Google acquires Sparrow (Email client for OS X and iOS)


Recommended Posts

don't see why people are moping, the features or program will probably be made free...

Does Google have a history of buying a company and keeping the product just as simple and awesome as it was and making it free?

Based on what I recall, they have a history of dismantling and incorporating acquired products into their already existing line up, which usually ruins what originally made the product awesome.

Other companies have done the same thing: Twitter with both Tweetie and TweetDeck; Yahoo! with Flickr; Apple with Siri; etc.

Here's an article Ars talking about Google's trail of dead apps left behind after acquisitions: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/07/you-shall-know-google-by-its-trail-of-dead-a-sparrow-users-lament

There's plenty of precedence to be concerned that nothing good will come of this.

The team themselves said that Sparrow is dead. Why specifically state such a thing if there was any chance that it would just be rebranded as a Gmail iOS app?

They're sour because they actually paid for Sparrow.

That's a risk though that people take buying anything. That's like getting upset because I bought something yesterday that goes on sale today. I can't remember who, but I remember reading a great quote one time where someone said something like: don't buy a product because of what it could be tomorrow, but because of what it is today.

Here's my real problem with this entire thing: as a small team, the group built an app that they loved and were clearly proud of. It was a product that also had the community involved. They even asked what logo they should use. Often they teased new features on Twitter or Tumblr. They kept users/fans in the loop.

Now they're part of the big machine. Google is not the Do No Evil company they once proclaimed to be. They're no different than Apple and Microsoft now. Remember the outrage when Google released the official Gmail app for iOS? They eventually pulled the app and it was gone for months, and when they brought it back? It looked exactly the same. They fixed a few bugs and added Push Notifications to it, but it was still just a wrapper around their mobile site. Things in a big company don't change that much, especially in any big way. It is one reason why Microsoft should be applauded for the major changes they're doing with all of their upcoming products (even if you don't like those changes).

I remember reading an interview with the CEO of Sparrow where he stated he left a big company just for these reasons. Now, he's right back at one.

For me, at least, it isn't about paying for the product and no longer getting future updates (outside of critical updates); for me, it is solely about lost innovation. Big companies innovate on small levels, not major ones. Look at iOS as a prime example. The UI hasn't changed in any major way since it was first released 5 years. Why? Because if they did, they'd outrage millions of users. Look at every little change Facebook does and the outrage that proceeds it.

Instead of developing for a few hundred thousand users, now the team is developing for several hundred million users. That changes how you develop in a big way.

But, I hope I am wrong on all this. I hope that Google releases Sparrow rebranded as Gmail.app and that they leave the colours the same. I hate how grey and black Google makes their iOS apps. It is horrible and bland. Sparrow is a beautiful app and should be left alone in terms of UI.

I read Acrylic Software has been bought by Facebook and their apps are unlikely to receive further updates as well. I was having problems with one of their apps, Pulp, and the developer(s) refused to answer my emails asking for support. As such I just filled in a refund request at Apple. Within 30 minutes I received an email from the Mac App Store support team honoring my request. I can see a store credit of ?7,99 in 3 to 5 business days.

Talk about service! (Y)

Considering the gmail app for iOS is horrible as well.

But why would you even need a gmail app on iOS, heck I don't even see the point of a gmail app for Android. gmail is Mail, use the mail app and have all your mail in one place. having one app for one type of mail is just stupid.

Sparrow for Windows was 'just a few weeks away,' says developer: http://t.co/S1bqXVak

Possibly more bad news, provided Google doesn't release this.

It definitely shows that porting over interfaces from one OS to another 1:1 works poorly.

Just got a popup from Sparrow on OSX asking if I wanted to buy it.

Imagine all those new mac owners this summer that might actually still buy this app only to realize that there might not be any new features coming to it. It's a great app and I hope the Google team takes over to make it their default iOS/Mac gmail app as opposed to simply porting whatever like out of it and then trash the rest.

Just got a popup from Sparrow on OSX asking if I wanted to buy it.

Imagine all those new mac owners this summer that might actually still buy this app only to realize that there might not be any new features coming to it. It's a great app and I hope the Google team takes over to make it their default iOS/Mac gmail app as opposed to simply porting whatever like out of it and then trash the rest.

So an app is only good enough to buy if there's new features coming to it now o_O

pretty sure people buy apps because of how good they are NOW

  • Like 1

Sparrow for Windows was 'just a few weeks away,' says developer: http://t.co/S1bqXVak

Possibly more bad news, provided Google doesn't release this.

'Sparrow for Windows' was never an official Sparrow client, not even close to 'weeks away'

So an app is only good enough to buy if there's new features coming to it now o_O

pretty sure people buy apps because of how good they are NOW

I'm not sure what your formula for buying apps is, but for me, apps are an investment. When I buy an app, I look for whether the app is what is good at what it does now as well as whether the dev releases updates, maintain compatibility, and push new features on a regular basis so that their app will continue to be among the best in the future. Sparrow for OSX costs $9.99, rather expensive imo, so I'm not going to pay for the full version without the assurance the Google is keeping the app and continue to develop for it. My thoughts would be slightly different if they were not bought by Google. But hey, I'm not denying the devs anything by using the free version because they are getting paid either way for putting ads they put above the inbox.

Google can?t design an application. They?re going to destroy Sparrow.

I don't agree with you on that. Well I don't agree with you on the designing an app part. I think most of Googles apps look very good and are extremely functional, and are fantastic for the price of each.. "FREE" I do agree though, that Sparrow will be no more, and we will never hear the name again.

I don't agree with you on that. Well I don't agree with you on the designing an app part. I think most of Googles apps look very good and are extremely functional, and are fantastic for the price of each.. "FREE" I do agree though, that Sparrow will be no more, and we will never hear the name again.

Have you ever tried their iOS apps? Their web apps might be great, especially if they're not in a wrapper app, but going straight through Safari. But their iOS apps suck. Up until the most recent version of Google+ app, it was pretty bad.

Google's recent UI changes, to these darker colors are pretty bad too.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!