>And this is why building a great product with the intention of selling it to the highest bidder is a fundamental betrayal of your customers.
Maybe you might furnish us with a list of business models you do approve of? How about:
- Building a crap product and selling it to the highest bidder?
- Building a great product and selling it to the lowest bidder?
Building a great product and selling it (when the offer is) made to the highest bidder is the basis a of large number of business models. Are you against selling companies at all?
-Building a great product, retaining ownership, and maintaining it for your user base to the best of your ability.
-Building a great product and selling it to someone who you're confident is committing to maintaining the quality of your product, even if they're not the highest bidder.
-Building a great product and selling it to the highest bidder, under pre-agreed terms that let you keep enough control to maintain quality.
People snark at me every time I suggest this. I really don't understand why. Hacker News is brimming with stories of "I'm sad because Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon/whatever bought a product/service I love and immediately ruined it/shut it down." I don't think it's unreasonable to wish that a product you use regularly and pay for (whether directly or through advertising views) be maintained in good condition and not gutted. Maybe I'm not cynical enough.
