Yes, you should absolutely opt out of receiving a < $6 refund to lessen the financial devastation that will likely befall these developers. It's called being a moderately decent human being.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tweetbot and Twitterrific Users Can Support the Developers by Declining Subscription Refunds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, you should absolutely opt out of receiving a < $6 refund to lessen the financial devastation that will likely befall these developers. It's called being a moderately decent human being.
Most of those people probably never used Tweetbot in the first place I bet
The whole point of using these 3rd party apps is to have features/functionality not available with the official apps. Duh!
Not really.
I think it's pretty scummy that Macrumors is involved in doing this.
You pay for a year - you're not getting a year - maybe a partial refund would be far?
EDIT : Seems quite a few agree.
As for Yujenisis that does not ... curious how you felt when tweetbot would update their app just after an iOS major version update and regardless if you paid less than 3mths prior if you removed the app or switched to another iPhone you had to pay full price yet again! If that happened to you I'm very curious if you'd disagree with my point/suggestion above as well still? hmm.
Last edited:
No, this is akin to being paid in advance for work not performed, then being asked for the money back because you didn’t perform the work.
In the real world, this would be considered deferred revenue, because the time period it is tied to has not occurred yet. Then the revenue gets recognized after each period closes. This is basic accounting of revenue using the matching principle.
Last edited:
No, that's just wrong.
A few notes on Twitterrific in particular:
- Coined the term Tweet (later copied by Twitter).
- Established bird branding (later copied by Twitter).
- First Mac Twitter client.
- First iOS Twitter client.
- First @replies.
(Tweetbot was a little later, but certainly well ahead of Twitter's API lockdown.)
This is fully on Twitter, who gave them no notice before closing their access. Access via an API they'd help Twitter build.
Last edited:
Developers assume a risk of doing business when building products that depend on another company's API. For bearing the risk, they are rewarded with the profits when they are successful. Customers are not entitled to the profits, but then customers should not bear any of the risk.
These developers had months to make backup plans and to pivot their businesses as Twitter's direction was uncertain the moment Musk announced the intent to purchase. It is fine to ask the customers to decline refunds as an act of charity, but the developers are by no means morally entitled to it.
These developers had months to make backup plans and to pivot their businesses as Twitter's direction was uncertain the moment Musk announced the intent to purchase. It is fine to ask the customers to decline refunds as an act of charity, but the developers are by no means morally entitled to it.
Last edited:
I get it, it is nice if people help.
But that doesn't make people that don't help "bad people".
And I don't think they see it like that.
But it seems many people here think not helping them makes you "scummy, obviously not a developer, indecent human being...".
Even Twitter claims there were rules.
You can see a complete lack of empathy towards their own customers by the repeated requests not to request a refund for a subscription that does work by these for-profit companies. Professional iOS developers, as a group, are not a particularly poor demographic.
It's unfortunate for everyone how the Twitter app ecosystem collapsed and Twitter certainly could and should have handled it differently.
However, these developers built their businesses on someone else's platform without an appropriate SLA for the API access. This is not the first time there has been an issue involving third party apps accessing Twitter.
Over the years, in an effort to extract even more profit from their customers, the developers of these apps switched to a subscription model even though they clearly could not guarantee long-term access to the service the apps are for.
I am not a subscriber to either of these apps, but there is nothing ethically questionable about a customer requesting a refund to an app that they are subscribed to that no longer works.
I do want to commend Tweetbot for offering the ability to transfer the subscription to Ivory, which is a very nicely craft piece of software.
For the anti-subscription movement on MacRumors, even spreading false information is considered heroic in the comment section.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
The option is there for those who want a refund. It’s best to ask for a refund. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I’ll stay out of the argument about whether it’s scummy or not, but note that no one needs to ask for a refund; the refunds are granted automatically unless a customer asks not to be refunded.
The official iOS client was acquired by Twitter. It was originally developed aa Tweetie by Atebits.
Those first two sentences are my exact thoughts.
Yeah lol nope, if I had this I’d have no hesitation whatsoever about taking the refund
This is incredibly wrong and inaccurate. The apps used the OFFICIAL Twitter API to power them. To say that they used an unauthorized API that wasn’t provided by Twitter themselves is an incredibly misleading statement to make.
