Independent from whether the original change is good or bad, so much of what's wrong with Open Source is people trying to work against each other instead of together...

But yeah, usually those are illegal to be sold.

That's in itself a really simple system and doesn't rely on a single third party, but obviously comes with the ownership issue (unless when pinning a specific commit) - in my opinion a good compromise.

I have the feeling that many complaints here are about specific workflows or specific advanced features, but instead of trying to please everyone by doing everything MZLA has built a really nice email client that just works for the majority of its users and now is in a shape where it might even attract new ones.

I totally agree and would say that openly criticising such decisions is important, so that companies are a bit more careful with introducing usecase-breaking changes - including changing their business model in a way that makes it not viable anymore for many users. Such things really make a company seem unreliable, but unfortunately it seems to have become common with the "ship early, break often" mentality especially in the start-up world.

I fully believe that OSM apps already beat it for specific use cases (e.g. Organic Maps for tourism, OSMAnd for cycling & hiking, etc.), and I don't think that being small & open source is a real limit even for an all-purpose maps app, as long as the big players like easy money more than providing features & value to the user, and don't feal threatened by any of the alternatives.

TL;DR: it's good for competition and Google Maps isn't really that good, as long as it's enough to still make loads of money.