At their root, it seems like you're saying that these guys are proposing something that violates your sense of fairness somehow. I'd be interested in seeing an argument that applies more universally, and not just that you personally find it unfair.
Myself, I think the cool thing about crowdfunding is that it's so open and free. I might personally find it frustrating or unfair that money gets allocated in a way that doesn't match my values, but too bad for me!
However, my comment seems to have resonated with many others, so could be offered as advice for ways to improve the campaign.
I'm curious, what does "abusing crowdfunding" mean, in precise terms? What is wrong with what Spike Lee's request for money? I understand crowdfunding to be simply a kind of transaction. A banker's job is to facilitate transactions between people, not to discriminate in favor of the ones he likes.