This is getting extremely frustrating. Sparrow is a fabulous email client both for iOS and Mac. I love and use both daily and this is fairly devastating. I was really looking forward to the products development, growth, and future releases. To read this announcement and hear that they won't be working on their apps but on Google projects is sad.
To bigger companies: chill out with the "acquihires." If anything, do what Facebook did with Instagram and keep them working on their product. It would be awesome to see the guts of Sparrow used in a Google branded Gmail client or similar (hopefully that happens, but I'm reluctant based on this statement).
> This is getting extremely frustrating. Sparrow is a fabulous email client both for iOS and Mac. I love and use both daily and this is fairly devastating. I was really looking forward to the products development, growth, and future releases. To read this announcement and hear that they won't be working on their apps but on Google projects is sad.
I think it's a matter of perspective. As someone who doesn't use and has no intention of ever using OS X or iOS, this is great news for me! I've been hearing a lot about Sparrow's revolutionary UI, but haven't benefited at all because they don't support Linux, Android, or Windows. Now, there's a very good chance that some of Sparrow's UI features will be incorporated into the Gmail web UI and into the Gmail apps for Android phones and tablets.
A great point. But still no excuse to have their existing customers left behind. All of their customers (myself included) invested in the product because it was good, because it worked extremely well, and because it solved problems. I didn't invest in their work at Google. Where does that leave me?
The biggest concern I have with this is the same thing that happened to Tweetie: the one company that should have scooped it up did and then completely changed it into something that barely represented the existing app (and more or less dropped an interest in the desktop client).
And now you've gotten lesson #1 on why F/OSS solutions have one huge advantage over their proprietary counterparts: If the original developers of a F/OSS app decide to drop it, you have choices. In the best case, another group of devs may simply fork the project and keep it going, or you ('you' in the general sense here) may choose to bring development in-house, or contract with a 3rd party to maintain and upgrade the app.
Now you might argue that some of those choices aren't that appealing, or that it's not guaranteed that someone else will pick up the app and run with it... but look at the scenarios with a closed-source, proprietary app: If the devs drop it, you're f%!#d, end of story.
Yes, F/OSS has that huge advantage... but even though I'm an F/OSS advocate, I think it's naive to ignore the economics of such projects. They have a much harder time getting off the ground, especially those aimed at a mass market to which you'll have trouble selling a support plan. There are business models, but they're more complicated and don't provide as much income.
I do wish companies that abandon projects would OSS them more often though.
I do wish companies that abandon projects would OSS them more often though.
Agreed. But to their credit, Google have some history of open-sourcing things[1][2][3][4], so maybe there's a chance that this product will be released as well. At least one can hope...
Yet more wild-eyed, open source zealotry. No GUI-based F/OSS product has ever achieved the level of polish and usability of things like Sparrow because the people working on open source projects only want to do coding, they don't care about design, bug detection, documentation or, God forbid, user interfaces. If the developers of Sparrow had not been paid for their work, which they ensured by keeping it under their control, it would likely not have happened at all.
No it isn't. I didn't say that F/OSS is universally better than closed source, or anything crazy. I said that F/OSS has one specific advantage over closed-source, proprietary software, and that relates to the ability for a different group to continue development of a project that would otherwise be abandonware. Are you going to argue that this isn't the case?
No GUI-based F/OSS product has ever achieved the level of polish and usability of things like Sparrow because the people working on open source projects only want to do coding, they don't care about design, bug detection, documentation or, God forbid, user interfaces.
That's debatable, but it also has nothing to do with what I said. Yes, F/OSS has a reputation for being weaker on the UI/UX/design front, no one is contesting that, so far as I can see.
But Thunderbird proves mindcrime's point - even though Mozilla-the-company has decided that developing Thunderbird is no longer aligned with their interests, community-driven development will continue, because it's open source. Yes, development will be diminished, but it won't die outright like Sparrow or other closed-source software would.
