4 ms·
With their $600k of revenue of course: https://twitter.com/sarthakgh/status/1508794202360004613 https://twitter.com/sarthakgh/status/1508794202360004613 Not fo
by NationalPark 5y ago
With their $600k of revenue of course: https://twitter.com/sarthakgh/status/1508794202360004613 https://twitter.com/sarthakgh/status/1508794202360004613
Not for nothing, there can be a lot of value in simplifying things that could be trivially solved on a small scale by a programmer in an afternoon. A classic Hackernews comment about Dropbox and rsync comes to mind... sure doesn't seem be the case for Fast though.
- Nextgrid 5y agoI suspect the revenue comes from fees that merchants ultimately have to eat, right? If so, here's yet another rent-seeker that the merchants have to deal with, not to mention the potential leverage they get under (Fast could and will raise their fees in the long run). In contrast, a non-rent-seeking form-filler is no threat for merchants and is a win-win for everyone. In fact, it wouldn't even need explicit support from the merchant to begin with, where as Fast needs commitment from the merchant to integrate. I'm kinda happy that their attempt to seek rent on what is essentially form filling went down the drain where such an idea belongs in the first place.