The Death of Winamp Says a Lot About the Tech World’s Vicious Utilitarianism

slate.com

11 points·RougeFemme··8 comments

How did Winamp make money? The problem is for most basic apps there is a free alternative. This is a basic app. I think the founder got $100mill for it back in the day.

These sensationalist headlines say a lot about the media's doom-ridden agenda.

I signed their petition to open source it. Say what you will about winamp or its (unbearably shitty) competitor itunes, I'm always in favour of open-sourcing things.

I still use a flip phone.

I don't think Winamp and iTunes are comparable. The former is a media player (if a customizable one), whereas the latter is an entire media platform.

I'm not sure if AOL would be willing to release Winamp's source code sometime in the future?

There's a discussion going on in the forums about it: http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?t=373763

If by "Vicious Utilitarianism" the author meant "AOL no longer wishes to provide free service users aren't interested in and that will not remain profitable" then yes, that's vicious.

So... It maximizes happiness?

I'm glad that annoyed you too:

> Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Classic utilitarianism's two most influential contributors are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com