For most consumers it's the same. I'd rather pay someone a few dollars than maintain Thunderbird myself (for example) and most people realistically do not have the option of maintaining it themselves.
On the other hand I use a lot of OSS on servers and in the past on my workstations, and have modified them and fixed bugs and such. There are definite advantages but this particular one is not that useful on a large scale.
That said, yes, I agree that some projects would be difficult (maybe even impossible) to monetize as F/OSS. We know the enterprise stuff works, consumer apps may or may not be a different story. I think that book still remains to be written.
> All of their customers (myself included) invested in the product because it was good, because it worked extremely well, and because it solved problems. I didn't invest in their work at Google
Even worse, I invested in Sparrow because I vastly prefer desktop apps like Sparrow to web apps like GMail. That's sad.
Do you really need to see gmail ads, or does it suffice if they can associate your client IP address with your email content and show you suitable ads the next time you visit a site with AdSense / doubleclick?
Because you really don't get all the benefits of a native app with a web app. It's getting better, the gap is closing, but it will be a while before web apps are an enjoyable an experience as a native app. I think Sparrow was actually a good proof point of that.
More than that - apps like Sparrow move the goalposts actually. It was such a superior to experience to even the best native clients of the day that it widened the gap between web and native once again.
sometimes I'm surprised by this sort of thing, but then I remember that Google is INSANELY GOOD AT SEARCH and I stop being surprised when that plays out.
Simply put: that's a risk you take for being an early adopter. Deal with it, there's a good chance it will happen with any/all early adoption startup products out there.
Version 1.0 came out in February of 2011. However, there were 7 Public Betas before that. The first one came out on October 4, 2010 [1]. By the time version 1.0 was released, Sparrow already had hundreds of thousands of users [2].
(Granted, October of 2010 still isn't ‘a few years’ a go.)
I see your point, but the difference is that you had no expectations. As someone who purchased Sparrow (both on iPhone and Mac) I had high hopes for it continuing to grow, add new features, etc. Sure, as a Google user, you will gain something - but it's more of a happy surprise for you and a disappointment for us Sparrow users.
Sparrow is no rocket science and its UI was invented before. The app simply defined a modern workflow which is more comparable to instant messaging. What I mean is: you need not to destroy Sparrow to get similar features on other systems. Google's latest acquisitions is - without any reason - destructive.
> Now, there's a very good chance that some of Sparrow's UI features will be incorporated into the Gmail web UI and into the Gmail apps for Android phones and tablets.
Why acquire a whole company if all you want is to re-use some of their good UX ideas? You get those for free with the app.
Presumably the talent was another draw for Google, but will breaking up/subsuming the team defeat that purpose?
You did not miss much. I use Sparrow as my main prefiltered-private-email client on MacOS X. I don't think the UI is revolutionary. Maybe it is on iOS.
To answer both of your questions: I'm not asking companies to "outbid" me for people's work and I'm not demanding a ceiling for their compensation.
Rather, I'm asking the developer's why drop their work on the application entirely? Why not continue the development at Google a la Instagram?
Moreover, the real discontent is more so with seeing a talented group being bought out and not encouraged to grow on their own. I've found that some of the most unique and useful work has come out of small dev shops. I'd rather see the company continue and see where they would have taken sparrow or any other ideas they might have.
I'm extremely happy for and congratulatory to the Sparrow team. Their work is most definitely worth any offer they've been given.
Google bought them for whatever reason Google bought them. When Google ponied up for them, you lost your say in what Sparrow's developers spend their time on.
Who is arguing otherwise? We're not allowed to gripe without implying it was unfair?
I think it sucks, and as a user that bought the app strictly to support future progress I feel abandoned. I don't really give a shit if I have a "say" or not in their decisions. I don't like how it went down. Assuming they leave Google and launch another startup (which we all know they will) I certainly won't be supporting them in the future.
Just as I have no say in their progress, they have no say on how I choose to characterize their departure. I say, they took the money and ran. I prefer devs I can trust to stick around.
