[split] Private company - bad or not? - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Messenger Plus! for Live Messenger (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: WLM Plus! General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+----- Thread: [split] Private company - bad or not? (/showthread.php?tid=94331)
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-06-2010 at 09:59 PM
quote:So, most of us are bad too because we all want to keep our identity or what we own private?
Originally posted by toddy
quote:basically someone bad, otherwise they wouldn't have an issue posting the info
Originally posted by Chrissy
Oh, I see.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Discrate on 04-07-2010 at 01:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SonicSam
quote:Not really. I did a report on a local private company working on energy alternatives (renewable). You'd be surprised on out of all the questions I asked how few they could actually answer because of being a private company.
Originally posted by toddy
quote:basically someone bad, otherwise they wouldn't have an issue posting the info
Originally posted by Chrissy
Oh, I see.
I know of hundreds of private companies where the owner reveals his/hers identity.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Chrissy on 04-07-2010 at 01:54 AM
quote:So being a private company doesn't mean the owner has to be private
A privately held company or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of holders who do not trade the stock publicly on the stock market. Less ambiguous terms for a privately held company are unquoted company and unlisted company.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by blessedguy on 04-07-2010 at 02:06 AM
quote:But it means the owner doesn't need to be publicly known.
Originally posted by Chrissy
So being a private company doesn't mean the owner has to be private
Anyways, I'll understand she mean "S.A."
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-07-2010 at 02:09 AM
quote:true, but it also does not mean it is bad if the owner doesn't want to be known, which is what the issue here is (dixit toddy).
Originally posted by Chrissy
quote:So being a private company doesn't mean the owner has to be private
A privately held company or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of holders who do not trade the stock publicly on the stock market. Less ambiguous terms for a privately held company are unquoted company and unlisted company.
quote:So? There are millions where the owner or invester doesn't want to be known.
Originally posted by Discrate
I know of hundreds of private companies where the owner reveals his/hers identity.
There is nothing wrong in keeping things private; it is nothing bad at all.
That maybe some people don't like it is one thing, but the automatic association of private being bad is again one of those shortsighted assumptions which in practice, in the real world, don't have any ground at all.
RE: RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Discrate on 04-07-2010 at 02:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:So? There are millions where the owner or invester doesn't want to be known.
Originally posted by Discrate
I know of hundreds of private companies where the owner reveals his/hers identity.
There is nothing wrong in keeping things private; it is nothing bad at all.
That you don't like it is one thing, but the association of private being bad is again one of those shortsighted assumptions which in practice, in the real world, don't have any ground at all.
I was just stating that i knew heaps of private companies that revealed who their owner was.
I don't need a lecture on if keeping things private is right/wrong/bad
Also i never said that i didn't like the fact that they were being private and i never said it was bad.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Chrissy on 04-07-2010 at 02:20 AM
quote:Well, Nathalie stated we don't get to know who owns it because it is a private company, not because the owner want to be private.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
true, but it also does not mean it is bad if the owner doesn't want to be known, which is what the issue here is (dixit toddy).
HAS MICROSOFT BOUGHT PLUS!??!?!
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-07-2010 at 02:28 AM
quote:It can mean both things.
Originally posted by Chrissy
quote:Well, Nathalie stated we don't get to know who owns it because it is a private company, not because the owner want to be private.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
true, but it also does not mean it is bad if the owner doesn't want to be known, which is what the issue here is (dixit toddy).
Nevertheless, whatever it is, not wanting to be known != automatically bad, which is what I'm replying on here.
------------
Discrate
No, you didn't explicitly said anything... that's what we are used from you.
Since Toddy made the connection that being private = bad, that was what I replied upon and what the later posts were about. So if you come here stating, right after my post, you know many private companies where the owner is known then either:
A) it was just a plain statement... making it of no relevance at all to what the current discussion is about (private=bad)... If so, my reply of "So?..." was more then rightfull.
