As a long-time Cypress user, I'll be honest - the latest update from Cypress in this post is the most chaotic post I've seen in years. Trying to "defend" some actions which shouldn't take place in the first place. Let's dive in into this a bit more.
Also... blocking previous version, like month-two after first blockage? Do it in one batch at least. Have balls to do it, it's part of your statement, that's for "our" good.
As we enter the waters of the Cypress vs. Sorry-Cypress dispute, we start on a trip that necessitates a thorough examination of both technical viewpoints and legal complexities. However, let us be clear from the start: utilizing Cypress' reports under the MIT license is fully within the established conventions of the open-source community, and prohibiting commercial use in places other than "yours" undermines the spirit of it. So we can skip half of the post of Cypress team.
edit: btw... they for quite some time already use name Currents (year or so?), and Sorry-Cypress for self-host dashboard, but Currents is name for hosted by them dashboard solution
Sorry-Cypress, which inappropriately uses our company name in their product
In a world where the term "Cypress" is not registered trademark (as of 8th Nov 2023), how we can talk about "theft" or "misappropriation"? It is time to recognize that their use extends outside the domain of exclusive ownership. In the technology industry, similar names coexist happily, suggesting an unwritten consensus on the vast technological environment.
Instances such as "k3s" (wrapping what Kubernetes does, but make it easier to chew) cheekily nodding at "k8s" (Kubernetes) or the symbiotic relationship between "preact" and "react" demonstrate that coexistence is possible without igniting conflict. Or consider the famous Pizza Hot... oh wait.
When the community surfaced the concern of using our brand name and violating our terms of service, Sorry-Cypress publicly acknowledged the source of confusion. Sorry-Cypress justified their rationale that using our product name benefited from greater "discoverability" because it uses “Cypress” in its name and it enables improved “SEO ranking”.
And that's exactly what they decided to do. They kept the name because there were no further comments or suggestions, even from the Cypress team, to change it. The maintainer could feel like he was in agreement with user who opened the "issue". There was no pressure, no alteration, just a straightforward decision. As promised, a separate brand was later established - Currents. It was explicitly mentioned that this was primarily to address potential trademark concerns (which, as I mentioned earlier, Cypress still lacks), rather than Terms of Service (trademark takes precedence over TOS in this case). He even emphasized that it was initially created as a temporary placeholder, and he doesn't see any issue with changing it - this comment and decision was made two years ago... I'll repeat it in case you missed that...
T W O Y E A R S
Didn't the Cypress team make any effort to communicate with the author(s) about this for two years? Really?
It appears evident that the Cypress team made significant efforts to find a rationale (but not rational) for obstructing the CI processes of numerous companies now. Is the naming of the tool truly the crux of the matter? Or maybe when they've seen users fleeing from them to Currents? Could this not have been addressed through inter-company discussions, or legal proceedings if it's genuinely constituted legal issue? Why burden customers and users with this?
To sum this up: If Cypress' team believes there is a legal issue, going to court is a potential option. However, fighting with their own users is not a long-term solution. Outperforming the competition through innovation and quality should be the goal. If you can't do it, and you block competition through your MIT licensed software... is not a good PR move. Just saying. Stop pretending it's for "good of users". Competition in the market is good for users. Forcing the use of one tool is not. Basics of economics.
While Cypress deserves kudos for pioneering a well-designed dashboard, it's crucial to recognize that being the first doesn't negate others from drawing inspiration and pushing innovation. It's like one car model taking cues from another, both embodying the essence of an automobile but distinct in their design, features, and user experience. Example? Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima. They literally look the same on one side.
(edit: Here was example of Toyota 86 and Subaru BRZ, but apparently they had agreements, so I found other one, who doesn't have one, just use same common base. Thanks motorsport geeks.)
Let's take a hard look at the pricing tactics and layouts of both Cypress Dashboard and Currents Dashboard. It is critical to distinguish between design decisions based on industry best practices and obvious imitation. A sleek, user-friendly pricing structure isn't an imitation - it's a testament of a good design. It is only reasonable for companies in the same industry to use comparable techniques.
Moreover, when two services offer akin functionalities, it's hardly surprising that they might employ parallel terminology. This isn't mimicry—it's adherence to established industry standards.
Currents.dev describes their services as “a drop-in replacement for Cypress Dashboard”, which in our opinion, is a disturbingly similar version of the Cypress Cloud.
No sh*t, both provides dashboard to track e2e tests reports.
We have observed patterns of replicating the user experience, feature release timing, product feature names, marketing language, documentation, and pricing value metrics that go beyond simple derivatives of the work done by Cypress.
Nice, as user of Currents' dashboard... I requested few features there, all were added. You don't have them for sure, as we decided to not use Cypress dashboard, too expensive for what it provide. Also... do you know like... competition? If one company adds something new, in the same field of work of other, then other tries to speed up development and add something similar.
Rather than receiving criticism, Currents deserves praise for openly positioning itself as a more economical option. As mentioned earlier, the act of mocking is considered commonplace. It's ironic how Currents (with its Sorry-Cypress' tool) has now become synonymous with improvement — they've developed a better dashboard. Embodying the phrase "Sorry Cypress, we've enhanced it." sounds fitting. Have you ever heard of effective marketing?
It is standard industry practice to accommodate a wide range of budgets and needs. And Cypress team made nice design to accommodate this. So if Currents wants to claim to be a 'drop-in replacement for Cypress Dashboard' and carve out a niche and cater to a specific demographic... they had managed to provide a more cost-effective option. And they did. That's what's hurting Cypress team the most.
They expressly highlight their independence from the Cypress team (FAQ and landing page on their site), emphasizing their offer of a less expensive dashboard than Cypress Dashboard. Competition is the standard in business; those that are unable to compete often risk obsolescence. Doing this by blocking physically other company sucks.
While we dissect the technical and competitive realms, let's not sidestep the legal battleground. Cypress' strategic choice to engage in the open market discussion, rather than resorting to legal (or inter-company) action, is a tacit admission that this isn't solely a legal wrangle. This approach, while astute from a business standpoint, carries ramifications for users. So better move this to court room, and after decision share with us that you won.
Edit: I have to add something. Small kudos, that they don't hide it's about Currents, and their Sorry-Cypress' tool (and Currents dashboard). At first they said "3rd party plugins" but everyone knew what's poppin'.