You think that another person should turn down (what was likely) enough money to support their families for the rest of their lives because you invested $10 in their email application? This is what you believe?
Any high six figures (say, over .5 million) figure is actually FU money, as long as you can invest reasonably safely and well and have modest living standards.
I'm amazed at how often I read here that even a million is pocket change that changes nothing on the receivers life.
Are you familiar with how expensive it is to live here? You cannot buy a decent house in a fair school district for less than $500k. Probably more like $750k. For two bedrooms.
The Bay Area is the center of the universe of software development. Not that you can't work as a software engineer elsewhere (I have) but you have a limitless amount of interesting work here.
And while costs are higher, salaries are much higher as well.
It's absurd to act like a $500k payout puts you on easy street.
Well, give me the 500k payout, I'll gladly take that hard street.
It's absurd to act as if it's pocket change. Upon receiving that kind of money, you just leave the valley and move elsewhere doing the work you want to do, living off the interests.
Well, unless all you want to do is working for somebody else on the valley :)
Not at all. Did you even read my comment? I said they burned their goodwill.
If it really was enough for them to live on and comfortably leave development, then kudos to them. They don't need that goodwill anymore from us. Assuming they come back with another startup a couple years down the line, which we all know they will, then we'll see if it was a smart decision.
Who was demanding a ceiling on the compensation? By expanding into a Windows userbase(size and subset of customers willing to pay presumed to be larger than the Apple userbase), the ceiling potentially could have been of cathedral proportions. If Sparrow lacked the desire or skill to expand to Windows, nothing limited them from creating other Appleland products. They already had a great reputation which would have lowered the hurdle for the potential success of product number two.
If my paying $9 for a widget is not good enough isn't it ok to tell me things are not going as well as expected and you're looking for solutions? If you leave me in the dust and come back next week as Parentco Widget Version 2 then at the very least you'll cause me to raise my eyebrows.
You are, when you say "hey big companies, stop waving money at these guys". However much you think you're offering to Sparrow's developers, it's presumably less than Google was offering.
Can you point to me where I said that? My posts have been to the effect of "hey little companies, if you're open to being waved to by big companies then let me know before I buy into your company's offerings."
What's the difference between $9.99 and $99.99(or feel free to shift the decimal depending upon whatever economic demesne you fall under)? Several of the leading karma members here regularly chime in about raising prices. If small company A makes the absolute best widget X for market Y with market Y x2 prices that it is well-received but the revenue did not match expectations and they end up being acquired by a large company or investor then how is this any different? I never would have guessed Fisker cars would have trouble.
That is ridiculous. Plenty of apps have existed for decades on those prices. Small, dedicated devs are the lifeblood of OS X and iOS contrary to what those who don't use the platforms believe.
I have had no reason to expect this to be the norm in the past and I have no reason to expect it now. You don't just get to abandon your users without repercussions, as easy as that would make things for you. You can comfort yourself with whatever free market BS makes you feel better, you still screwed over the userbase that gave you prominence.
You don't? You don't get to abandon your users? Not without repercussions? What repercussions would those be, angry anonymous message board guy? Are you never ever nerver nenver neva-neva-nen going to hire them or buy their products again?
"Free market BS". Because I think a $9.99 mail client sale doesn't make a developer your indentured servant.
> You don't? You don't get to abandon your users? Not without repercussions?
No, you don't. Was there any purpose to asking that three times besides to emphasize that it should be read in the most condescending way possible?
> What repercussions would those be, angry anonymous message board guy?
My name is Ross Woodruff, I live in Toronto, Ontario. I use my shinratdr name everywhere. I don't try to be anonymous, I'm not, and I don't see what that has to do with anything.
> Are you never ever nerver nenver neva-neva-nen going to hire them or buy their products again?
Basically. You can characterize me as a stubborn child all you want (really solid argument tactic there BTW), I think abandoning users is a crappy thing to do. I also don't think I'm the only one who supported them with this opinion.
