6 ms·

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

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