Grove.io shutting down(grove.io)
grove.io
Grove.io shutting down
https://grove.io/blog/grove-shutting-down-october-13
204 comments
Leah is out there creating things, writing code and spending valuable time on new ventures, despite the risk and opportunity cost. I admire her courage and creativity and I can't imagine why you would say something like this.
I'm sure she would have loved to have all of her projects succeed.
Grove.io is a high quality service. We love using it at Leftronic and are very sad to read this news. I wish Leah and her team the best.
I'm sure she would have loved to have all of her projects succeed.
Grove.io is a high quality service. We love using it at Leftronic and are very sad to read this news. I wish Leah and her team the best.
I'm not sure what I said that was so terrible. I think Leah is great and I really hate hear news like this. I also agree that the service was good. My sole point is that companies that use this service also get hurt by this shutdown. When it happens several times as it unfortunately has in her case, you start to worry about new ventures disappearing too.
It is in no way a shot at Leah or her work. It's just a recognition of history.
It is in no way a shot at Leah or her work. It's just a recognition of history.
Your first sentence was the thing you said that was so terrible.
But every sentence afterwards put it in context.
I don't agree. You can't start with a statement like that and then backpeddle - your lede has the most impact and is what people remember.
He had a chance to edit his post to better reflect his position, but chose not to take it. I wish he had.
(And to complete this, lets not forget that Rayne is also a person who just made a mistake. It is the action which is bad, not the person).
He had a chance to edit his post to better reflect his position, but chose not to take it. I wish he had.
(And to complete this, lets not forget that Rayne is also a person who just made a mistake. It is the action which is bad, not the person).
He didn't backpedal, he explained his reasoning for making the first statement. Hard and a bit unvarnished, yes, but understandable.
I agree. Best of luck and keep coding!
What's with the hagiography? Culver made things people came to depend on, then those things disappeared.
I don't see how this is any different than picking up women and telling them you think they're serious girlfriend material in a context (business services) where that's the expected standard, then dropping them for the new hot thing.
Why is it suddenly acceptable to do this just because they called themselves a startup?
I don't see how this is any different than picking up women and telling them you think they're serious girlfriend material in a context (business services) where that's the expected standard, then dropping them for the new hot thing.
Why is it suddenly acceptable to do this just because they called themselves a startup?
You're making statements which depend on information you don't have. How do you know grove.io was dropped for the new hot thing? Perhaps they weren't making money. Perhaps they were being destroyed by the two larger startups in the space?
Why do you assume the worst of this company? The rest of your statements in this thread are really aggressive, and rely on very negative assumptions, which do not seem to have a basis in fact.
Why do you assume the worst of this company? The rest of your statements in this thread are really aggressive, and rely on very negative assumptions, which do not seem to have a basis in fact.
>How do you know grove.io was dropped for the new hot thing?
Because that's what happened to her last six projects?
Are you completely incapable of inductive reasoning or are you being obtuse so that you can make the total unaccountability of SV founders a moral crusade?
Because that's what happened to her last six projects?
Are you completely incapable of inductive reasoning or are you being obtuse so that you can make the total unaccountability of SV founders a moral crusade?
Wow, that escalated quickly. Try to remember that you're talking to and about other people. Jumping to the worst possible assumption about other people is not a kind thing to do, but it's all I've seen you do in this thread. As a result, I'm out.
The funny part is that http://convore.com/ redirects to grove.io with the shutdown notice :)
So damn true. Soon grove will add such a notice
We should take bets on how far the, "we're gone, but here's our new thing!" chain will go.
Was my first thought to, no real explanation of why they are shutting down either. If something is a low friction consumer app, it is expected that many will evolve and pivot.
With something like a business tool though I want something that is going to be around for the long term and it would be a factor on further products she creates.
From experience I know a startup is hard and things don't always go to plan so I can sympathise there, just that when choosing tools for business stability is a factor.
With something like a business tool though I want something that is going to be around for the long term and it would be a factor on further products she creates.
From experience I know a startup is hard and things don't always go to plan so I can sympathise there, just that when choosing tools for business stability is a factor.
List of projects by Leah Culver: http://blog.leahculver.com/about.html – Hurl, Baconfile, Convore, Pownce, and Grove.
And yet you just did.
As a community we praise people for trying, then when it fails we pillory them? A dick move, sir.
As a community we praise people for trying, then when it fails we pillory them? A dick move, sir.
pil·lo·ry [pil-uh-ree] noun
a wooden framework erected on a post, with holes for securing
the head and hands, formerly used to expose an offender to public
derision.
I have no opinion on this specific startup. Perhaps they've provided enough time to migrate; that's for their paying customers to judge. But it's naive to think failures doesn't affect your reputation. It does, and it should. Do you really think savvy users won't take your track record into account when deciding whether to use your service? It goes against their interests, and nothing is more darwinian than a startup.
---
Here in silicon valley we say that failure is ok. And yet accountability is also good. There's a tension here.
Perhaps failed startups are fine for investors, who might have diversified into many different vehicles. They're more problematic for customers who rely on a product. And paradoxically, the closer a startup gets to solving a hair-on-fire problem, the more careful they need to be about how they treat their customers on the way out.
Even if investors claim failure is ok, is that always the case? I suspect past track record does play a role somehow, even if it's subtle and hidden behind the scenes.
Even if failure is sometimes ok, there are failures and there are failures. A lot depends on how the wrap-up was carried out, and how people feel about it.
When startups are few and creation is to be encouraged, failure can be ignored. When startups are plentiful and failure starts to be taken for granted, perhaps it's time to emphasize accountability.
