@bitcrazed: You seem to be missing the point that Red Gate made a very specific commitment to the developer community when they acquired Reflector. Is a corporate entity somehow entitled to a more lax interpretation of the word "commitment" simply because they suddenly decide that a valuable service to the developer community is worth less than than a juicy new revenue stream?
Of course Red Gate has to make money. But they market several very successful products. I don't think you need to be concerned about their ability to pay their employees.
They are unhappy because the free Reflector didn't turn out to be the loss leader they hoped, so they are instead opting to throw this prior commitment out the window and cash in on a captive user base.
Greg the Marketing Guy's statements notwithstanding, this decision has nothing to do with the cost of maintenance. It's all about an inability to resist the lure of a guaranteed revenue stream.
Had Red Gate ever really looked at this as a commitment to continue to provide this valued and appreciated service to the developer community, they would either continue to fund it as a cost center or release the free version code base to open source and let the community maintain it. But the "commitment" -- like the justifications presented as they now abandon it -- was just marketing spin.
Discussion on:
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