B) you are trolling and trying to stir things up without explicitly stating stuff but implying a hell of a lot so you can easily make a reply like you just did making it look like you do nothing wrong and pushing the ball back.
RE: RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Discrate on 04-07-2010 at 02:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Discrate
No, you didn't explicitly said anything... that's what we are used from you.
Since Toddy made the connection that being private = bad, that was what the later posts were about. So if you come here stating you know many private companies where the owner is known then either:
A) it was just a plain statement... making it of no relevance at all to what the current discussion is about... If so, my reply of "So?..." was more then rightfull.
B) you are trolling and trying to stir things up without explicitly stating stuff but implying a hell of a lot so you can easily make a reply like you just did making it look like you do nothing wrong and pushing the ball back.
I simply stated that that i know tons of private companies that reveal who the owner is, nothing more nothing less, now you are turning it into something more then it is (something we all have come to expect from you). You are trying to start an argument and derail the thread.
Please stop.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-07-2010 at 02:43 AM
Sure, you stated that right after my post which corrected Toddy.... So, that was pure coincidence I assume... ok then...
So of course you're complete innocent again and I always start the fights...
EDIT: nice covering up btw.... all of a sudden you now quoted SonicSam so it seems you did absolutely nothing wrong... 
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Discrate on 04-07-2010 at 02:45 AM
All you are trying to do is attack me as usual. My original post was not directed at you and has nothing to do with you, yet you act as if it was.
Stop trolling. stop trying to derail the thread and stop trying to start and argument with me.
P.S As you can see, i quoted sonicsams post. IT WAS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU. And yes, you are the one who's trying to start a fight with me, look, you replied to my post taking it out of context and blowing it out of proportion and trying to put words in my mouth.
P.P.S and yes i did add sonicsams quote in later, because you made the mistake of thinking i am talking to you. 1. I don't even read your posts unless you have quoted me. 2. Just because someone writes a post below yours, doesn't mean it's directed at you. I have stated it wasn't directed at you, you have made the mistake of thinking it was, now you are trying to turn it around on me by saying "oh sure it wasn't directed at me" I don't want nothing to do with you, get over yourself.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-07-2010 at 03:03 AM
quote:It is common logic sense.
Originally posted by toddy
quote:lol at you thinking your opinion is fact again
Originally posted by CookieRevised
after my post which corrected Toddy
A private company where the owner wants to be private is not by definition bad....
Why didn't you answer my question:
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
So, most of us are bad too because we all want to keep our identity or what we own private?
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Chrissy on 04-07-2010 at 03:06 AM
Were not companies are we cookie?
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-07-2010 at 03:08 AM
quote:Doesn't make any difference. And you don't know that some of us own or don't own companies. I mean, some of us do have companies (which is a fact), and some might want to keep their identity private/not revealed as 'owner of' or 'investor in' those companies. Does that make them automatically bad??? I don't think so.
Originally posted by Chrissy
Were not companies are we cookie?
Wether it is a person or a owner/investor of a company (which can still be a person too), it doesn't make any difference in wanting to keep your credentials private.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by toddy on 04-07-2010 at 03:15 AM
quote:because i didn't actually read what you posted, i knew full well that my above statement would be correct.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Why didn't you answer my question
quote:name 1 good reason why the new owner would want to keep it a secret
Originally posted by CookieRevised
A private company where the owner wants to be private is not by definition bad....
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Chrissy on 04-07-2010 at 03:16 AM
No, the context you gave it was asking if people on the forum are bad because they keep there personal identity private. Nothing to do with people on the forum and companies.
Now you are trying to make it sound like you're saying individuals within companies not individuals as actual individuals and nothing else.
I'm not trying to go against you personally or anything but I completely see Discrates' point and you are trying to change things as you post. I guess 3 members are wrong and you are right..
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-07-2010 at 03:36 AM
quote:
lol.... And then you accuse me of being ignorant.