I agree there is a tension for customers. However, what I'm objecting to is the HN community's reaction. We're the people who are pro startups, who think failure is OK, who encourage pivoting from unsuccessful products to markets we discover along the way.
The grandparent is the opposite of what this community is about.
And attaching their name to it is worse. Saying "I'm starting to not trust this startup" would have been much more acceptable in my opinion.
The grandparent is the opposite of what this community is about.
And attaching their name to it is worse. Saying "I'm starting to not trust this startup" would have been much more acceptable in my opinion.
She hasn't said why it failed. As a paying customer (via ScraperWiki), I find that frustrating.
It gives me little new knowledge, and makes the move seem sudden and strange. From the outside, Grove looks quite successful.
A simple "we only had 20 paying customers and we think SaaS IRC doesn't work for reason X" would be fine. That she hasn't said that, to me implies there is something else going on.
Hope she's OK!
It gives me little new knowledge, and makes the move seem sudden and strange. From the outside, Grove looks quite successful.
A simple "we only had 20 paying customers and we think SaaS IRC doesn't work for reason X" would be fine. That she hasn't said that, to me implies there is something else going on.
Hope she's OK!
If it came off that way, I apologize. I was just expressing the thought that popped into my mind when seeing this. I'm not at all trying to judge her. I think she does excellent work and has just had a few bad apples. I hope her next project is successful.
I think you might still have time to edit the post to come off the way you intended.
[deleted]
You might have time to drift down off that horse you're on and give the guy a break. So what if he's judging someone? He made a valid comment about the fact that this person supposedly consistently lets users of their startups down.
I'm pretty happy up on this horse. Acting like that to people is not OK. Calling it out as a dick move is the way to combat it.
You say "supposedly" but you just assumed it was "valid". So without evidence or context, you took him at face value and now assume bad things about the person in question. That's why it's a dick move.
You say "supposedly" but you just assumed it was "valid". So without evidence or context, you took him at face value and now assume bad things about the person in question. That's why it's a dick move.
* Pownce - shut down
* Convore - shut down
* Grove - shut down
I think the guy is really just telling facts. Unfortunately, it means that the next project may have users worrying about when it'll be shut down. (There were actually comments to that affect when grove was announced on HN).
Also, I think the underlying issue here is that none of those services cost anything to run, so they seem to have been shutdown because of other factors - perhaps a lack of ability to see things through.
I think the guy is really just telling facts. Unfortunately, it means that the next project may have users worrying about when it'll be shut down. (There were actually comments to that affect when grove was announced on HN).
Also, I think the underlying issue here is that none of those services cost anything to run, so they seem to have been shutdown because of other factors - perhaps a lack of ability to see things through.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I wish I could create things that people might actually want but I can't think of anything that I could make that people would want.
The vast majority of the time, if you build something that scratches your own itch, there will be others out there that will also find it useful. The challenge is to find a big enough itch.
I always find this to be terrible advice. Most programmers have similar itches, if you scratch your own itch, you are going into a lot of competition with many other developers. Why not solve a problem for an industry that gets much less attention? Maybe success rates would be much higher if we stopped all building the same things.
I never said anything about building tools for programmers. I'm actually a major proponent of building apps and tools that scratch non-technical itches, or more specifically, intersecting your development skills with your hobbies or interests.
unfortunately for those of us who don't have any non-programming/tech interests that doesn't leave much left. :)
(uber, taskrabbit notwithstanding..)
(uber, taskrabbit notwithstanding..)
The subject matter of your software doesn't really matter. Building software is what is fun, using the latest tech is fun. Who the end user is, won't affect your day-to-day very much.
It seems that the companies coming out of YC now are scratching a very diversified set of itches, for example YourMechanic.
you could start with a replacement for grove.io.
heh. can someone recommend an alternative that also supports connecting via standard IRC protocol?
heh. can someone recommend an alternative that also supports connecting via standard IRC protocol?
Try https://irccloud.com, just set up a channel on any public IRC server.
Companies are shut down for a variety of reasons, and entrepreneurial success is often equal parts idea, luck, and hard work. Leah has built several popular products with loyal followings - which is more than a lot of us can say.
Ugh, I don't understand how Grove.io can just drift apart like that. Surely Grove's costs were relatively low, and my impression was that there was a significant level of uptake.
> "..our team has moved on to other projects.."
So, unprofitable, or just not the next Facebook? Is there really no one that is happy to keep the service ticking along?
I feel like there is a pretty significant problem with tech startups, where everyone is so busy trying to be the next big thing, that everything else is dropped and abandoned in that pursuit.
> "..our team has moved on to other projects.."
So, unprofitable, or just not the next Facebook? Is there really no one that is happy to keep the service ticking along?
I feel like there is a pretty significant problem with tech startups, where everyone is so busy trying to be the next big thing, that everything else is dropped and abandoned in that pursuit.
I also wish they would address:
1) why not open source the project?
2) why not look for someone to take it over and run it?
I also have a hard time seeing how something like this could be at the very least not break-even (unless they had less than 10 paying customers or something).
1) why not open source the project?
2) why not look for someone to take it over and run it?
I also have a hard time seeing how something like this could be at the very least not break-even (unless they had less than 10 paying customers or something).
From Leah at grove.io:
Hi,
Thanks for your interest in Grove.
Unfortunately we won't be open sourcing the code due to the time and effort it would take to prepare and maintain it.
Thanks for understanding,
Leah
Hi,
Thanks for your interest in Grove.