Last edited:
I think its pretty easy to see both sides. If I paid for something a company can't deliver anymore, I would expect a refund. If that person giving the refund said they can't afford food because of that refund, I'd let them keep it.
I won't say I know the exact financial situation of each developer here, but I suspect they've been doing fairly well before this. They are talented individuals who will be able to find their niche in the near future as well. Their future earning potential has not been cut off.
There is literally no one who purchased those subscriptions who NEEDS the money back (if they do, they desperately need to reprioritise what they spend their limited funds on), but in the aggregate, paying back those subscriptions (NB, not just losing future revenue, but having to RETURN already booked revenue) will be an existential threat to two companies who not only provided excellent products for years, but also played a role in the very shaping of Twitter. IconFactory not only coined the term “tweet” but also used the bird icon before Twitter did.
Musk’s behaviour on this issue is absolutely gross.
If he wanted to stop third party apps accessing the service, that was his right, but the decent, responsible way to do it would have been to announce a sunset period, so the companies could 1) stop taking subs and 2) prepare for the massive shift in their business.
People bleating “everyone is entitled to a refund” - literally no one is saying that people aren’t entitled to it. Neither company is claiming you’re not entitled. Doesn’t alter the fact that the decent thing to do is to decline it.
Enjoy your half cup of coffee.
Musk’s behaviour on this issue is absolutely gross.
If he wanted to stop third party apps accessing the service, that was his right, but the decent, responsible way to do it would have been to announce a sunset period, so the companies could 1) stop taking subs and 2) prepare for the massive shift in their business.
People bleating “everyone is entitled to a refund” - literally no one is saying that people aren’t entitled to it. Neither company is claiming you’re not entitled. Doesn’t alter the fact that the decent thing to do is to decline it.
Enjoy your half cup of coffee.
This is the downside to the company for going down a subscription path. People pay for a value/service.
There's no way they made "tens of millions." API access was not free. At a minimum, they were paying Twitter monthly, plus the salaries of everyone involved.
It's totally okay to expect a refund, and I don't think anyone should be shamed for wanting one. If you do, you don't have to do anything, and it will come in March.
For some perspective, Tweetbot was priced at $6 per year. For most people, that's probably a refund of a couple of dollars. Chances are, that's not going to be a huge financial hit on an individual basis, but that couple of dollars across thousands of customers is going to add up for the developers.
Thai article misses a critical detail which is that your remaining tweetbot license can be transferred to Ivory, which, regardless of whether you want a refund or not, is a graceful pivot.
Just because you don’t agree with a sentiment or a comment doesn’t make it toxic.
As an app developer and business person, if I decide to take subscription revenue in advance then I need to account for that income in the months it was for not when I received it.
If I am no longer providing that service or continued development of the product then I no longer have expenses for that product and as such have a bunch of money that needs to be returned. If I didn’t account for this it is bad/improper business accounting.
If you as a consumer wish to “support” the developer then contact them and send them a donation or set up a go fund me. Doing either of these will give the developer 15-30% more $ and the same out of pocket for you as you won’t have pay any to Apple.
I can have empathy for them and choose to get a refund. These are not starving children in a third world country. And if I choose to give them money I won’t use a method that will cost them 15-30%. This is just lazy.
As for Jon Gruber, his example is ridiculous and inaccurate. This is the equivalent of a person being paid 12 months salary in advance and then getting laid off and having to repay the balance of the salary he/she hadn’t earned yet.
Yes that would suck if I had spent it as if I had already earned it but it is the right thing to do, cause guess what I didn’t earn it yet and now I can get another job.
Bottom line : no matter what, take the full refund and then if you choose to support them because for whatever reason you feel bad for them then send them money directly. Heck send them more than your refund if you really feel bad for them. (But I’m guessing you won’t)
How so?
Two companies had a very weak business model that could be easily interrupted and was. Now they want their consumers to foot the bill for their lack of planning, judgement and preparedness. They were happy to accept subscriptions knowing they had no way to guarantee their service.
Am I missing something?
1) Open a business that has no guarantee to be operational tomorrow. Bad idea but lets do it anyway.
2) Charge people, via subscription, for a service with an uncertain future and PROFIT! Bad idea but lets do it anyway.
3) Carpet gets pulled out.
4) Try to make consumers feel bad because of your poor choices so you can keep your PROFIT! Bad idea but lets do it anyway!
Last edited: