There's not a single good reason in this post why Dropbox shouldn't sell to anyone interested in paying, nor are there any reasons stated why Dropbox should open source.
Here's a good reason why Dropbox should never open source: Dropbox can never loose my files. Ever. If they do my trust in them is gone and I go elsewhere.
If Dropbox where to open source and then some dipshit provided a Dropbox based storage solution with a flakey backend, then Dropbox's brand trust is (almost) equally fucked.
"There's not a single good reason in this post why Dropbox shouldn't sell to anyone interested in paying, nor are there any reasons stated why Dropbox should open source."
Sure there is. "I hope they don't" and "I hope they do" respectively, for correct values of "I".
Well, I suppose you could argue about whether that's a "good" reason, but people are still allowed to hope people do things without rigorous analysis of whether or not it is in those people's best interests to do so with cited references to economic theories and the disputes swirling around said theories, yes?
It's a blog post. It's not a bad one, though I'm not sure why it's the #1 link on HN right now since it is literally just one person's "hopes".
The "dipshit" in question won't be naming it dropbox, releasing the code doesn't mean they would be forfeiting the trademark. But yes, Winer really didn't provide a good reason for dropbox not to sell to anyone willing to buy.
Here's a good reason why Dropbox should never open source: Dropbox can never loose my files. Ever. If they do my trust in them is gone and I go elsewhere.
If Dropbox where to open source and then some dipshit provided a Dropbox based storage solution with a flakey backend, then Dropbox's brand trust is (almost) equally fucked.