Unfortunately we won't be open sourcing the code due to the time and effort it would take to prepare and maintain it.
Thanks for understanding,
Leah
That's a weak answer. Just put it out there, let other people maintain it.
Not that I'm saying they have to release it (I respect their right to do whatever they want with their own work), but as far as reasons to not release something, that's pretty weak.
Not that I'm saying they have to release it (I respect their right to do whatever they want with their own work), but as far as reasons to not release something, that's pretty weak.
If you'd simply dump it out into the open, I at least would be happy to pick it up.
Flowdock's similar IRC gateway is already open source:
https://github.com/flowdock/oulu
I reached out to Leah with the same questions, but in lieu of a response I spent a few minutes setting up a replacement that is both an IRC server and a hosted web client: https://github.com/LocalSense/hosted-irc
I'll hack on it a bit more tonight, but it shouldn't be too difficult to replicate what Grove.io does.
I'll hack on it a bit more tonight, but it shouldn't be too difficult to replicate what Grove.io does.
Might want to simply contribute to this, unless I'm misunderstanding :)
https://github.com/thedjpetersen/subway
We're actually using a forked version of Subway for the UI. Our package also includes an IRC server as well, as it aims to be a complete Grove replacement.
Just because something should have paying customers doesn't necessarily mean that it has paying customers. There are other factors involved.
Better put: are you a paying customer? If not, then most likely other potential customers are unaware.
Better put: are you a paying customer? If not, then most likely other potential customers are unaware.
FWIW, I was a paying customer. I know others who were as well. Most everyone I know, including myself as of two weeks ago, has stopped paying for the service. It had gone downhill to the point of being unusable.
There is a demand for this type of service. Real-time chat is in extremely high demand still. Chat was the number one requested feature a "build-you-own" social network startup I worked at a handful of years ago even before Facebook added their chat.
There is a demand for this type of service. Real-time chat is in extremely high demand still. Chat was the number one requested feature a "build-you-own" social network startup I worked at a handful of years ago even before Facebook added their chat.
I'm not doubting what you say, but I'm interested in how the service went downhill?
We started using grove on a large client back in February / March and as of this month we are still paying clients. We started trying out flowdoc recently but we are trying out a few options between now and October. Outages aside, our clients liked the product.
Moving our team off of Grove was a bigger pain then dealing with the sporadic mini-outages so we put up with it longer then smaller teams or most companies. We really liked the feature set but just needed the product to be more stable. The writing has been on the wall for a few months as doing a twitter search will show the lack of a response for a few months now.
Moving our team off of Grove was a bigger pain then dealing with the sporadic mini-outages so we put up with it longer then smaller teams or most companies. We really liked the feature set but just needed the product to be more stable. The writing has been on the wall for a few months as doing a twitter search will show the lack of a response for a few months now.
Yes (well, employer was/is a paying customer).
If they're shutting it down because it isn't sustainable, that's fine, I don't expect them to run the service as a charity (we have freenode for that!) - but that doesn't seem to be the case.
If they're shutting it down because it isn't sustainable, that's fine, I don't expect them to run the service as a charity (we have freenode for that!) - but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Sociable Labs (my employer) is/was a paying customer of grove.io
Someone should start a "start-up adoption" program. Facilitate others adopting projects when the owners want to move on, but the viability is still contentious
The fact that nobody's happy with a profitable, but modest bootstrapped company is causing them to abandon these smaller companies.
The abandonment feeds into the consumer mistrust and makes it that much harder to bootstrap the next company.
A good example of an industry that was utterly destroyed by a crisis of consumer confidence was the video game industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash...
>Revenues that had peaked at around $3.2 billion in 1983,[1] fell to around $100 million by 1985 (a drop of almost 97 percent).
It would be extremely unwise to believe the startup industry couldn't be subject to the same problem. VCs are getting uncomfortable with the valuations, the constant buyouts and abandonment are burning out consumers.
Were I not working on a startup of my own, I'd be happy to take upon somebody's profitable but small red-headed stepchild business.
The abandonment feeds into the consumer mistrust and makes it that much harder to bootstrap the next company.
A good example of an industry that was utterly destroyed by a crisis of consumer confidence was the video game industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash...
>Revenues that had peaked at around $3.2 billion in 1983,[1] fell to around $100 million by 1985 (a drop of almost 97 percent).
It would be extremely unwise to believe the startup industry couldn't be subject to the same problem. VCs are getting uncomfortable with the valuations, the constant buyouts and abandonment are burning out consumers.
Were I not working on a startup of my own, I'd be happy to take upon somebody's profitable but small red-headed stepchild business.
Grove inspired me to make an open source alternative: Subway https://github.com/thedjpetersen/subway . And while it is far from perfect it is a start towards opening up IRC to teams.
This looks good. Does it keep history? I think one of the benefits of web-based systems like HipChat and Campfire is you can log in and see the previous conversation even if you weren't there.
You can use bots for that:
http://instabot.stochastictechnologies.com/
http://instabot.stochastictechnologies.com/
Yes it does keep history if you register a user.
Awesome project! I am super impressed. Great work.
This is what I love HN for. Thanks.
that's a hell of a "start."
great work.
great work.
Good man!
Here is why this failed... Anyone with half a brain is going to be able to:
* run their own IRC server
* run a XMPP server (cough openfire)
* Sign up for another service that has more features (Campfire or Hipchat)
Not to be mean, but the pricing on grove.io is stupid for what they offer. I run a XMPP server at work and costs us nothing for the basics, which is group chat and private chat. They could have offered this for far cheaper and maybe they would be alive now... and by cheaper I mean a flat fee, no slot pricing for a hosted solution. IRC has low overhead so really, offer IRC+ features for dirt cheap and people will sign up. Hell, if they wanted a higher end one time fees, they knock out a self hosted solution with high end support on a yearly support contract.
