I have purchased and shut down the service that you were using in production I asked whether they had any contracts but they did not funny how fickle your love was trying to buy an engineering team for $29 a month I offered them more May you succeed at capitalism betterhttps://twitter.com/aeflash/status/1009844254896615425 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @patio11
We had a 1-year contract for $2000/month and the year wasn't up and yet, somehow, the API shut down with no notice. Sorry I didn't put it in poetry.
2 replies 0 retweets 57 likes -
Replying to @seldo
One of the great joys of Twitter is conversations in multiple contexts, and by great joys I mean the other thing. I agree that the treatment you describe elsewhere is shabby.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Other people in other contexts have argued to me that a startup on month-to-month contracts with customers owes them more than the number of hours left in the current month. I do not share that understanding, even when it is really inconvenient, even if it's "in prod."
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @patio11
As a company that provides completely free service to ten million people I agree with them. If people depend on you you owe them some notice, you owe them uptime, because they give you credibility. Smyte had our damn logo on their home page and gave us 30 minutes of notice.
1 reply 2 retweets 33 likes -
It is irresponsible, as a SaaS company, to fail to provide a migration path to your customers and adequate time to migrate if you are shutting down. npm gives months of notice before we shut down totally free endpoints that are years old. It's just *what you do*.
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likes -
A month-to-month contract has no legal obligation to provide service past the end of that month, but legal obligations are not the only kind. And anyway, we weren't on a month-to-month contract and I assume their other customers weren't either.
3 replies 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @seldo
I feel for you regarding your situation, which I was not and still am not subtweeting. With respect to a hypothetical businessman expecting hypothetical service next month even if his month-to-month vendor goes out of business this month: that businessman going to have bad time.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
In addition to this being fairly important from an engineering/business perspective to not mispredict on what *will* happen, I feel like it's reasonably important from a philosophy-of-entrepreneurship perspective on what *should* happen: people have the *right to walk away*.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This is particularly important vis employees. Many, many employees have been told variants of You Owe It To The Work when a company was going down the tubes to keep the lights on. The employees do not owe it to the work. If the company has said e.g. "btw no more paychecks", bye.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I feel that it will be more controversial but my intuition is that goes for founders, too. Sometimes you get a soft landing... sometimes you don't. When you don't, invoices from vendors are going to go unpaid. They shouldn't expect you, personally, to pay them; that is business.
-
-
The standard advice for vendors is "When you sell something to a corporation you need to price in credit risk because if the company goes away that invoice isn't worth the paper it is printed on." and I feel that vendor selection includes roughly the same risk and same remedy.
3 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
This is a little ironic for me, given that Stripe wouldn't be where it is today without other businesses making a bit bet by integrating it. One of Stripe's main value props is that it didn't do contracts — and yet people still adopted it because it was a compelling product.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.