It made me more wary of SaaS businesses with teams and venture capital behind.
In my experience companies with VC money are much more likely to "flip" a business and sell to someone else causing disruption, or bad updates who make the product worse.
I still haven't had any of the subscriptions for products made by indie developers get significantly worse or change significantly.
They keep the lights on, add some features without breaking existing stuff.
If they're in for the lifestyle more than the money, I think they're less likely to sell and more likely to hold and maintain (assuming they're charging enough to make a living).
Yep, sustainable dependencies are a key criteria for us. I'm happy to see OSS with a big community or paid hosting. OTOH, grown wary to see VC-backed (esp. big rounds) or corporate side-projects (esp. at unicorns with high churn in teams + tech, or bigco's with no OSS community governance track records).
Yes, it's doable to replace things after a year or two. But, if a bunch of dependencies have risk, that turns into a rip-and-replace treadmill of negative customer value and burns out a team.
In my experience companies with VC money are much more likely to "flip" a business and sell to someone else causing disruption, or bad updates who make the product worse.
I still haven't had any of the subscriptions for products made by indie developers get significantly worse or change significantly.
They keep the lights on, add some features without breaking existing stuff.
If they're in for the lifestyle more than the money, I think they're less likely to sell and more likely to hold and maintain (assuming they're charging enough to make a living).