If the features are that good for your IRC based service, knock it down to $5/mo unlimited users and get a user base going, find out what they want and then add on value addon features based on that feedback. If you can't offer the service for that cheap, then you have too much overhead (bodies).
* run their own IRC server
* run a XMPP server (cough openfire)
* Sign up for another service that has more features (Campfire or Hipchat)
Not to be mean, but the pricing on grove.io is stupid for what they offer. I run a XMPP server at work and costs us nothing for the basics, which is group chat and private chat. They could have offered this for far cheaper and maybe they would be alive now... and by cheaper I mean a flat fee, no slot pricing for a hosted solution. IRC has low overhead so really, offer IRC+ features for dirt cheap and people will sign up. Hell, if they wanted a higher end one time fees, they knock out a self hosted solution with high end support on a yearly support contract.
If the features are that good for your IRC based service, knock it down to $5/mo unlimited users and get a user base going, find out what they want and then add on value addon features based on that feedback. If you can't offer the service for that cheap, then you have too much overhead (bodies).
We were doing this (and still do run our own XMPP servers for other purposes), and opted for grove for the logging, availability and to ease the maintenance burden.
Just because anyone can do it, doesn't mean everyone wants to, even (or especially) when you're a highly tech-centric organisation.
Just because anyone can do it, doesn't mean everyone wants to, even (or especially) when you're a highly tech-centric organisation.
Yeah I run my own IRC server but when it came to my clients, I didn't want to be responsible for that. Grove is fantastic but wasn't all that reliable. I wish it had taken off, though! I might be forced to fill the void ;)
a zero you-cost alternative is hosted xmpp server: merely add a few Resource Records to yer zone.
As a founder of http://lingr.com, I know firsthand how hard to build a chat app and make it sustainable. I've been working on it since 2006, first as a startup, then as my personal side project.
I've learned to not invest too much on the project, staying with the minimum server cost, and that's the only sustainable way for me. In fact it costs me almost nothing and users have built trust on me for running it for 6 years.
I'd give her tons of credit for trying to turn it into a real business. That's what I've been failing so far, or maybe I just don't even have the guts to do. I admire her courage and thus feel really sorry.
Hopefully I'll find another course, who knows.
I've learned to not invest too much on the project, staying with the minimum server cost, and that's the only sustainable way for me. In fact it costs me almost nothing and users have built trust on me for running it for 6 years.
I'd give her tons of credit for trying to turn it into a real business. That's what I've been failing so far, or maybe I just don't even have the guts to do. I admire her courage and thus feel really sorry.
Hopefully I'll find another course, who knows.
Looks pretty good actually (from the screenshot), you even have an iPhone app and everything. Why not just charge a small something, even if it's only to get you a nice side income? Somebody mentioned $5/month as a reasonable price for something like this. For me personally that would make me less hesitant to sign up as currently it would seem you could pull the plug any moment. Unless you like the idea of being able to pull the plug at any moment of course, which of course is your prerogative.
Thank you. I think you made a good point - by not charging I may be actually making people skeptical. We even have a vibrant developer community on bots and extensions, but it's barely known (shit, I realized that it's not even mentioned on the top page). I'll have to come up with some turnaround ideas.
[deleted]
For those who liked Grove and its combination of IRC and web chat, I personally recommend Flowdock which also has an IRC interface https://flowdock.com/ I know the people behind Flowdock personally and know that they are going to be around for a long time.
As a personal note, it's sad to see Grove go away. It was the first bigger service I got to design and I loved working with Leah.
As a personal note, it's sad to see Grove go away. It was the first bigger service I got to design and I loved working with Leah.
can you point me to Flowdock's IRC interface? I evaluated them before we started adopting Grove, and I did not see that option.
edit: dunno how I overlooked this before: https://www.flowdock.com/help/irc
thanks for making me look again, though!
edit: dunno how I overlooked this before: https://www.flowdock.com/help/irc
thanks for making me look again, though!
They added that afterwards
I wonder what they will do next. Grove.io started out of Convore(YCW11)[1], announced just 249 days ago[2, 3, 4].
[1] http://gigaom.com/2012/01/10/convore-grove-io/
[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3449917
[3] http://betakit.com/2012/02/20/convore-shutting-down-april-1
[4] http://blog.convore.com/post/17951919109/convore-shutting-do...
[1] http://gigaom.com/2012/01/10/convore-grove-io/
[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3449917
[3] http://betakit.com/2012/02/20/convore-shutting-down-april-1
[4] http://blog.convore.com/post/17951919109/convore-shutting-do...
This is disappointing. Grove.io was really awesome. IRC channels seem easy, but are (relatively) hard to get going:
It's a shame they're shutting down. I stopped using because it was too expensive for a channel with a few friends (a channel with fewer than 10 friends was costing $25/month).
- Finding a server
- Registering it properly
- Explaining it to non-tech people
It's a shame they're shutting down. I stopped using because it was too expensive for a channel with a few friends (a channel with fewer than 10 friends was costing $25/month).
I set Grove up for my distributed team but it didn't stick. I still think team-level chat is a problem worth solving, but nothing I've tried has gotten any real traction.
What are you currently using? I didn't use Grove, but I use IRC; I've definitely found that some people really take to it, and some people don't; some people even end up using IRC only to watch what other people are saying, and then send PMs as if they were using instant messenger, but never say things in the channel in public, even if they later talk about the things being said on IRC when we are all at dinner.
