4 ms·

My opinion is that these sorts of restrictive moves between companies always winds up being for the worse for the end-users. The motivations can be dressed up

My opinion is that these sorts of restrictive moves between companies always winds up being for the worse for the end-users. The motivations can be dressed up in all sorts of plausible rationalizations. It is all so tiresome.

omgsean 4y ago
I think the motivation here is that Twitter is charging about half a million dollars a year for access to their API when it was previously either free or close to free.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I think the motivation here is that Twitter is charging about half a million dollars a year I've read that the floor is $43k per month but that it can be up to $241k/mo.
marginalia_nu 4y ago
Basically corporate mercantilism.
BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
That's what happens when when you make your free API cost a fortune, and Microsoft has nothing to gain from paying the bill.
- v0idzer0 4y ago
  I doubt they’re worried about the bill. It’s Microsoft. It probably has more to do with him painting them as the evil capitalists who took OpenAI closed source and for profit to achieve world domination. He spoke a lot about this in recent interview.
  - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
    "It's Microsoft" is to me a very naïve explanation. It's how a 9-to-5 employee thinks about capital "oh, they're rich, they can spend on anything and not care". That's not how it works. You don't build a large profitable company if you spend like the spoiled, drunk, drugged out offspring of a billionaire, who has a 10 million dollar weekly allowance, to spend on cars, women, jets and substances. Every decision has to be rational, meaning you are at least break even, ideally above break even. If not financially, at least tactically, strategically, politically, any way at all. Any way at all. They weren't breaking even here, and had no reason to invest in a relationship with a man child driving his $44B investment into the ground, while embarrassing himself every single day. No serious business needs or wants relationship with Twitter anymore. If given a reason to look into it, a tipping point, a drop-that-spills-the-glass reason to exit, they'd exit. And Elon keeps providing excellent, very convincing ones. Such as "you suddenly owe us MILLIONS to use our API, in order to provide a free service to your customers, which mostly works out to our benefit, so your customers can run ads with us." If you're a Microsoft manager, you spend an hour at most thinking and consulting about it, and of course you finally say "lol, no" and quit.
    - v0idzer0 4y ago
      I think your opinion might be overly influenced by your disdain for Musk. This sounds borderline unhinged to me. > It's how a 9-to-5 employee thinks about capital Okay, well, I'm the founder and CTO of a Series C company. > you suddenly owe us MILLIONS to use our API Where did you get this price? Regardless "MILLIONS" is not even something you need C-suite approval for at Microsoft. > in order to provide a free service to your customers The service is not free.
blibble 4y ago
the only person who loses out from fewer ads on twitter is Musk
- a3n 4y ago
  I don't know what I'm talking about, but ... Has Musk actually paid all the money for his essentially (self) forced purchase? Is there additional that he'll be on the hook for? From the outside, it sure looks like he's trying to destroy his own company. Which makes no sense, unless he can thereby profit or at least avoid some obligations.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    He borrowed $billions from banks for the deal, but the collateral was Tesla stock, so not paying this debt would not go well for him.
1letterunixname 4y ago
Musk is the definition of reactive. Trying to appease someone like him goes nowhere well for anyone and sets everyone else back as ~~they're~~ (EDIT: he is) a de-facto bully and crybully. Best to let him have his tantrums.

omgsean 4y ago

I think the motivation here is that Twitter is charging about half a million dollars a year for access to their API when it was previously either free or close to free.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> I think the motivation here is that Twitter is charging about half a million dollars a year I've read that the floor is $43k per month but that it can be up to $241k/mo.

marginalia_nu 4y ago

Basically corporate mercantilism.

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago

That's what happens when when you make your free API cost a fortune, and Microsoft has nothing to gain from paying the bill.

v0idzer0 4y ago
I doubt they’re worried about the bill. It’s Microsoft. It probably has more to do with him painting them as the evil capitalists who took OpenAI closed source and for profit to achieve world domination. He spoke a lot about this in recent interview.
- BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
  "It's Microsoft" is to me a very naïve explanation. It's how a 9-to-5 employee thinks about capital "oh, they're rich, they can spend on anything and not care". That's not how it works. You don't build a large profitable company if you spend like the spoiled, drunk, drugged out offspring of a billionaire, who has a 10 million dollar weekly allowance, to spend on cars, women, jets and substances. Every decision has to be rational, meaning you are at least break even, ideally above break even. If not financially, at least tactically, strategically, politically, any way at all. Any way at all. They weren't breaking even here, and had no reason to invest in a relationship with a man child driving his $44B investment into the ground, while embarrassing himself every single day. No serious business needs or wants relationship with Twitter anymore. If given a reason to look into it, a tipping point, a drop-that-spills-the-glass reason to exit, they'd exit. And Elon keeps providing excellent, very convincing ones. Such as "you suddenly owe us MILLIONS to use our API, in order to provide a free service to your customers, which mostly works out to our benefit, so your customers can run ads with us." If you're a Microsoft manager, you spend an hour at most thinking and consulting about it, and of course you finally say "lol, no" and quit.
  - v0idzer0 4y ago
    I think your opinion might be overly influenced by your disdain for Musk. This sounds borderline unhinged to me. > It's how a 9-to-5 employee thinks about capital Okay, well, I'm the founder and CTO of a Series C company. > you suddenly owe us MILLIONS to use our API Where did you get this price? Regardless "MILLIONS" is not even something you need C-suite approval for at Microsoft. > in order to provide a free service to your customers The service is not free.

blibble 4y ago

the only person who loses out from fewer ads on twitter is Musk

a3n 4y ago
I don't know what I'm talking about, but ... Has Musk actually paid all the money for his essentially (self) forced purchase? Is there additional that he'll be on the hook for? From the outside, it sure looks like he's trying to destroy his own company. Which makes no sense, unless he can thereby profit or at least avoid some obligations.
- lapcat 4y ago
  He borrowed $billions from banks for the deal, but the collateral was Tesla stock, so not paying this debt would not go well for him.

1letterunixname 4y ago

Musk is the definition of reactive. Trying to appease someone like him goes nowhere well for anyone and sets everyone else back as ~~they're~~ (EDIT: he is) a de-facto bully and crybully. Best to let him have his tantrums.