Why are people surprised when founders close down a product in a way that maximises their revenue? To play on a quote, "cheap, features and stability - pick any two".
People begging for money online (see those "please donate cash so I can get breast implants" sorts of things from a few years ago and on various sub-reddits) are probably a more honest way to earn money than the start-up cashing out method.
If I donate money for some stranger to get larger breasts, I at least know with certainty I'm being used. Not so with many start-ups.
At least that's how I interpret the guy's rant in the article. And in some respects, I share his view. But in many ways, it's no different than someone ranting about their favorite indie band signing up under the litigious umbrella of the RIAA labels.
Sure, the individual(s) producing the goods need to feed themselves (and feed themselves exceedingly well, according to a poster below), but if you as an individual engage with a group of fans/customers, then you are in fact betraying them to some extent when you change your game out from under them.
Maybe I'm just cynical then, but I take "please use this great app" in much the same way as "please donate cash".
I just assume that anything that hasn't been round for at least a few years is probably unstable in more ways than one. My solution is not to depend on proprietary software for anything absolutely critical in my life.