It tends to naturally revert to gchat or aim, which are not awful, but they seem to make it easier to accidentally exclude people.
We use standard chat messaging, Skype, Google Hangouts, teleconferencing and a team mailing list. So... clunky, I guess, but it gets the job done.
Chat messaging is for quick questions or requests to Skype or Hangout, Skype for 1 to 1 video or extended audio chats, Hangouts for small group video chats (quality is kind of crummy though), teleconference is for larger meetings and the team mailing list is for "hey everybody, check this cool thing out" type stuff.
IRC would be too much for our designers and some project managers.
Chat messaging is for quick questions or requests to Skype or Hangout, Skype for 1 to 1 video or extended audio chats, Hangouts for small group video chats (quality is kind of crummy though), teleconference is for larger meetings and the team mailing list is for "hey everybody, check this cool thing out" type stuff.
IRC would be too much for our designers and some project managers.
That's why Grove had a (very nice) web interface.
We've been using HipChat for several months now and have been quite happy with it. I'm using it to manage several remote contractors. The pricing is very reasonable. And it has an XMPP interface should you need it as well.
We use Flowdock at Testive and we _love_ it.
Yea, but that last one wasn't worth the cost and the user limit. Most groups using IRC in this fashion probably have a high level of technical experience.
Campfire succeeds at this because it wasn't their first product. They essentially brought customers in from their other products and then tied them all together. As a stand alone service, it's fairly useless IMO.
Campfire succeeds at this because it wasn't their first product. They essentially brought customers in from their other products and then tied them all together. As a stand alone service, it's fairly useless IMO.
Campfire is the only 37s service that has been sticky for my team.
>I stopped using because it was too expensive for a channel with a few friends (a channel with fewer than 10 friends was costing $25/month).
Wouldn't it be easier to just register a quakenet channel or even run your own passworded ircd on a spare linux box?
Wouldn't it be easier to just register a quakenet channel or even run your own passworded ircd on a spare linux box?
That does not solve the "The last one is way harder than you'd think." problem that was mentioned.
I remember trying it out when it was free, and then I got a notice about the pricing plans. I emailed and said that the prices were outrageously expensive for just a few users. I never got a reply, but I got an auto-reply a week later telling me to fill out my billing info.
They put the service out there, and didn't really listen to much feedback or improve it. I was rather disappointed and find this ending... expected.
They put the service out there, and didn't really listen to much feedback or improve it. I was rather disappointed and find this ending... expected.
Can I ask a stupid question? What causes a message like this? How many people are involved in the team? Is this a 'startup' or just a few developers having fun? I just started http://pineapple.io and when I see messages like this it always makes me wonder. it's not the first time i've seen something like this.
It makes me nervours...
It makes me nervours...
Some friends of mine were trying to kickstart a business with an open source Convore / Grove like service called Helm (http://www.indiegogo.com/helm). Daniel's open source work speaks for itself and I think it's an excellent idea and model.
That has to suck for Leah, especially since there's definitely a worthwhile product somewhere in the team realtime communications space; maybe grove.io wasn't it, but I find team IRC and IM to be incredibly useful, and if there were a good way to combine the two (and some kind of wiki/logging/etc.), with security, it would be great.
It would be cool if there were a way to put systems in escrow in case a company tanks or pivots, to protect users. The time to fund and set that up is during development/normal use, not once you've run out of money and decide to shut down, though.
It would be cool if there were a way to put systems in escrow in case a company tanks or pivots, to protect users. The time to fund and set that up is during development/normal use, not once you've run out of money and decide to shut down, though.
How was the ride? How does the team feel about shutting it down?
Shocking.
"Success is the ability to move from one failure to another without loss of enthusiasm" - Winston Churchill.
If she keeps at it, she will do a successful product, too.
If she keeps at it, she will do a successful product, too.
That only works if you learn from the failures. Hopefully the reasons grove.io failed are obvious enough.
I feel/sense sarcasm. I did not see this being useful from day one.
It's sarcasm mixed with caremad.
I was a huge fan of Pownce, Motion, LeafyChat, Baconfile, Convore, and Grove. All failed.
I was really hoping this one would work, but after seeing no improvements in a year, it became obvious it wouldn't. :(
I was a huge fan of Pownce, Motion, LeafyChat, Baconfile, Convore, and Grove. All failed.
I was really hoping this one would work, but after seeing no improvements in a year, it became obvious it wouldn't. :(
It's frustrating to see products die from what seems like as an outsider as attention rot. Then again, I completely understand moving on if an idea doesn't stick.
Yeah, Convore was fun. I'm sad it went away. (Not caremad, though - thanks, Kenneth; urbandictionary owes you a page hit today.)
But huge props to Leah for keeping at it... I'm disappointed at the haters on this thread taking personal pot-shots, instead of recognizing that her record shows an admirable perseverance and a true passion for building better messaging technology.
But huge props to Leah for keeping at it... I'm disappointed at the haters on this thread taking personal pot-shots, instead of recognizing that her record shows an admirable perseverance and a true passion for building better messaging technology.
Would like your opinion: do you think this is still a viable opportunity- serving this niche? (paid team chat)
..or is Campfire/HipChat/whatever-else-is-left "good enough" to make it not worthwhile?
..or is Campfire/HipChat/whatever-else-is-left "good enough" to make it not worthwhile?
Hosted IRC is an awkward place to be.
Those that don't give a fuck are using Campfire/HipChat.
