3 ms·

Can you name a single business that doesn’t depend on dozens of other companies to stay in operation? Like, if AWS decided to ban someone, would you say “I’m ju

Can you name a single business that doesn’t depend on dozens of other companies to stay in operation? Like, if AWS decided to ban someone, would you say “I’m just struggling to be sympathetic with the business model”?

jdminhbg 4y ago
The difference is that my business that depends on AWS pays for the service, and big businesses that depend on AWS have contracts about support and payment.
- paxys 4y ago
  Every single one of those contracts has fine print that says that Amazon/Google/Microsoft can revoke service and end their relationship with you whenever they want.
  - jdminhbg 4y ago
    But it does in fact help to be paying them. There was nothing in this arrangement for Twitter at all.
    - mcbits 4y ago
      The value for Twitter depends on who uses/used the client, what value they were providing to Twitter, and whether they'll stick around to continue providing that value.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      Why do you think that it helps to be paying? What would prevent Twitter from doing the exact same thing in that scenario?
      - jdminhbg 4y ago
        If Twitter was making money on third-party apps instead of losing money, they’d be less likely to shut them off.
        jakelazaroff 4y ago
        Paying for something doesn’t mean it’s profitable (or that it’s profitable enough).
  - SteveNuts 4y ago
    Sure but you can restore your backups somewhere else if absolutely necessary
- qup 4y ago
  No, the difference is you can sub in another provider for AWS. You can't sub in another Twitter for TweetBot.
  - jdminhbg 4y ago
    Of course you can, they’re working on a Mastodon client right now.
    - kingofpandora 4y ago
      That's a different product. There's no alternative for a Twitter client blocked from Twitter's API. (This is not a value judgement of Mastodon vs Twitter)
- slg 4y ago
  There is an implied social contract that comes along with even free services that a company won't make a change like this effective immediately and won't make a change like this with zero communication. Part of Musk's approach to leading Twitter is simply ignoring these type of social and in some cases even legal obligations to others. If this incident truly represents Twitter's change in approach to third-party clients, that change in policy is being executed in the most petty and malicious way it could be done.
  - catach 4y ago
    > executed in the most petty and malicious way it could be done. This is not to excuse Twitter's actual behavior, which is clearly shitty. But: More petty and malicious would be to shut off access, then contact devs and promise that access would be restored if they just make these tiny changes to their app, and also sign this NDA forbidding discussion of the process. Then string along for a week or a month demanding just one more tiny change after change. Then ghost.
- lost_tourist 4y ago
  And you think that AWS won't just rip the rug out from under you someday when you're no longer profitable for them or "shifting to a different focus" happens?
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    Also, AWS routinely makes a bunch of companies obsolete at each re:Invent conference
harrymit907 4y ago
Are you sure depending on AWS and depending on Twitter are both the same?
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Are you sure that’s what I said?
dylan604 4y ago
Can you be more honest with the discussion and realize that you're being deliberately obtuse to the conversation? Building a company that absolutely has no alternatives to provide THE thing that makes your business, then the phrase "all your eggs in one basket" applies here. That has not been good business strategy 101 for as long as I've paid attention (and probably a long long time before that too).
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Okay? The fact is that plenty of businesses are in that position for one reason or another, and I think it’s pretty callous to withhold sympathy on that basis.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Okay, what was the back up plan? Nothing? none? really? nope, no sympathy. Oh, you had a plan, but you couldn't really get it up in time, well, that's some learning pain. I'll cry a tear in some beer with you. Tried to make a plan, realized there was no alternatives, but carried on anyways? That's very brave (ahem, read not smart) of you, but if you're a sole proprietor with no employees depending on you, then we can also share a beer of how to be smarter in the next venture. Got employees that are now hat in hand because of your "bravery"? Nope, again, no sympathy for you, but I'll be at the bar with your laid off employees burning you in effigy.

jdminhbg 4y ago

The difference is that my business that depends on AWS pays for the service, and big businesses that depend on AWS have contracts about support and payment.

paxys 4y ago
Every single one of those contracts has fine print that says that Amazon/Google/Microsoft can revoke service and end their relationship with you whenever they want.
- jdminhbg 4y ago
  But it does in fact help to be paying them. There was nothing in this arrangement for Twitter at all.
  - mcbits 4y ago
    The value for Twitter depends on who uses/used the client, what value they were providing to Twitter, and whether they'll stick around to continue providing that value.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Why do you think that it helps to be paying? What would prevent Twitter from doing the exact same thing in that scenario?
    - jdminhbg 4y ago
      If Twitter was making money on third-party apps instead of losing money, they’d be less likely to shut them off.
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
        Paying for something doesn’t mean it’s profitable (or that it’s profitable enough).
- SteveNuts 4y ago
  Sure but you can restore your backups somewhere else if absolutely necessary
qup 4y ago
No, the difference is you can sub in another provider for AWS. You can't sub in another Twitter for TweetBot.
- jdminhbg 4y ago
  Of course you can, they’re working on a Mastodon client right now.
  - kingofpandora 4y ago
    That's a different product. There's no alternative for a Twitter client blocked from Twitter's API. (This is not a value judgement of Mastodon vs Twitter)
slg 4y ago
There is an implied social contract that comes along with even free services that a company won't make a change like this effective immediately and won't make a change like this with zero communication. Part of Musk's approach to leading Twitter is simply ignoring these type of social and in some cases even legal obligations to others. If this incident truly represents Twitter's change in approach to third-party clients, that change in policy is being executed in the most petty and malicious way it could be done.
- catach 4y ago
  > executed in the most petty and malicious way it could be done. This is not to excuse Twitter's actual behavior, which is clearly shitty. But: More petty and malicious would be to shut off access, then contact devs and promise that access would be restored if they just make these tiny changes to their app, and also sign this NDA forbidding discussion of the process. Then string along for a week or a month demanding just one more tiny change after change. Then ghost.
lost_tourist 4y ago
And you think that AWS won't just rip the rug out from under you someday when you're no longer profitable for them or "shifting to a different focus" happens?
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Also, AWS routinely makes a bunch of companies obsolete at each re:Invent conference

harrymit907 4y ago

Are you sure depending on AWS and depending on Twitter are both the same?

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Are you sure that’s what I said?

dylan604 4y ago

Can you be more honest with the discussion and realize that you're being deliberately obtuse to the conversation? Building a company that absolutely has no alternatives to provide THE thing that makes your business, then the phrase "all your eggs in one basket" applies here. That has not been good business strategy 101 for as long as I've paid attention (and probably a long long time before that too).

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Okay? The fact is that plenty of businesses are in that position for one reason or another, and I think it’s pretty callous to withhold sympathy on that basis.
- dylan604 4y ago
  Okay, what was the back up plan? Nothing? none? really? nope, no sympathy. Oh, you had a plan, but you couldn't really get it up in time, well, that's some learning pain. I'll cry a tear in some beer with you. Tried to make a plan, realized there was no alternatives, but carried on anyways? That's very brave (ahem, read not smart) of you, but if you're a sole proprietor with no employees depending on you, then we can also share a beer of how to be smarter in the next venture. Got employees that are now hat in hand because of your "bravery"? Nope, again, no sympathy for you, but I'll be at the bar with your laid off employees burning you in effigy.