> Because I think a $9.99 mail client sale doesn't make a developer your indentured servant.
No because it has no bearing in reality. Your users don't care and aren't going to be understanding that you abandoned them. The theories you espouse are just things devs can tell themselves to make themselves feel better about doing what is, in essence, a really crappy thing to their users.
They don't change the reality. Likewise, users being mad at you doesn't equal indentured servitude. The only thing that defines indentured servitude is your ability to leave. They left. Is anyone demanding they return and continue the app? No. We're just making it known we support devs that support us.
> I think they'll be fine.
So long as they stay in the corporate world from now on. Should they switch back to a startup, plenty of users will hear "from the Sparrow team" in the future and avoid the product because they can't trust it will be available & useful for them in them when they need it.
They sold out their reputation in the iOS & OS X software world for jobs at Google. I hope that you're right and it was worth it. From what we've seen in the past, that won't be the case. Most startup types abandon those jobs within a couple years and are back to independent development right away. They might not find the user community so welcoming the second time around.
> So long as they stay in the corporate world from now on. Should they switch back to a startup, plenty of users will hear "from the Sparrow team" in the future and avoid the product because they can't trust it will be available & useful for them in them when they need it.
> They sold out their reputation in the iOS & OS X software world for jobs at Google. I hope that you're right and it was worth it. From what we've seen in the past, that won't be the case. Most startup types abandon those jobs within a couple years and are back to independent development right away. They might not find the user community so welcoming the second time around.
Oh please. If they quit their Google jobs and come out with more software that is better than anything currently doing the same task it will sell like hot cakes. No one will care that a couple years ago the same people sold awesome software for really cheap and lots of people used it.
> No one will care that a couple years ago the same people sold awesome software for really cheap and lots of people used it.
People remember when you screw up their workflow. Devs love to ignore that but it's true. The price, at least after the purchase is complete, is near irrelevant. I paid $10 for a Better Finder Rename and they've been around for decades. I paid $10 for HyperDock, I paid $15 for SoundStudio. $10 for Printopia. None of them have abandoned their app.
You disagree and think it's an over the top reaction. That's fine. It also makes it blindingly obvious that you're a dev first and a user second. As a user first, especially an OS X user, I only support devs that support me. Not worth getting used to a new program otherwise.
Fair enough but it's not like it was some once-in-a-lifetime buyout, it was $25 million and it was for talent not the app. Did the VCs really make that much off this sale?
> You bought the app in its current state for $10.
I bought many apps on my system for around $10-$20. Some of them have been around for decades. The cost is near irrelevant. If you altered your workflow to incorporate the app, you invested in it.
They abandoned the product, and as such abandoned their users. Devs are welcome to write out long lists of excuses as to why this is incorrect. Doesn't change how their abandoned customers feel about what they did. If anything it just makes it worse.
> new features is nice but not something you are entitled to.
Who is talking about entitlement? I don't think I deserve it innately. I just want it because other companies can provide it. If this group considers an app lifespan of over a year and a half to be "entitlement" then I won't be supporting them anymore. I'll take that money to a dev that just considers supporting their customers part of the deal instead of a fringe benefit.
I'm also not looking for free new features, I just want the app to have a future. If that involves a price increase or paid upgrades I'm on board. The $10 is negligible. The time spent unlearning that app and relearning a new one isn't.
Yeah we got screwed. They just dropped the app. They are promising "big fixes" but that's about it. Lovely.
This is the bad side of "trusting" startups and their apps. Pisses me off. I mean (to all you startup guys out there), if you have no intention of continuing your work, AT LEAST OPEN SOURCE THE CODE so some of us can jump in and maintain it!
If the current version basically does the job that it's supposed to, then how did you get screwed? It's not like you spent hundreds of dollars on the app. The Mac version is only $10 for crying out loud.
>> No more updates, it could stop working anytime (like next week) when there is a new OS release.