Those that do give a fuck are usually hosting their own IRC.
Find a way to squeeze out both and you have a potentially nice business model. (Hosted IRC + nice web clients for paying customers?)
Those that don't give a fuck are using Campfire/HipChat.
Those that do give a fuck are usually hosting their own IRC.
Find a way to squeeze out both and you have a potentially nice business model. (Hosted IRC + nice web clients for paying customers?)
I was a paying customer. I had other shit to deal with than setting up an IRC server with robust logging, and it worked well enough for our team (except the random disconnects).
I guess we'll be looking at hipchat and some of the other alternatives posted here.
I guess we'll be looking at hipchat and some of the other alternatives posted here.
What I don't understand is why they dont sell it on Sitepoint or somewhere. The app must surely have several hundred dollars a month in revenue at the very least. Someone would pay several thousand dollars for that.
Great move writing a Python export script.
On that note, any good guides for hosting your own IRC server on your home network (and safely expose it to the Internet) if you have a spare Ubuntu server box lying around?
I'd suggest against it personally. Get a $10 linode and setup an ircD there.
If your home network gets DDoS'd, it's going to be quite an inconvenience.
If your home network gets DDoS'd, it's going to be quite an inconvenience.
Instead of shutting down the service with an export option to a data file, how about identifying two or three competitors you'd recommend and working with them to export the content directly into another service. This way you help out both your customers and another startup.
For example, if Grove.io content can be made to work with Flowdock, contact the Flowdock team and work with them to put a big "Migrate to Flowdock" button on the shutdown announcement page.
For example, if Grove.io content can be made to work with Flowdock, contact the Flowdock team and work with them to put a big "Migrate to Flowdock" button on the shutdown announcement page.
The many pivots of Leah Culver
"...our team has moved on to other projects"
That's the part that gets me. I've seen this many times in other startup shutdown posts.
They say it so casually. Like this is just another extracurricular activity they do after school. If they're tired of basketball, they're going to stop and try hockey.
Except that's not how your customers view it. They're paying you money for a service they're using to presumably save/make money.
That's the part that gets me. I've seen this many times in other startup shutdown posts.
They say it so casually. Like this is just another extracurricular activity they do after school. If they're tired of basketball, they're going to stop and try hockey.
Except that's not how your customers view it. They're paying you money for a service they're using to presumably save/make money.
Back to campfire, I guess.
Or http://talkerapp.com, which is free and maintained by the (subscription driven) Teambox
I'd recommend hipchat.
We're using Campfire currently, and had used hipchat before that for a few months. Hipchat was fine on desktop, but holy shit their mobile apps are terrible. They were so bad that we had to move away because we're a fairly mobile group.
Honestly, the group business chat niche is just riddled with "incomplete" products in my opinion. Some are great in the browser but have no native web apps (Flowdock), some have shitty mobile apps with mediocre web versions (campfire and hipchat).
I hope someone with a good set of developers, cash in their pockets, and an eye on simplicity would come in and build a full suite of desktop and mobile apps on the back of a good chat system one day. It's absolutely not a solved problem at this point.
Honestly, the group business chat niche is just riddled with "incomplete" products in my opinion. Some are great in the browser but have no native web apps (Flowdock), some have shitty mobile apps with mediocre web versions (campfire and hipchat).
I hope someone with a good set of developers, cash in their pockets, and an eye on simplicity would come in and build a full suite of desktop and mobile apps on the back of a good chat system one day. It's absolutely not a solved problem at this point.
To be honest, I expect that team to be hipchat. They've got cash now since their acquisition, and they're making steady improvements to their desktop app.
Personally, I wouldn't enter this market, regardless of how good my devs or how much money I had. There are at least 3 polished and loved products. The problems you describe will probably be fixed before another team could come in with a good solution.
Personally, I wouldn't enter this market, regardless of how good my devs or how much money I had. There are at least 3 polished and loved products. The problems you describe will probably be fixed before another team could come in with a good solution.
Just because there are at least three other services out there means you can't also enter the space and try to disrupt it still?
Campfire is made by a company with a massive and rabid following, and is cross-sold to the users of three other popular products, two books, and a massive blog.
Hipchat is an amazing product which is steadily getting better under the steam of great developers. It is also owned by Atlassian, a company with great execution and a strong track record of successful cross-selling.
So under these circumstances, no, I personally wouldn't enter this space.
Hipchat is an amazing product which is steadily getting better under the steam of great developers. It is also owned by Atlassian, a company with great execution and a strong track record of successful cross-selling.
So under these circumstances, no, I personally wouldn't enter this space.
You're stuck in a bubble.
Campfire gets a fair bit of attention here, but is unheard of outside the 'startup'/B2B space. The stats they post are laughable - last time I checked it was a few thousand messages a day - which is pretty minuscule.
Hipchat fills a hole as well, but there are literally thousands of different ways to spin 'webchat' and carve a big following out.
Campfire gets a fair bit of attention here, but is unheard of outside the 'startup'/B2B space. The stats they post are laughable - last time I checked it was a few thousand messages a day - which is pretty minuscule.
Hipchat fills a hole as well, but there are literally thousands of different ways to spin 'webchat' and carve a big following out.
> The stats they post are laughable - last time I checked it was a few thousand messages a day - which is pretty minuscule
That is laughable - as in it can't possibly be right. Can you provide a link to this?
From campfirenow.com: "Over 100,000 people have used Campfire to send more than 60,000,000 chat messages"
That is laughable - as in it can't possibly be right. Can you provide a link to this?
