InsanelyMac is for sale

[Swad]

seriously mash, what happened... you used to be cool

Well, I can't break dance... so I've never considered myself that cool. But my coolness hasn't changed in the past 2 years.

 

The digg is interesting read. Some obvious true stuff like how I do wish the main guys (jas, myzar, semthex,...) got rewarded more but also some serious way off stuff like:

flux1:"Best of all is constantly begging for donations as if they were days away from being shut down due to not having any funds"

 

I don't know about anyone else but I've never seen any forum of persuasion being applied here to make us donate. Whoever does does it simply because they randomly want to.

Yeah, I'm not sure where they were going with that. The 3-4 people who venomously posted that junk in the digg thread are guys from the old days of OSx86 (with new names, of course) who are still angry because I wouldn't allow them to have control over the forum (as staff) when they proved they weren't responsible enough to handle it. And then, as if to prove my point, they create fake diggs to whine about "hurt feelings" without presenting any evidence or - gasp - coming to me with their concerns first.

 

There's no sinister side to this forum. Those who would have you believe that have and will continue to have a dislike for me that exceeds all explanation. Some people will hate anyone who is in control when they're not. I think that's what we're seeing now.

[Mebster]

if you must know, im the owner of r-type, the irc network where this place first lived and ive been following it closely ever since.

And now you have 2 posts.

Cool dude. I guess we all just need to take it slow.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure where they were going with that. The 3-4 people who venomously posted that junk in the digg thread are guys from the old days of OSx86 (with new names, of course) who are still angry because I wouldn't allow them to have control over the forum (as staff) when they proved they weren't responsible enough to handle it. And then, as if to prove my point, they create fake diggs to whine about "hurt feelings" without presenting any evidence or - gasp - coming to me with their concerns first.

Interesting.... tell us more. LOL. Jokes. But yeah some of it is really off.

 

EDIT: I'll be awake in 4 hours. See you all then. (I can't believe i stayed up reading all this)...

[Swad]

To all those who say money is the issue, I'd like to lend my voice to support Swad on this. We - the staff - have seen how the money is spent. The site operates at a profit because we couldn't afford to run it at a loss; we wouldn't be here if we did. But the whole business model has been geared only to support the costs and no more; as Swad pointed out we have restricted our advertising and never ventured into the tasteless world of popups and rammed-down-your-throat commercialism that some other sites employ.

 

Believe it or not it costs money to host a site, buy software (has anyone actually bothered to see how much an IPB licence costs?), constantly upgrade severs, pay for bandwidth and maintain things. When you get to our size, you don't just ask some whiz to draw up a logo or write a script, you have to do things properly and that does cost real money. You have legal fees to pay too, and a lawyer never comes cheap. Although the figures look good on paper we cover our costs and not a huge amount more. And please note, with the exception of a small concession to some admin staff who have to be on call to keep the site up and running 24/7, not one of Swad's team has taken a penny from the site. We give our time freely because we love the community and that's how it should be. It's Swad's right to choose a price for his work, but consider this - a realistic price is the best guarantee of dedication from a prospective purchaser. If the site was given away, what incentive would there be for the new owner to make it work? How could we possibly choose from the masses crying "Give it to me! Give it to me!"

 

When Swad told the staff of his plans, my Significant Other and I debated making an offer ourselves. We can't because it's going to be more than we could realistically afford. Besides, neither of us knows the first thing about IPB and we would be stuck - but still responsible - if the site went down. That incidentally is also a big incentive for any new owner to keep the existing staff happy - lose us, and you lose more than the spirit of the site, you lose the working knowledge that keeps it going. We are committed to keeping InsanelyMac here for the community, and Swad will be absolutely certain to choose someone who has everyone's best interests at heart. He'd hate to see it disappear as much as any of us would, if not more so. But at the end of the day, it's his site, it's his intellectual property, and I totally support his right to do with it as he chooses.

 

Thanks, Metrogirl.

[quagmire]

I don't see why you all are getting into such a tizzy over the prospect of Swad making $$$ off of something he owns.

 

YES i know it takes a dedicated community to make a site like this work and you are all amazing, but lets face the facts, whether or not he's made/is making/ or will make money from this site, you all chose to contribute your knowledge freely. You all obviously had the freedom to go elsewhere but you chose this site becasue it was an excellent resource.

