3 ms·

And if they had a contract, so what? Musk famously does not care about contracts. Note that the only reason he ended up buying Twitter is that Deleware's corpo

And if they had a contract, so what? Musk famously does not care about contracts. Note that the only reason he ended up buying Twitter is that Deleware's corporate courts really don't fuck around and were likely going to force him to buy it pronto despite his attempts to wriggle out. But he'll happily screw over lesser people, as he's doing with various vendors, like Twitter's landlords: https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-landlord-sues-company-unpaid-rent-san-francisco-office-musk-2023-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-landlord-sues-compan... Explain to me how a small software vendor, even with the best contract in the world, is going to force Musk to turn back on their access in a timely enough fashion that they'll still have a business left? And be able to do it for a modest enough amount of money that the ISV will still be turning a profit?

bruce511 4y ago
That wasn't the point of the previous post. Clearly if they did have a contract there would be recourses to take, and yes that won't stop Elon being Elon. The point was that when you build on top of someone else's platform, [1], then you are beholden to their whims. This is a substantial business risk, which has been happening since forever. I sympethize with Tweetbot et al, but this day has been inevitable for some time. They are not the first to suffer this fate in tech, and they won't be the last. [1] I'll add, without paying - ie not being an actual "customer".
- Flockster 4y ago
  The thing is, I can't think of a company, with even a 1/10 the userbase that did not at least announce turning of such a service. These changes impact at the very least the users of Twitter itself. And given the history of Twitter, one can argue that the success was in part due to these third party clients.
- watwut 4y ago
  Afaik they did actually paid some money to twitter.
- wpietri 4y ago
  It opened with "Did the developer have any special agreement or contract", so yes, I think that was the point of the post. I agree that building on other people's platforms is dangerous, but that's true regardless of the contract you have, because contracts only matter to the extent that you can afford to enforce them.

bruce511 4y ago

That wasn't the point of the previous post. Clearly if they did have a contract there would be recourses to take, and yes that won't stop Elon being Elon. The point was that when you build on top of someone else's platform, [1], then you are beholden to their whims. This is a substantial business risk, which has been happening since forever. I sympethize with Tweetbot et al, but this day has been inevitable for some time. They are not the first to suffer this fate in tech, and they won't be the last. [1] I'll add, without paying - ie not being an actual "customer".

Flockster 4y ago
The thing is, I can't think of a company, with even a 1/10 the userbase that did not at least announce turning of such a service. These changes impact at the very least the users of Twitter itself. And given the history of Twitter, one can argue that the success was in part due to these third party clients.
watwut 4y ago
Afaik they did actually paid some money to twitter.
wpietri 4y ago
It opened with "Did the developer have any special agreement or contract", so yes, I think that was the point of the post. I agree that building on other people's platforms is dangerous, but that's true regardless of the contract you have, because contracts only matter to the extent that you can afford to enforce them.