That does not jive with the Sparrow Team's messaging on the iTunes and Mac app stores that "there will be no new features released for the Sparrow apps, other than minor maintenance and bug fixes".
That would be a separate solution. If you did that, you could feel free to upgrade your OS, since you wouldn't need Sparrow, in which case, what are we talking about?
I would argue that just open sourcing the code could have even worse effects on the app/brand than a simple end of life. Clearly if the app in question had a good following, it was a decent product created by folks who knew what they were doing. By open sourcing it, anyone could jump in and that anyone may not be qualified to make the best product decisions. Maybe I'm just being too sentimental here, but I'd rather the product go out in a nice light rather than watching it slowly creep downhill to death.
From what I recall Sparrow was essentially a spin-off from R&D work done at Apple that Apple did not want to incorporate into their mail app... the dev went off and partnered with a designer to build a polished product from that work. An acquisition by Apple would be an interesting turnabout.
Our sources also noted that Google isn't ruling out native Gmail clients for platforms beyond iOS and Android, and emphasized that Google wants to bring polish, "beauty," and ease of use to all of its Gmail experiences across platforms (a suggestion that a native client for Mac and PC might be in the offing). Sparrow, apparently, is a way to get there.
I think Google was the best destination for Sparrow simply because sparrow was created for Gmail. If Apple acquired it then it's focus would be iCloud email which is garbage.
If I read the grandparent correctly(and I do agree), the best destination is not Apple, Google or anyone for that matter but rather to stay in the game as an independent.
Where are the small companies that are building for sustainment? All of these product disappearances do have a long-term effect of causing users to hesitate before signing up to use your offering.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Especially in the case of a product that had revenue/customers, I can't see why you'd want to quit just to go get a job. Sure you'll make some money and your work may have a larger scope to impact, but why not be known as that awesome company that makes awesome things?
If my memory serves me right, a startup that builds apps to improve the experience of a pre-existing service doesn't stay for long as an awesome company that makes awesome things. It usually either plateaus out or gets gobbled up eventually.
I disagree with this romanticism that a company should always be built for sustainment. A small company has only two ways of being successful - either disrupt and be radically different or fill in a piece of the puzzle that a bigger company has not achieved. If you look at the nature of the product the Sparrow team developed - an iOS/Mac client - it wasn't radical. So being gobbled up by an appropriate bigger company is natural course for that startup.
So I should read this as all of the small business owners in the world should either just give up or strive to be acquired by ACME corp? I think we have a very different understanding of the word "successful."
Camera and mail apps don't need to be platform-neutral simply because the content and output of those apps are platform-neutral themselves. Mail apps push and pull apps from servers which can be accessed from other outlets/apps. As for camera apps, as long as they are saving a local copy (like Camera roll), other apps will still be able to access those photos. So yes, convenient form of sharing like direct export-from-app may be lost but the real output would still be platform-neutral.
I think it might be a good destination for the Sparrow creators, but this is not the best outcome for those of us who are Sparrow users.
I agree iCloud mail is garbage, but frankly so is Gmail.
The sentiment that it would be better if Apple had bought it, I think, is more of a wish that some of Sparrow's awesome would rub off on the standard iOS mail client, since it is a similar app for the same platform.
All these aquisitions are more insidious, they are being done by the big players to stifle diversity in the market and continue to solidify their leads on online services under the guise of talent acquisition to better their companies - rather its an effort to prevent that talent from building something that would be a detriment to their positions.
It baffles my mind that anyone would fall for all these companies being altruistic.
This isn't as simple and one dimensional as calling a company "evil" - this is about the long term.
Startups in the valley are getting acquired earlier and earlier in their existence as google and Facebook and eventually overlap in their services and audience appeal.
The acquiring of the teams is defensive in that they take that team and their IP etc off the market from their competition. It is offensive in that it squashes any possibility that whatever service it was the startup had would compete for their similar service.