 

If you're going to try and burn this "traitor" at the stake for having the inginuity to make a little (or a lot) of money off of your web traffic and devotion to his website (yes I say his because he owns the rights to the domain/servers etc) and not paying you for your contribution (which incidentally was freely given), then perhaps you should go bang on the doors of Google and demand payment for all the searches you've ever done, after all, Google is making millions (dare I say billions??) off of all of us who do searches with their search engine. This is not a bad thing, I applaud Google for their business accumen and sheer genius, more power to them if they can become billionairs while providing us all with the most useful resource since public libraries came into existence.

 

Basically, you should not be giving Swad a hard time for making money off of this site in any way, shape or form. Regardless of the "reasons" behind the startup and operation of this website, it is a GREAT resource to all who come here and be thankful that he cares enough about the community to maintain a decent level of advertisement discression so as to keep us from being overwhelmed by all those wonderful flashing epilepsy triggers.

 

To Swad:

 

Best of luck in your masters program, I really hope you enjoy yourself!! Also, good luck with the sale of InsanelyMac, if I can muster up some funds I may possibly contact you to submit a bid. From one college entrepreneaur to another, congrats on being able to turn a profit on something you love so much!!

 

 

ok.. let the flaming begin!! Haha... no i'm just kidding! I do realize many of you have differing oppinions to what i've just stated and i'm sure I'll hear about it.

[Dragon]

All InsanelyMac members came here by their own will, because it provided a place to talk about things they were interested in (osx86). Mash has devoted a lot of his time to helping this community by maintaining the site, posting messages and participating in most of the conversations between users. He regularly keeps us up to date with what's happening in the OS X world by posting interesting news about a variety of things and devotes a lot of his free time into sharing his opinion and chatting to users. This is the sort of thing that helps a community grow. Without the inspiration coming from InsanelyMac we would have no osx86 or any of the intelligent people contributing to the project. Although most of the people who have helped develop the osx86 community (JaS, Maxxuss and Semthex) deserve a great deal of credit, it was mash who provided us with a place to share information and communicate with each other. Mash started this community and helped it mature and now he is taking back what he sees fit to take.

 

He isn't selling the community, he is selling the right to host the community. But I do think that $75,000 is a lot of money to be making from a forum that's mostly based on user input. I think Swad should maybe think about sharing a percentage of it with some of the people who assisted in getting this forum where it is today. (as a way of showing thanks to his members).

 

Other than that, I think Swad has done an excellent job and has been great support for a growing community. So stop being so harsh on him and show him some respect for what he has done.

 

Dragon

[Sutthipong]

Come on guys, don't let this slide into a pointless debates !!!!

 

This is not the time to talk about who make a quick bucks but it is a time to set the future direction of the community and what we want from it...

 

Please don't flame each other...

[depe]

Who is the owner of the knowledge in the database ?

Anyway thanks for the great place, I hope this knowledge keep safe in the movement.

 

But I am convinced (more every day) that social networks give money only for a few ...

[Swad]

But I do think that $75,000 is a lot of money to be making from a forum that's mostly based on user input. I think Swad should maybe think about sharing a percentage of it with some of the people who assisted in getting this forum where it is today. (as a way of showing thanks to his members).

Like I said previously, $75,000 was just the number I used for the BuyItNow price - it wouldn't surprise me if the final tally is lower than that. At SitePoint, even if someone uses the BIN price, you're not locked into selling it to them (it's better than the eBay system, IMO). Also, I will be giving some of the money to the folks who have helped around here... especially those who haven't asked for donations for their help. (People like Rammjet come to mind... but then these are the same people I would expect to refuse such a gift) But yeah, I'm not keeping it all for myself.

 

This is not the time to talk about who make a quick bucks but it is a time to set the future direction of the community and what we want from it...

I couldn't agree more. That's truly the important issue.

To start that discussion, let me ask this: what are the traits you'd like for me to look for in a successor?

[quagmire]

But I am convinced (more every day) that social networks give money only for a few ...

 

I completely agree... but who cares... we all enjoy those social networks don't we???

 

Come on guys, don't let this slide into a pointless debates !!!!

 

Yes I agree here too.. I just felt like it had to be said... but yes, pointless debates get us nowhere, lets just keep this great community going!!

[Dragon]

To start that discussion, let me ask this: what are the traits you'd like for me to look for in a successor?

 

 

Traits such as dedication and free time to interact with users and enough interest to keep the community alive.