From campfirenow.com: "Over 100,000 people have used Campfire to send more than 60,000,000 chat messages"
Campfire was released in 2006, 67 months ago.
60,000,000 messages, over 67 months, works out at 895,000 a month - approx 28,000 messages a day.
Or one message every 3 seconds. Campfire could be run from a single small VPS.
I think it's entirely believable that the usage of campfire is that low. All credit to them, they've managed to get people to pay for something people don't actually use very often.
60,000,000 messages, over 67 months, works out at 895,000 a month - approx 28,000 messages a day.
Or one message every 3 seconds. Campfire could be run from a single small VPS.
I think it's entirely believable that the usage of campfire is that low. All credit to them, they've managed to get people to pay for something people don't actually use very often.
You can't just average them out - you think they have the same number of customers now as they did when they started?
Let's assume they doubled in size every year - I think that's a good if imperfect approximation. That would mean 30m messages sent this year, 80K sent today. A far cry for "a few thousand".
Let's assume they doubled in size every year - I think that's a good if imperfect approximation. That would mean 30m messages sent this year, 80K sent today. A far cry for "a few thousand".
80,000 messages a day is still ridiculously minuscule. It's a rounding error. Average them how you like. Assume exponential growth. Whatever. It's still around the same number of messages that go on in say a single channel on freenode.
Massive market than is open for disruption. Especially when you consider the real incombent is Microsoft in most corporates.
Mibbit is an option ;)
Are there any plans to opensource it? The API hooks were awesome.
This is really a shame. Grove.io is a big part of our startup's communications. I really hope Leah considers open-sourcing the project, or turning it over to someone else.
I strongly recommend using Atheme services for your next IRC project. They have a nice web interface and EGS is a really nice third party web interface.
The writing was on the wall, after they pivoted from Convore.
Convore even seemed like a darling at Hacker News at the time.
Convore even seemed like a darling at Hacker News at the time.
ARGH.
I really liked using this service.
I really liked using this service.
What to do now? What is a viable replacement for Grove.io?
I have never used IRC. How is it better than Google Chat?
Internet Relay Chat is THE archetype of chat protocols. It has been around since the early days of the internets. Hence the protocols and software are mature albeit with some flaws or restrictions that are hard to come by.
Google Talk is using XMPP, an XML based presence and chat protocol that has also been there for quite a while. It is widely used throughout the net apart from Google Talk.
So both protocols serve their purpose well. IRC is a little more focussed on group chats. While one to one conversations are simple, a presence service is not what IRC was made for. XMPP is strong on presence and one to one chats, with less focus on group chats.
Google Talk is using XMPP, an XML based presence and chat protocol that has also been there for quite a while. It is widely used throughout the net apart from Google Talk.
So both protocols serve their purpose well. IRC is a little more focussed on group chats. While one to one conversations are simple, a presence service is not what IRC was made for. XMPP is strong on presence and one to one chats, with less focus on group chats.
Many reasons. Mainly though I'd say IRC is extremely battle-worn. There are a ton of mechanisms for dealing with spam/abuse/idiot users.
noooo! this feels like arrested development.
I recommend FlowDock as a good alternative.
This is why I refuse to use external services hosted by small/tiny companies that haven't open-sourced their tech.
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.
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.
There is no difference between large and small tech companies shutting down their services. Google has shut down close to 50 services in recent year if I remember correctly: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/03/google-shutdowns-continue-i...
These things are not really on the same level. Google usually gives more than a years notice, and always has a way to export your data. These guys are shutting down in the month and it looks like the only help you get with your data is a link to a gist on github.
> Google usually gives more than a years notice, and always has a way to export your data.
Hahahahaha no. They don't. If only they did anything remotely as nice as that.
Hahahahaha no. They don't. If only they did anything remotely as nice as that.
The Google API I was using had a 6 month lead time, no recommendations for graceful transition, no offer of data dumps, and the final shutdown date was never communicated.
You got lucky.
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.
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.
Google is notoriously bad about this by now, though. There isn't much excuse anymore after the last 3-4 years.
I am in the middle of moving an API over from a Google one that got shutdown recently. This has cost me a substantial chunk of time, more than it likely has cost you.
I'm viscerally aware of inverterate corporate capacity for volatility.
I'm viscerally aware of inverterate corporate capacity for volatility.
Its a self-fulfilling prophesy. You can't get big without customers, but customers won't use you because you're small.
How do we overcome this?
(Edit: I was asking a rhetorical question to counter the parent. But great discussion below.)
How do we overcome this?
(Edit: I was asking a rhetorical question to counter the parent. But great discussion below.)
No NO.. it's not because they're small. It's because tech start-ups have a history of shutting down or selling, and leaving their users in the dust.
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.
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.
It is not only tech start-ups that do that. Big tech companies regularly kill or sell off divisions or product lines. Most times, a start-up might still be on its first product line, which makes you think selling off their single product line or single division in this instance the whole company to be different from what the tech giants do when they sell or kill off product lines or divisons.
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.
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.
Did you really get burned with Sparrow though? You bought software, not a service. Them being bought, and shut down, by Google has zero effect on you given that you can continue to use their software. Forever.
According to a friend, the most recent version of Sparrow is essentially broken (100% CPU and crashes). I haven't upgraded in a while for this reason, and I'm not expecting that issue to be fixed, ever.
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.
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.
I don't know about your friend, but I'm happily using the latest version of Sparrow with no issues whatsoever, maybe he has some other unrelated problems...
"Forever" being until Google changes their service which is probably about every few months.