In cases like instagram, it was an obvious choice for Facebook as Facebook is the largest picture sharing service which also wraps all sorts of meta data around the users who are viewing those pics.
Thus, with instagrams reach it fractures attention from facebooks services/user. By acquiring them and ultimately layering the instagram features into facebooks pic offering the attention is not diverted from Facebook.
Attention is the resource that social services are harvesting from their users and monetizing.
If you're not looking at it from this perspective, then I don't believe your critically thinking about what it is that the Internet is, or how to build something that will last.
Companies that provide features, utility and services that keep the attention of users (especially when providing no physical product) are those that will have longevity.
So, capturing those that would build things that direct user attention away from your product is critical to these huge companies.
> To bigger companies: chill out with the "acquihires."
Easy for someone to say whom doesn't run the M&A and Strategy department for a multi-nation corporate conglomerate engaged in one of the most competitive spaces for talent acquisition and retention.
You're right, I don't. But at this point, it seems like gluttony. Eating for the sake of eating. Sure they'll gain some value out of the team and their insights into email, but is their contribution going to be more so within Google than outside of it?
At $10 a license I'm going to guess that the Sparrow guys weren't rolling in Ferrarri's and Brazillian models.
It's quite possible that this was actually a way for them to continue doing something they love (coding) without financial stress hanging over their heads.
> * If anything, do what Facebook did with Instagram and keep them working on their product.*
As far as I recall, Instagram kept working on their product because the US Government required them to pending regulatory approval -- which could come as soon as August:
Agreed. Sparrow had finally evolved enough to be a really good, fast and practical email client. I was waiting eagerly to see what else they would add to the product to make it better.
This is really quite frustrating. At least spin off the product, or make some sort of deal to devote some devel time to it.
It has many uses that Gmail proper can't satisfactorily provide, such as offline usage and super-fast switching among multiple accounts.
Sounds to me like there is still a market for non-shitty client mail apps. The Sparrow guys obviously eyed Google as an acquisition strategy, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was their plan all along.
That said, if someone fills the gap Sparrow leaves, assuming they don't fully deliver in the Google Apps experience, there is still a market to be served. At least for the time being.
I imagine the talent will help make Google's products overall better, and that will include a fabulous email client - and all you'll need is Chrome to run them.
Clearly Sparrow was created for Gmail - so it's in Google's best interest to use those guts to enhance the Gmail app and dump the Sparrow app itself eventually. I thought that statement about not adding features is a clear indicator of that. I don't see why one would get frustrated with that or ... feel devastated about it.
A good app has been EOL'd so the developer(s) can go work on a known crappy app. We've gone from "known good" to "hopefully this will work out and the gmail iOS app will be good"... how is that not frustrating if you're a fan of the iOS apps?
As for the Sparrow desktop app, well, obviously Google isn't going to be developing a native desktop app for Gmail...
Sorry, but Gmail isn't a crappy app in my way of thinking. It was the best webmail in 2004, and it still is. You may not like it, but that doesn't extrapolate to crappiness. Although I'm sorry that Sparrow is being end-of-lifed, Gmail is a best of breed web app.
well, obviously Google isn't going to be developing a native desktop app for Gmail.
Sounds like a feature to me, not a bug. Desktop software is going out. Why do you think Mozilla recently canned Thunderbird? I haven't used a desktop mail client since 2005.
I'm inclined to disagree. I use no web apps that I don't have to. We use google apps at work, and I use Mac Mail, Calendar, and Contacts. The web app is a good option if I'm nowhere near my phone or laptop, but it's my absolute last choice.
Ever since the days of Yahoo Mail and Hotmail, I've preferred local desktop clients. I've never enjoyed web apps, and I can't imagine I ever will. It's always a lowest-common-denominator option, and on OS X and iOS, there are too many good desktop clients for the web services I use.
