There are likely a ton of tools that are using the Twitter API in ways that helps Twitter and almost all of them are going to be locked out because there's no way they can afford $42,000/mo.
I'm on a slack channel of (mostly former by now) developers using the Twitter API, and the general feeling is that Twitter is dead for most. A few lucky ones are able to afford the new 42k/m price point, and everyone else has been kicked out without any respect by Twitter, and won't be coming back.
Microsoft is not ruled by a banana republic dictator wannabe, I think you're confusing Nadella for Musk. Twitter also has no ChatGPT competitor, all they have is 10k GPUs and lots of naked aspirations.
Microsoft is rather responding to them using Twitter's API, and Twitter restricted their API, so Microsoft dropped their products that were using it. It's entirely Twitter's fault.
It's very weird he also called it TruthGPT, because it sounds like the bastard child of OpenAI's ChatGPT and TruthSocial, rather than a product by Twitter.
This is in response to Elon Musk suing Microsoft and OpenAI for using tweets to train GPT. There are already precedents, such as the Authors Guild vs. Google Books, where it was deemed fair use to use copyrighted works to build a searchable database.
Musk's objective is not to win the lawsuit, though. It is to create as many barriers and troubles for AI companies as possible so that he can catch up with his own technology
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Musk, the one who once tried to s-can Sama. Musk can keep piloting Twitter as an expensive lawn dart for all I care. Twitter is easily replicated by any MAANG.
21 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 36.8 ms ] threadIt's not worth their time or money, I'd bet that that API integration helps Twitter more than it helps MS.
Microsoft is rather responding to them using Twitter's API, and Twitter restricted their API, so Microsoft dropped their products that were using it. It's entirely Twitter's fault.
The man has no clue whatsoever.
Musk's objective is not to win the lawsuit, though. It is to create as many barriers and troubles for AI companies as possible so that he can catch up with his own technology
The motivations can be dressed up in all sorts of plausible rationalizations. It is all so tiresome.
I've read that the floor is $43k per month but that it can be up to $241k/mo.
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.
> 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.
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.