Sparrow is essentially an IMAP client. I don't see Google turn off IMAP support any time soon. Way too many clients are actively using that.
Well yes, but doesn't it's usefulness come from the tight integration with gmail only features? disclaimer; i only used Sparrow for a bit a long time ago so perhaps they've made these features work in regular IMAP as well..
You paid $150 for software which still works, which had no promise of updates forever anyway, and you're upset?
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.
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.
I don't want to rehash Sparrow. But, if they'd had fixed long standing bugs, and added the features they promised I would not be so upset about it. But they didn't. They dropped the project and went on to Google.
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.
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.
Sell software and a service. Make it so I can install your code and run it indefinitely. Provide your source to paying customers.
See Atlassian for an example.
See Atlassian for an example.
Open source with a service is an exciting model, a lot of network effects but also greater up front investment. We are doing this with getfwd.com
Did you miss the "that haven't open-sourced their tech" part in the parent?
You overcome it by offering something valuable for users that they can't easily setup themselves.
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.
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.
You overcome it by offering something valuable for users that they can't easily setup themselves.
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
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
It takes time. Some kind of competitive advantage over everything else in the marketplace will help to. People need a reason to bet on your company which overcomes the risk in instability.
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.
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.
Yeah but, Github is a different sort of product. You don't lose much if it shuts down (assuming you have your code). You can push your code someplace else.
I disagree, maybe that might have been a point that allowed more people to give it a try in the early days. A lot of companies have integrated APIs and built workflows around the github specific way of doing things.
Surely most of the value of using github is the web UI?
You're totally locked into the issue tracker.
I really meant my point to be a counter to its parent.
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)
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)
But that's hacking trust. It's opposite to just being honest and having a publicized contingency plan, or open-source code.
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.
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.
The substance of social proof is that it shows that a lot of people have faith in your product and trust you enough to pay you to use it. It's not just a gimmick, it's a concrete psychological trigger.
Yes, of course social proof has substance as marketing strategy. But gaining trust is orthogonal to actually being reliable. (this is still about the top comment)
I disagree about trust and reliability being orthogonal. Unreliable products burn their bridges rapidly. Social proof can take many forms, from raw total user numbers to user testimonials. You're not going to collect testimonials if you have a shitty product.
I would like to hear the logic behind that assertion.
>I really meant my point to be a counter to its parent.
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 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.
> check written out for your price you wouldn't light the servers on fire
> 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?
> 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 track record of everyone else is very poor :)
There are always early adopters that are passionate about every new product they can find, and there are also skeptical customers that refuse to use anything provided by startups. That's actually how sustainable startups grow.
Why should anyone create software just so you can have it for free? You're not entitled to open source software, or the goodwill of others. If they decided that they didn't want to continue running their product, they can choose to shut it down.
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.
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 don't demand anything of them, but they won't create a dependency where I previously had none and expect to be rewarded with money for it.
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.
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.
Sentry is also open source, but for very different reasons than what you describe. I treat it like part of the business value, but that also means that many people can simply run their own, which means potential value lost (I wouldnt argue that there is value lost, but its not something that can be ignored).
>Sentry is also open source, but for very different reasons than what you describe. I treat it like part of the business value, but that also means that many people can simply run their own
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?
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?
How's being an open source a requirement?
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?
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?
I already have IRC for our company.
Maybe you touched on the solution.
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.
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.
The most obvious downside is that it creates perverse incentives -- potential customers benefit if you fail. It also telegraphs a lack of...I don't know what the word is. Tenacity? It's kind of like putting a bounty on your own head so that at least somebody can benefit if you die. You really want people to be invested in your survival.
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 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's debatable customers benefit if a company fails and open sources their product. The customer, assuming they're willing and able to install it, misses out on any further upgrades (rare is the salvaged open source that goes anywhere) and support. Though I don't discount that there is _some_ benefit and that many customers might over-estimate that benefit.
Escrow clauses are perfectly normal for commercial software and services, for enterprise contracts.
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.
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.
Escrow clauses also get rid of the incentive not to use the product since it will be open sourced anyway. The code only goes to those who paid for it.
I thought about this earlier - putting a statement on circleci.com saying that if we shut up shop then we'll open source everything. However, I think its dangerous to plant that seed in a users' mind - I think it suggests that there's a danger of that happening (which there isn't, CI fans).
I actually think the solution is to ignore customers with this view. We'll get their business when we "cross the chasm".
I actually think the solution is to ignore customers with this view. We'll get their business when we "cross the chasm".
It gets tricky if your exit path ends up being the sort of combination talent/product acquisition where your new employer wants to keep your tech proprietary (see: Apple acquiring Siri, Facebook buying Face.com and shutting down their public API).
When your favorite restaurant closes down, do you demand they post all their recipes?
Only if they demand I make them my sole source of food and stop cooking for myself while I'm their customer.
If they open sourced it, they'd likely feel obligated to support it.
So it would kinda defeat the point of shutting grove down maybe...
So it would kinda defeat the point of shutting grove down maybe...
>If they open sourced it, they'd likely feel obligated to support it.
That's their psychological bugaboo, not mine.
That's their psychological bugaboo, not mine.
Why shut down if you have paying customers? Just let it run. Servers are dirt cheap, there's no way they are losing money at their prices.
They're hosted with rackspace afaik. So they probably are losing money.
I'm pretty sure YC companies get either free or heavily discounted Rackspace.
http://www.rackspacestartups.com/yc/index.html
http://www.rackspacestartups.com/yc/index.html
So move it to another host?
That said, no hard feelings. It's hard out there. I've never tried to run a company, so I can't judge.