I didn't care for Sparrow, but if Google is going to throw all their work away and put them to work on something else, it's a shame. They did the same thing with the author of Quicksilver, canning that in favour of their own, dramatically inferior, clone. Instead of people switching to Google's version, they generally stayed on Quicksilver until they discovered Alfred, and now his talent and the work he put into it is wasted.
First, I'm pretty sure you can use a keyboard with gmail.
As far as doing work offline, <a href="http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/... Cache</a> has you covered, assuming that by "answer," you mean "compose responses to," because if your software actually lets you respond in those situations then hot damn, I'm totally sold on it, hook us up with a link.
Been there, done that, got bored with playing that game. Why do I want something that only works half the time and shakily (seriously, look up some of the talks on the weirdness of AppCache) when I can have a nice looking, fast and reliable desktop app for whatever it was, $5 or something?
I've been using the AppCache'd Gmail app on iOS and... it's distinctly average compared to the Gmail app on Android. There's a lot web apps can do well, but for Mail I'd much rather have an actual desktop app.
And it's not just composing responses, it's tagging, archiving, deleting and so on with decent, working and reliable sync. The native app on Android rocks, and Sparrow is pretty damn awesome on the Mac.
Desktop software is not going out. See Dropbox. It syncs desktop AND cloud. Does not require constant connectivity. Sparrow enables offline usage of cloud services like gmail, which is huge, as connectivity to the cloud is not a constant.
But as you pointed out, it's desktop and cloud. It's not strictly desktop software. The special sauce is in the cloud, that's what makes Dropbox unique.
I don't understand this assertion that desktop software is going out. My desktop mail client is almost completely superior as a single unified place to read all my mail over various different services to log into.
> As for the Sparrow desktop app, well, obviously Google isn't going to be developing a native desktop app for Gmail...
Why not? Why would they acqui-hire a team who have already built an amazing desktop mail app and not release one of their own? Is the idea that Google may simply rebrand Sparrow to "GMail Desktop" so completely out of the realm of possibility?
Sure, maybe they want the developers to work on other projects, but when their specialty is creating OS X desktop software (it's a lot different than webapp developement), it seems counterintuitive to completely nix this idea as feasible.
The entire 'mission' of the company was supposed to be providing a decent Mac/iOS client for Gmail. Now they're cancelling the product and working within Google? I don't see any reason to believe Google will find religion and release a decent Mac/iOS client when as a company they're obsessed with pushing web apps over native apps. If they wanted a decent Gmail client on iOS they should have cancelled their own app and just rebranded Sparrow.
If the entire mission of the company was to make a Gmail-only mail client, why did they allow the use of other IMAP services? They should have stuck with Gmail only if that was their true mission.
To add value and broaden the appeal. The first version of Sparrow for Mac only supported Gmail. Even after adding IMAP, there was no reason anyone who didn't use Gmail would buy Sparrow, because everything it did differently from the standard Mac Mail app was oriented around Gmail.
Nonsense. I've been using Sparrow as my primary email client and I don't use GMail. I like the GMail-esque concept of archiving items out of your inbox and ultimately aiming for inbox zero. It works on third-party IMAP just as it does on GMail.
The primary good thing about Sparrow for the Mac is the simplicity and lack of bloat compared to Mail.app. Lack of bloat is nice regardless of what mail server you use.
Well devastated is (hopefully) overstating the matter, but it certainly is frustrating to see an app you use every day -- one not yet perfect, but already the best email client on iOS (or any phone OS) -- get discontinued.
Sparrow was indeed originally created for gmail, but what it is today is the very best standard IMAP mail client you can get on a phone.
Unfortunately, it won't be getting any better, though.
Actually, this is a counterpoint. There was a period of time where Lookout was unavailable, but then it was incorporated into Outlook proper. The search in Outlook 2010 is very fast.
To bigger companies: chill out with the "acquihires." If anything, do what Facebook did with Instagram and keep them working on their product. It would be awesome to see the guts of Sparrow used in a Google branded Gmail client or similar (hopefully that happens, but I'm reluctant based on this statement).