anon808

At some point her real resume was fresh, and it doesn't sound like she experienced the same level of response then that she received on her fake fresh resume. Of course maybe the insurance industry wasn't hiring as eagerly when her real resume was fresh. Oh well, let's just assume it's experiment error and her conclusions are baseless. There, I feel better.

don't mean to quote from the book of Jobs, but he had a fitting answer:

"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth."

The problem is not the system per se, but the participants. We have a market system where most people are driven by the market, instead of driving the market. Meaning, most people/companies look to the market to see what 'works' and just do that, instead of contributing something new to the marketplace and creating real progress.

is it possible that you are using their usual username?

yahoo is trading a sliver of goodwill from people that can now get their name of choice for incredibly pissed off former users that lost emails they relied on. Just because they havn't logged into them, doesn't mean they weren't using them. EX: i use a yahoo email for an ebay account I regularly use, but because of ebay's messaging I never log into yahoo. If i'm not the only person on earth that does this, there will be bad results from this 'house cleaning'.

The point is email address arent just for getting emails, they're used as identities online.

How horrible and shortsighted. Yahoo is actively inviting ill will and complexity.

My guess is they all got the same template of what they're allowed to say. With something this sensitive the language is very important, especially for public company communications.

The truth comes from the source that wasn't intended to be public.

Sounds like some one (or many) are blowing whistles. A lot of documents leaking.

You do understand it was sold as a one-time payment for perpetual use, not a month to month service. Those are very different expectations, regardless how the math works out.

I'd like to know how breeze customers feel about it.

They don't have to make the customer whole, i'm just saying we shouldn't expect customers to be happy just because they got their money back.

Then they shouldn't promise 'unlimited'. Why not pay as you go. If I pay monthly I expect to have the product for the month. If I pay forever I expect to have the product for forever.

The economics are different, backpack customers I assume still pay to use the service so there's a revenue stream to maintain a small customer base. Breeze customers already paid, so if they kept supporting existing breeze customers they'd be doing it for free (no new breeze money coming in). This is another reason why I never understood the pay once, use forever pricing scheme for saas products, it just doesn't match up with how the product is delivered.

Great point, it does look like a shift in how they're sunseting their products. I agree with David's approach to ta-da list, writeboard, backpack, but not with breeze.

37S already does the whitelist heavy lifting for their other services (esp basecamp) that push tons of emails out.

I think that's exactly right, the transaction pitched to customers is not what it turned out to be, and that's never good, no matter how it's communicated.

I think people are choosing to see this from 37S (or any other software co's) perspective. Fine, whatever 37S's expectations were to begin with didn't work out, so 37S is closing the service. Makes perfect sense, and godspeed, 37S. But the other side of a transaction is a customer that put money, time and effort into this product. Even if 37S gives back the money, the customer isn't made completely whole; I don't think it's illogical to think folks wouldn't be completely happy with this outcome, no matter how great of a job 37S did communicating the closing.

yeah, but the customer didn't want the money, they wanted the service. That's why they gave the money in the first place.

Obviously it's a very good showing that 37S is refunding customers their money, but I wouldn't be completely happy if I were a customer since what I was promised (the service) is no longer being delivered. I would feel a little burned.

Do this often enough, and customer trust is eroded. How many folks are going to think twice before signing up for 37S next new product? I would.

Just because it's political for some people doesn't mean it's political for all. Discounting honest protests by some because others are politically motivated is one-dimensional thinking.

I'd like to rent it, because that's whats actually happening.

I'm uncomfortable with the one-time pricing. This is the second product 37S has released with that pricing scheme (first: basecamp breeze). could be an innovation. i think it creates more ambiguity. if i pay onetime for something I feel like i should own it, not rent it. Still, interesting experiment.

usually folks that talk for minutes without stopping like the sound of their voice.

Marco makes a lot of Steve Jobs comparisons in the write up, genuinely curious, did he work with Steve Jobs?

Not condemning anyone for wanting to sell, simply asking why would I choose to use any product this guy makes when he tells me he'd be willing to "delete all user accounts and data and shut down the entire service forever" if that were a condition of sale. How is that in my best interests as a product user?

Down vote all you want, I'd still like a rational answer.

The goal of a business is no more to make money, than breathing is the goal of a human.

knowing that's how you feel, why would I (or anyone) use anything you make?

> How can you be sure that the data you are submitting is not intercepted? How can I be sure that all my traffic is not running through one government network (because all tor nodes still left are compromised)? How can I be sure that I'm actually submitting my information to the New Yorker in this case as opposed to a government server posing as them?

even if this were the case, how could you be personally identified? worst case is the government gets the document you meant for the new yorker, but you still wouldn't be identifiable (unless your name was on the document etc.). Unless you're saying the government runs the majority of tor nodes so they could track back to your ip?

it's obviously written in that voice for effect, but there is actual thought behind it. comparing google glasses to segway is valid, and probably not far off. only time will tell.

"Bad things don't happen to good people, and good people don't do bad things or associate with bad people."

Evidence please . . . what a one-dimensional statement. It turns out life isn't binary.

I don't get any indication the authors wanted to paint the guy as innocent in any part of the article. I think the point of the article is "does the punishment fit the crime?".

No one is saying the guys isn't responsible, but how responsible, that's what matters.

How about just feeling good for being a human? Tribalism is not a virtue.