Originally posted by toddy
quote:
because i didn't actually read what you posted, i knew full well that my above statement would be correct.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Why didn't you answer my question
quote:I'm not trying to turn things around Chrissy.
Originally posted by Chrissy
No, the context you gave it was asking if people on the forum are bad because they keep there personal identity private. Nothing to do with people on the forum and companies.
Now you are trying to make it sound like you're saying individuals within companies not individuals as actual individuals and nothing else.
I'm not trying to go against you personally or anything but I completely see Discrates' point and you are trying to change things as you post.
I'm not saying anything about individuals within the company (the workforce so to speak) if you are refering to that. In all my posts I meant the owners, sharholders, or investors. As I said, they can be 'persons' too. And since we are also persons, what is the difference?
As I said, there are people on these forums who own companies. And not everybody might want to reveal what companies they own or in what companies they have invested in. This is their right to do, and that does not make them automatically bad, like Toddy wants to believe.
But even so, some company owners/investors/shareholders want to keep their identities private for the exact same reasons why some individuals on these forums (who don't own anything) want to keep their real identity private. It is exactly the same thing. Somebody owning a company is still an individual too.
quote:When those members state the same thing as Toddy ("owner is basically someone bad, otherwise they wouldn't have an issue posting the info"), then yes, they are wrong.
Originally posted by Chrissy
I guess 3 members are wrong and you are right..
-------
quote:privacy, security, competition, it's non of your business, whatever, etc...
Originally posted by toddy
name 1 good reason why the new owner would want to keep it a secret
same reasons why so many other shareholders and investors in so many other companies are anonymous...
I can ask you the very same thing: Give me one good reason why so many people on these forums don't give their real name, address, or whatever in public....
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Chrissy on 04-07-2010 at 03:17 PM
When talking online, within a forum you don't need to know the person you are talking to, heck it's the internet. However, if you are using a company you want to trust it and know whos service you are using.
Therefore you want to know the owner, and you want to trust the persons service you are using.
If you went into a bank to open an account and there was nothing in there except 1 person representing someone else, claiming his boss will look after your money would you trust him?
If you expect us to use a service, you should expect us to trust the service.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by djdannyp on 04-07-2010 at 03:26 PM
It's fairly common practice for owners remaining private.....hence the term "Private Company".....there's nothing dodgy about it, some people just want to keep their business interests private
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Chrissy on 04-07-2010 at 04:23 PM
quote:Yeah, in your opinion. After all the suspicions and carry ons etc, remaining private is not really a good idea..
Originally posted by djdannyp
It's fairly common practice for owners remaining private.....hence the term "Private Company".....there's nothing dodgy about it, some people just want to keep their business interests private
If it's not a big deal we should be told.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Lou on 04-07-2010 at 06:01 PM
quote:or.... it's none of your business. There are people in charge that you can contact, like Patchou, who you should already trust. If that's an issue, nobody is stopping you from leaving.
Originally posted by Chrissy
quote:Yeah, in your opinion. After all the suspicions and carry ons etc, remaining private is not really a good idea..
Originally posted by djdannyp
It's fairly common practice for owners remaining private.....hence the term "Private Company".....there's nothing dodgy about it, some people just want to keep their business interests private
If it's not a big deal we should be told.
If you don't understand basic business practices, just stfu, or at least try to understand. The least you could do is not be rude about it (and no Chrissy, this isn't meant to be directed at you, or anyone else, it's in general).
Just because some of you don't agree about whether they give the owner's names or not doesn't make it bad (seriously. It might seem bad to you, but it doesn't affect the company in a negative way other than you bashing on it).
