Then you're not entitled to anything. That is, I think it's unfair to expect them to extend good will to you, when you weren't willing to pay for a product that you depended on.
I find your statement unfair. You're assuming/implying he's asking for a free product; he's asking for the courtesy of a warning.
1. Nobody's claiming entitlement. If there was entitlement there would be recourse. Asking for warning isn't entitlement.
2. You're implying that he wasn't looking to pay. He's said he would pay if he had warning.
3. You claim he 'depended' on it. I'm not sure that's the case. Not having warning is inconvenient, not catastrophic.
4. The company got its valuation in part from people who didn't pay. I think that entitles them to basic courtesies at least.
5. Companies do good by non-paying customers all the time because they care about goodwill. Google and Etherpad have lost some goodwill here by going against consumer expectations.
Basic courtesies aren't paid for and aren't bought. That's why they're courtesies.
If everyone who is now complaining about EtherPad shutting down had paid for the service, they may have been profitable and perhaps not interested in being bought. That's the perspective I'm looking at this from.
I find this whole line of reasoning wrong-headed in multiple ways.
0. You're answering a strawman that nobody raised - that somebody regrets etherpad getting sold and is now 'complaining' because they can't live without it.
1. This whole point is orthogonal to whether I paid for etherpad or not. Even if I paid for etherpad I'm just as screwed as everyone right now. You're telling me that if I didn't want to lose etherpad I should have paid for it and convinced a lot of other people to do so.
2. Companies get acquired all the time because they realize they've run out of steam in the market. To blame 'you the market' for that is just ridiculous.
3. You're making an analogy with donation-ware. The argument makes sense when you say "if you don't pay us we'll die and won't be able to serve you." It's a lot less potent when mutated to "if you don't pay us we'll sell for $10M and screw you over."
4. Etherpad never even made the less potent argument. They never solicited pro accounts. They could have done what Pandora did a year ago - scream loudly that they were going to die. But they didn't.
So what was I the market supposed to do a) if it was that important to me, b) without knowing etherpad needed money, c) if etherpad even considered this option?
I'll repeat, all anybody wants is more warning so we can migrate out what workflows we've created. And etherpad seems to have allowed new pads today, so I really don't have any complaints. Except with your argument :)