[quagmire]

I think the new owner should be dedicated to expanding ExtremelyMac to new levels and making it an even greater resource for everyone who comes to it. Maybe even branching into new uncharted territory :-)

[mifki]

I think the new owner should be dedicated to expanding ExtremelyMac to new levels and making it an even greater resource for everyone who comes to it. Maybe even branching into new uncharted territory :-)

 

 

Rofl, you dont even know the name of the site x-D

[Swad]

The new guy will not be changing the name to ExtremelyMac.

[quagmire]

LOL... oops... sorry about that, it's been a long day... give a guy a break

 

and no of COURSE I wouldn't want to change the name... just a simple slip up of my dyslexic brain.

[Swad]

Haha, that's alright - I have quite literally spent all day in front of this thread.

[quagmire]

Haha, that's alright - I have quite literally spent all day in front of this thread.

 

hehe... me too... albeit only the later half of the day. A buddy of mine and I are currently working on a way to use the Apple TV as a Myth TV front end... its been between this thread and that project all day

[Swad]

hehe... me too... albeit only the later half of the day. A buddy of mine and I are currently working on a way to use the Apple TV as a Myth TV front end... its been between this thread and that project all day

 

That's awesome - I don't want to get too off-topic, but keep us posted about your progress in the Apple TV forum. That could be very cool.

[quagmire]

I will, I just don't want to post anything there until I have something useful to post. But yea... back to topic

[SDSL]

take care of your master Mr.President

 

and Good luck in you decision

[sev7en]

I am so happy for you Swad but I am a bit sad......... I love this board and you are doing an excellent job. What's in the crystal ball? Mates, what do you think to buy (ourself) the site?

[Bloggerman]

Actually, me thinks this will make you mega rich too man, best of luck to ya i say!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kerching!!

[cat_7]

Hi, I wanted to share my thoughts about selling this site.

 

I named my ramblings: Why selling this site the way it is done, could be seen as immoral.

 

First of all, what is being sold here? I see two items being sold:

 

-Something that can be valued in an absolute sense: The stuff that has actually been bought: the hardware, the domain names, the forum software etc.

What to do with it? Now, I agree that a refund for the investment in the hard and software would be in place if an owner wishes to get rid of it. But even so, questions rise about what the initial plans with buying the stuff were? And who bought it? I’ll try to answer those with an analogy: what if some liked minded people donate money to buy a car for car sharing purposes, with the idea of driving it till it falls apart. Is there then one single owner? Of course there will be one actual owner, as for most things there is no other way to legally organize this. But if the actual owner changes his mind about car sharing, has the car to be sold before the end of the line has arrived? Is there a contract ruling what has to be done in such a case? Most of the time, if one persons wishes to end his/her participation there is some agreement that he/she gets a refund based on the current value of the assets, being put up by the remaining people. Or the whole thing is ended, and the residual value should be divided among donators making the buy possible in the first place.

 

-Something with a relative value: The prospect of making money.

And here the slippery part begins. To my mind, it is difficult to see the difference between right and wrong, or moral and immoral, here. But I’ll give it a try.

If it was never the intention to make any money from this site, besides for keeping the assets mentioned above running, how come that has changed? I think it is mostly due to the fact that if the point has come that circumstances dictate parting with something, one can’t give away a thing that is making money for someone else to reap the fruits, without being reimbursed for the effort. There is a strong feeling of having added something, and that that addition can be valued in hard $$. (Hence the elaborate proof of money-making capabilities)

 

But at the same time, there is a snake in the grass here. The added value can’t be ascribed to one single person in this case. The value comes from the community member’ contributions and interests, small or great. Our community, including the owner of the stuff on which it runs, created the additional value. Now if the owner decides to sell the stuff, including the money making prospect, in my mind at least, this person puts itself outside the community. The community feeling is a great “good” as it is a non-valuable thing, based on trust and a shared mindset, on non-tangible assets. It is not without reason community and communism (as an idea) share a common basic meaning (like it or not).

The current situation comes close to the question of who “owns” the Internet, and I believe it save to assume we all agree that no one, or everyone should own it.

 

So, what this boils down to is simple:

1. Either the owner sells the stuff actually paid for and nothing more. The reasons stated for wanting to sell are perfectly acceptable, even if the distinction between actual and moral ownership (who put up the money in the first place) is dubious. I believe that would keep the owner in the community as everyone clearly sees the necessity of that action. It would keep the owner in the same league the other community members are in and shows community spirit.