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Chrissy on 04-07-2010 at 06:29 PM
I don't think it's bad, I just think it's dodgy in the position plus is currently in.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by toddy on 04-07-2010 at 06:30 PM
quote:because people have nothing to gain (and a lot of lose) by telling this information to people. Granted for businesses there still could be a lot to lose (or hide) but they're is a lot to gain by sharing this information.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
I can ask you the very same thing: Give me one good reason why so many people on these forums don't give their real name, address, or whatever in public....
anyone who wants to keep secret in business is doing it to hide, whether its from the tax-man, family/friends, the clients, to save face, etc is for you to decide
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-07-2010 at 07:52 PM
quote:Gain what? The trust of a few very sceptical people? And then what? For the bussiness itself it wouldn't gain anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if you knew the name(s), you would still be sceptical towards Yuna, no matter what.
Originally posted by toddy
because people have nothing to gain (and a lot of lose) by telling this information to people. Granted for businesses there still could be a lot to lose (or hide) but they're is a lot to gain by sharing this information.
And tbh, I don't think the owner of such a bussiness lays awake at night thinking about those few souls who don't trust Yuna. As djdannyp, Lou and others have said, it's none of our business and it shouldn't matter much as you already know people who are in charge which you can trust (like Patchou). Who the owner is doesn't realy matter if you trust the judgement of people like Patchou. He sure isn't going into business with a 'Bin Laden'.
If he starts to shout that all hell is braking loose, then yes, you would have a point and a good case to mistrust the stuff. Otherwise not.
Also, to give an answer on Chrissy's reply about that bank example etc. I bet many of you (us) don't even know like 10% of the owners/investors/shareholders of all the companies you come across in your daily life. Does that mean you mistrust every single company you come across? I bet not... If so, then sorry, but then you lead a very paranoid/sceptical/poor life. And are all those companies bad because they don't want to reveal such info to you? I don't think so.
quote:You left out a whole lot of other perfectly valid reasons...
Originally posted by toddy
anyone who wants to keep secret in business is doing it to hide, whether its from the tax-man, family/friends, the clients, to save face, etc is for you to decide
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Chrissy on 04-07-2010 at 07:58 PM
quote:Don't judge me.. your opinion is not fact, just because your opinion is different it doesn't mean I'm paranoid or I have a poor life.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
If so, then sorry, but then you lead a very paranoid/sceptical/poor life.
Even if I do want to be paranoid, it's up to me. As you've said above some minorities shouldn't judge or decide what's right and wrong.
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by toddy on 04-07-2010 at 08:16 PM
quote:forgive me if i'm wrong, but didn't he sign contracts saying he wouldn't talk, i'm sure they'll include saying anything bad about the new bosses.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
If he starts to shout that all hell is braking loose, then yes, you would have a point and a good case to mistrust the stuff. Otherwise not.
quote:you mean the valid reason you failed to come up when i asked the question? lol
Originally posted by CookieRevised
You left out a whole lot of other perfectly valid reasons...
feel free to have another attempt at answering "name 1 good reason why the new owner would want to keep it a secret"
lets face it, even the most secretive of owners would be happy to put out "we are just a group of investors/bankers/ex-staff/IT technicians/etc" we're as the official response here is "this sort of information isn't available"
RE: RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-07-2010 at 09:44 PM
quote:don't quote me out of context so you can reply with "your opinion is not fact".
Originally posted by Chrissy
quote:Don't judge me.. your opinion is not fact, just because your opinion is different it doesn't mean I'm paranoid or I have a poor life.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
If so, then sorry, but then you lead a very paranoid/sceptical/poor life.
Even if I do want to be paranoid, it's up to me. As you've said above some minorities shouldn't judge or decide what's right and wrong.
My post is just as much 'fact' (mind the quotes) as yours is... Learn the meaning of fact and the meaning of opinion.
I am not the one here who is constantly stating that everything I say is fact! You (and others) are constantly putting that in my mouth and reading my posts as such, that is a big difference! If anyone else says the same thing, you would probably not reply with something like "your opinion is not fact".
