5 ms·

Let me clue you in: it's not that simple. If Google simply "dumps them", then Twitter will sue back with arbitrarily large damages, which far outweigh the money

Let me clue you in: it's not that simple. If Google simply "dumps them", then Twitter will sue back with arbitrarily large damages, which far outweigh the money Twitter owes to Google. It all hinges on details of their contract (or lack thereof), and Google has to tread carefully because the black PR of Twitter dragging them around as a result (and you know very well Elon is GREAT at playing the victim) will result in massive losses from other businesses using Google Cloud.

esafak 3y ago
Musk seems to believe he has more leverage than he does. Pull a power move, get your power tested.
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  We don't like it, but he keeps testing his power and getting his way. Sometimes I don't even know how. But truth is law and order stop applying when you have power or wealth.
  - michaelteter 3y ago
    I think there's a distinction to be made. The powerful to exert their power without making public noise are probably more likely to get away with it. But the ones who proudly (stupidly?) publicly proclaim their misbehavior tend to fare less well. There's a very high profile example of this right now in the US, and I suspect it will demonstrate the difference between silent abuse of power vs overt public abuse of it.
    - hgsgm 3y ago
      Are you referring to the man who successful ignored the law for 76 years, got filthy rich in the process, whose name becoming a colloquial term for extreme luxury living, and might face consequences by age 80?
      - justinclift 3y ago
        For the non-US persons among us, who are you referring to? :)
        conradfr 3y ago
        Donald Trump.
        justinclift 3y ago
        Thanks, that wasn't actually obvious from the above description. At least, not to me. :)
  - edmundsauto 3y ago
    I don’t think he got his way when forced to buy Twitter. He was trying to pull the same nonsense after announcing the deal and closing it.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    He definitely did not “win” anyway being forced to buy Twitter for $44 billion and now it’s worth half that and losing advertisers left and right.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - aniforprez 3y ago
      Didn't Fidelity value it at $15 billion[1]? Musk bought it at $44 billion. That would mean that it's worth almost a third its original value so not even half [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/31/tech/twitter-value-fidelity-estimate/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/31/tech/twitter-value-fideli...
    - hgsgm 3y ago
      Money is just numbers on a screen. He spent $30B on his personal worldwide megaphone. Less than 20% of his savings. That's like a normal rich person buying an expensive house during a real estate bubble.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        He fought tooth and nail not to buy Twitter at the price he paid. He wanted to walk away.
      - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
        Calling his Tesla stock "savings" and using market cap to determine its liquid purchase power is astoundingly ignorant. Tell me, if you have, say, 100 million in savings, and you spend 20 million, does the remainder magically shrink also to 20 million, like happened with Musk in 2022? Also do you realize he paid about 1/4 of the value of Twitter. The rest is loans and other investors burning cash by trusting him and rolling over. Tell me why did a wealthy man who merely spent "20% of his savings" take on high-interest debts worth over 13 billion?
toomuchtodo 3y ago
No one is leaving GCP because Google takes action against a non paying customer. Those that do are best sent packing anyway. You want good customers who are partners, not ones that will attempt to extort you. Maintaining these relationships leads to volatile/unpredictable revenue and can diminish margins (due to outsized account management and legal costs). (speaking as a business owner previously who has had to fire customers)
- threatofrain 3y ago
  Plus it would mean that all the honest customers are subsidizing a miserly billionaire. That's not attractive to the other customers at all.
  - esafak 3y ago
    And everybody knows Musk's antics, so they're not going to blame it on Google.
lxgr 3y ago
Vendor selection in tech companies is quite often not done by Twitter poll, but rather based on things like price, contract terms etc.

esafak 3y ago

Musk seems to believe he has more leverage than he does. Pull a power move, get your power tested.

BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
We don't like it, but he keeps testing his power and getting his way. Sometimes I don't even know how. But truth is law and order stop applying when you have power or wealth.
- michaelteter 3y ago
  I think there's a distinction to be made. The powerful to exert their power without making public noise are probably more likely to get away with it. But the ones who proudly (stupidly?) publicly proclaim their misbehavior tend to fare less well. There's a very high profile example of this right now in the US, and I suspect it will demonstrate the difference between silent abuse of power vs overt public abuse of it.
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    Are you referring to the man who successful ignored the law for 76 years, got filthy rich in the process, whose name becoming a colloquial term for extreme luxury living, and might face consequences by age 80?
    - justinclift 3y ago
      For the non-US persons among us, who are you referring to? :)
      - conradfr 3y ago
        Donald Trump.
        justinclift 3y ago
        Thanks, that wasn't actually obvious from the above description. At least, not to me. :)
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  I don’t think he got his way when forced to buy Twitter. He was trying to pull the same nonsense after announcing the deal and closing it.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  He definitely did not “win” anyway being forced to buy Twitter for $44 billion and now it’s worth half that and losing advertisers left and right.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - aniforprez 3y ago
    Didn't Fidelity value it at $15 billion[1]? Musk bought it at $44 billion. That would mean that it's worth almost a third its original value so not even half [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/31/tech/twitter-value-fidelity-estimate/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/31/tech/twitter-value-fideli...
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    Money is just numbers on a screen. He spent $30B on his personal worldwide megaphone. Less than 20% of his savings. That's like a normal rich person buying an expensive house during a real estate bubble.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      He fought tooth and nail not to buy Twitter at the price he paid. He wanted to walk away.
    - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
      Calling his Tesla stock "savings" and using market cap to determine its liquid purchase power is astoundingly ignorant. Tell me, if you have, say, 100 million in savings, and you spend 20 million, does the remainder magically shrink also to 20 million, like happened with Musk in 2022? Also do you realize he paid about 1/4 of the value of Twitter. The rest is loans and other investors burning cash by trusting him and rolling over. Tell me why did a wealthy man who merely spent "20% of his savings" take on high-interest debts worth over 13 billion?

toomuchtodo 3y ago

No one is leaving GCP because Google takes action against a non paying customer. Those that do are best sent packing anyway. You want good customers who are partners, not ones that will attempt to extort you. Maintaining these relationships leads to volatile/unpredictable revenue and can diminish margins (due to outsized account management and legal costs). (speaking as a business owner previously who has had to fire customers)

threatofrain 3y ago
Plus it would mean that all the honest customers are subsidizing a miserly billionaire. That's not attractive to the other customers at all.
- esafak 3y ago
  And everybody knows Musk's antics, so they're not going to blame it on Google.

lxgr 3y ago

Vendor selection in tech companies is quite often not done by Twitter poll, but rather based on things like price, contract terms etc.