2. Or the owner sells the stuff and the money-making prospect. In that case, the owner becomes an entrepreneur, and can no longer be seen as a community member. That is where the immoral part kicks in. The community feels betrayed by the owner of the tools, who suddenly can no longer be seen as an equal. His position has changed. And I dare say that it is mostly a matter of morals if a owner allows him/herself to slide from community member to entrepreneur.

 

Summing up:

The actual owner has some strangle hold on the community because of the ownership of the substratum on which all this runs. The plug could be pulled. But, as stated above, I believe that sense of ownership remains to be seen in perspective. No one is telling the owner he/she can’t leave. But what solution is chosen to dissolve the issue should be a community thing. I agree that it would not be wise to hand the site over to the first one that offers him/her self. It shows a sense of responsibility a respected community member can be expected to have. By choosing the current path, the money- making thing has slipped into the equation and it doesn’t fit. There is no way of being assured of the intentions of a new owner, especially with the current price tag attracting more investors then community lovers. The price paid can't be a measure of quality of ownership.

 

My suggestion:

I would suggest that the solution should be found inside the community, with some member taking the ownership role and paying the current owner till the actual investment has been repaid (I’ll grant that). The owner gets bought out. This way the stick could be carried on without hurting anyone. Is there no one the owner trusts enough to make it work? Is this site revolving around an owner? Is the owner itself irreplaceable? Why not hand it over, and see if the current owner actually was the best owner this site could have? Let the community evolve in ways that are not under your control. That is what communities generally do. Too much talk about strong men and leadership is contrary to community self-determination.

 

Some last remarks:

Let me talk about the clear gains in terms of donations for personal items like computers that came from this, for whatever purpose they are used. I would say those gains are a result of actions of community members that do not believe in communities. They believe in persuading (should I say buying or getting a sense of ownership over) people with money or things. Pay for development, pay for help, pay for being enabled to make money, pay for everything.

 

If everything, in my view this whole thing is not in a community spirit. (with me standing on instable higher moral grounds...)

 

Best wishes,

Cat_7

[sandman32]

Good luck Swad. If it wasn't for this site I would have never got OS X running on my PC, and then I would have never bought my new macbook, and then I wouldn't be as happy as I am now!

 

I don't begrudge you a penny, as I've already gotten much out of it, even as a pretty new user.

[Swad]

Hey cat_7, thanks for the comments.

 

Now, I agree that a refund for the investment in the hard and software would be in place if an owner wishes to get rid of it. But even so, questions rise about what the initial plans with buying the stuff were? And who bought it?

The initial plans were simply to start a website for people to talk about the transition to Intel. If we made money, that was fine, but to be honest we didn't really have any plans in place for the future... we were just playing it by ear. Although I worked with Shuddertrix to initially set up the wiki and forum, all of the domains and server space is in my name. I purchased them from my own pocket, taking on the risk.

 

If it was never the intention to make any money from this site, besides for keeping the assets mentioned above running, how come that has changed?

It hasn't changed. See my comments above - if making money were the priority here, I'd keep the site and stuff it full of ads. However, when it comes to selling the things I purchased (domains, server, site design, etc), if someone is willing to pay me more than what I paid for it (since the value increased), I'll take it.

 

But at the same time, there is a snake in the grass here. The added value can't be ascribed to one single person in this case.

Indeed, I agree. This site is only where it is because of each individual member.

 

1. Either the owner sells the stuff actually paid for and nothing more.

That's exactly what I'm doing here. I'm not selling anything I haven't paid for (and thus taken all the risk of) myself. Would you rather I simply sell it for the price I bought it, regardless of the time and effort I've put into keeping it alive? Would you ask a gardener to sell a tomato for the price of the seed, ignoring the time he put into its growth?

 

2. Or the owner sells the stuff and the money-making prospect. In that case, the owner becomes an entrepreneur, and can no longer be seen as a community member. That is where the immoral part kicks in.

False. First, there's nothing immoral about making money. Is Google immoral for giving a free service to users while making money from others? No, certainly not. We all benefit from their ideas. Also, why does an entrepreneur (ie. someone who makes money on a good idea) suddenly abdicate their position as a community member? It could be argued that JaS and others are entrepreneurs for taking donations to keep up the hacking work they do. Is that immoral?

 

Too much talk about strong men and leadership is contrary to community self-determination.

I wish that were true, but any community, regardless of its function, requires a leader. That's the way human nature works - history has proven it time and time again. The best idea is community in which the people hold a leader accountable and the leader listens to the people.

[cringemaster]

So basically swad, It'll be like you're selling your house, and still living in it without having to pay a mortgage or utility bill.