Let me quote myself again:
quote:Everything bold has clearly nothing todo with 'fact' but everything todo with a train of thoughts and association of ideas.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Also, to give an answer on Chrissy's reply about that bank example etc. I bet many of you (us) don't even know like 10% of the owners/investors/shareholders of all the companies you come across in your daily life. Does that mean you mistrust every single company you come across? I bet not... If so, then sorry, but then you lead a very paranoid/sceptical/poor life. And are all those companies bad because they don't want to reveal such info to you? I don't think so.
And to state a real fact this time: the minories are the ones who think that keeping such info private (for such companies that is) is bad. As people have said before, it is common practice to do this in business (in many countries there are even laws and acts which specifically regulate such stuff). As such it's the majorities which don't have any problems with that.
2) So let me connect the dots again, and go back to my previous post
If you agree that private=bad in this case, then you must also think this for all the other companies you come across in daily life like I described in my previous post, no? That is pure logic (A=B, B=C, so A=C). And wouldn't that be a poor way of living then, constantly mistrusting everything? I think so.
If you don't think the same for all the other companies you come across, then you must be judging Yuna with double standards... And if that would be the case, I'd like to know why....
--------------------
quote:There is a massive difference between saying something bad about the bosses and speaking out when stuff goes wrong.
Originally posted by toddy
quote:forgive me if i'm wrong, but didn't he sign contracts saying he wouldn't talk, i'm sure they'll include saying anything bad about the new bosses.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
If he starts to shout that all hell is braking loose, then yes, you would have a point and a good case to mistrust the stuff. Otherwise not.
Like I said before, if stuff goes wrong, Patchou would surely speak out. In fact, he already did that once... and the result was for the better... and that is fact (not because I said so, but because you and everybody else can read about that in older threads).
quote:I mean all the, just as much valid, reasons I gave when answering your question and all the other (non-paranoid, but real life) reasons other people have already given in this thread. That you don't like them and bluntly ignore them is your problem.
Originally posted by toddy
quote:you mean the valid reason you failed to come up when i asked the question? lol
Originally posted by CookieRevised
You left out a whole lot of other perfectly valid reasons...
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by toddy on 04-07-2010 at 10:09 PM
quote:so patchou spoke out in public, i think not! yes he may have spoken to his boss, but he didn't come here until he was told he was aloud!
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Like I said before, if stuff goes wrong, Patchou would surely speak out. In fact, he already did that once... and the result was for the better... and that is fact (not because I said so, but because you and everybody else can read about that in older threads).
so what happens when boss tells him to take a walk, really think patchou is gonna risk a law suit.....
quote:no i didn't ignore them, i just though your reason are shit, and as i ask for valid reasons you didn't answer in my books. the excuses you get are just that, excuses.
Originally posted by CookieRevised
I mean all the, just as much valid, reasons I gave when answering your question and all the other (non-paranoid, but real life) reasons other people have already given in this thread. That you don't like them and bluntly ignore them is your problem.
funny how you ignored the last part of my post
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-07-2010 at 10:13 PM
EDIT:
quote:
Maybe because that was already replied upon multiple times before by me and others. So, what do I need to do? Repeat everything once again so then you can state something like "All you can do is repeating and making pages of posts"... I think not...
Originally posted by toddy
funny how you ignored the last part of my post
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Apatik on 04-07-2010 at 10:16 PM
I say T&T.
![[Image: bobblespam.gif]](http://shoutbox.menthix.net/images/smilies/bobblespam.gif)
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Chrissy on 04-07-2010 at 10:32 PM
quote:FAIL!
Originally posted by CookieRevised
EDIT:
quote:Maybe because that was already replied upon multiple times before by me and others. So, what do I need to do? Repeat everything once again so then you can state something like "All you can do is repeating and making pages of posts"... I think not...
Originally posted by CookieRevised
funny how you ignored the last part of my post
---
Anyway, why don't we just ask why it's a private company?
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by CookieRevised on 04-07-2010 at 10:39 PM
quote:Because it is a small company, doesn't have public shares to trade, less financial risks, not yet enough capital to go public, because it has some advantages over a public company, like a hell of a lot less bureacracy, etc, etc... many perfectly good reasons to choose from...
Originally posted by Chrissy
Anyway, why don't we just ask why it's a private company?
http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/cbr/publicvprivate.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company
RE: Community Liaison - clarification by Chrissy on 04-07-2010 at 11:49 PM
quote:Really, it could be because the owner id know to be a scamer or something? Cause really, you don't know for sure cookie do you?
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:Because it is a small company, doesn't have public shares to trade, less financial risks, not yet enough capital to go public, because it has some advantages over a public company, like a hell of a lot less bureacracy, etc, etc... many perfectly good reasons to choose from...
Originally posted by Chrissy
Anyway, why don't we just ask why it's a private company?
http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/cbr/publicvprivate.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not? by Chrono on 04-07-2010 at 11:55 PM
cookie needs to learn when to avoid the trolling 
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not? by Kafman on 04-08-2010 at 12:22 AM
quote:Just imagine cookie at 4chan trying to argue in /b/ or /v/
Originally posted by Chrono
cookie needs to learn when to avoid the trolling
...
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not? by djdannyp on 04-08-2010 at 01:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Chrissy
quote:Really, it could be because the owner id know to be a scamer or something? Cause really, you don't know for sure cookie do you?
Originally posted by CookieRevised
quote:Because it is a small company, doesn't have public shares to trade, less financial risks, not yet enough capital to go public, because it has some advantages over a public company, like a hell of a lot less bureacracy, etc, etc... many perfectly good reasons to choose from...
Originally posted by Chrissy
Anyway, why don't we just ask why it's a private company?
http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/cbr/publicvprivate.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company
Why assume the negative when it's perfectly common practice for private companies to exist?
It's nothing unusual, so it's just stupid to speculate that they're staying private for negative reasons.
If you went to Subway and they refused to tell you what was in the sandwich you were buying, then THAT would be a reason to be suspicious.
But a company not telling you all the ins and outs of who owns it and what their [business] interests are.....that's perfectly understandable.
I think all the conspiracy theorists around here need to go back to figuring out 9/11 or something
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not? by Adeptus on 04-08-2010 at 01:11 AM
If you really want to know who owns it, I am sure you can get a very good idea by searching public records and other sources. It will involve some work and expense, but the names are certain to be on something out there that can be found.
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not? by Chrissy on 04-08-2010 at 01:59 AM
The business information is made publicly on-line
Freedom of information act in canada?
RE: [split] Private company - bad or not? by Adeptus on 04-08-2010 at 02:47 AM
I suppose I should also have pointed out that the definition of a privately held company isn't "a secret company" and that is why the information is surely out there if you were to look in the right places. We are not talking about the mafia here. All of you deal with similarly structured business every day; every small, most medium sized and some large companies fall in the same category. At the "large" end of the spectrum, there are some telephone companies and airlines; that is less common but still not unseen. The "owners" may not be individuals, but rather venture capital funds.
Given that no loud announcements are being made and taking a guess at the relative value of MsgPlus!, I would speculate that the mystery owners of Yuna Software will remain a mystery even if you manage to track down their names. They will most likely turn out to be small venture capitalists that you may find a few other references to, throwing money at some things, probably not even computer and software related. I doubt it will be anything exciting.
P.S. One thing is for certain though -- whenever somebody purchases or invests in a product, they are expecting to make money. That leads to rather simple math: if Patchou thought it was a good deal, he got more than he would make in a few years, upfront, and whoever they are, they think they can make more off it in the same period. I can't speculate on what the changes will be, but I expect how the thing is paid for will change in near future. Perhaps it will be a different "sponsor", perhaps it won't be optional, perhaps there will be a sponsored freeware and registered shareware mode -- whichever it is, I expect a change isn't far away.