Ditto. For $6 I wouldn’t care. For $6000 it might be a different story.
As an aside, it has been clear for years the api was not going to be supported for much longer. I am frankly surprised they had it as long as they did.
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
Ditto. For $6 I wouldn’t care. For $6000 it might be a different story.
As an aside, it has been clear for years the api was not going to be supported for much longer. I am frankly surprised they had it as long as they did.
What do you mean? The "service" they're providing is an app. You still have the app. The app still works exactly as it did before. You just can't use the app anymore, because Musk's Twitter doesn't answer the app anymore.
If you expect to be able to cancel mid-year, maybe you shouldn't buy yearly subscriptions? Maybe you should have read the TOS?
Technically, it's all the user's problem. These companies fulfilled all their obligations. It's just that they are shockingly decent about it and are offering to do what they think is the right thing, even if it bankrupts them. So, I absolutely hape a bunch of people pay them back in kindness, even if they don't have to.
If you want to help out either of these developers by specifically foregoing a refund, it's 100% ok, but I also agree completely with the quoted excerpt above.
It's interesting to see developers on the other side of the Software as a Subscription spectrum here.
It can cut both ways it would seem
I feel bad they had the rug pulled by Twitter, but annual subscription customers are entitled to a refund if they'd like one.
It can cut both ways it would seem
I feel bad they had the rug pulled by Twitter, but annual subscription customers are entitled to a refund if they'd like one.
Last edited:
Ah, right. Software rentals fail again…
The counter argument to what you're saying is simple
If these Third Party Twitter apps were submitted to iOS App Review in their current state (App "works", but the core feature of connecting with and interacting with Twitter doesn't), they'd be rejected by Apple
The subscription people were paying for is a combination of the Application and the connection and interaction with Twitter.
As they currently are, the "App" does not in fact work "exactly as it did before"
I thought this for DD and GH. I'm not forfeiting a refund if something was missing. The main issue is they will give a full refund. I only need the few bucks for fries refunded if they are missing.
I'm the opposite. I deleted my account the day Twitter confirmed they were killing off 3rd party apps. Same for Reddit. The day they ban Apollo, I'll delete my account.
Still not too crazy at an actual grocery store. Not Wawa or Target etc when it is per banana. I remember some woman at Wawa bringing a whole bunch and was like whaaaaaaaaatttttttt at the price lol
If Apple was a standup company that actually supports indie developers with their hundreds of billions of dollars in their war chest, you'd think in this circumstance they would do the right thing and bail out these companies just to stick it to Elon and Twitter. They could even put out a press release about it and make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy.
Of course. It is what it is. I wouldn't personally want to put all my eggs in one basket, but maybe they thought after several years, it wouldn't be jeopardized. Obviously they didn't bank on someone like Musk coming in.
Here is what I will say. YMMV.
The subscription to Tweetbot is $5.99/year. If you renewed any time after Elon took over, that’s on you. I “cancelled” my subscription when he officially took over, but only the auto-renewal. I subscribed in April.
So say you renewed/subscribed the day before Elon officially took over, so October 26th. When they issue refunds, you will be half way through. So approximately $3. If they make it effective January 27th, then you’re looking at $4.50
If that money is going to make or break you? I’m sorry to hear that, genuinely. But if that is the case, I would question why you are buying any subscription at all. But that is not my place.
If you are like most of us, and it’s $3 or $4 we might get back? What is that really going to do for me? Cover half my iPad Apple Care+ for the month?
But take that $3-$4, times the number of people that subscribed (I won’t guess on the numbers) and that is a significant hit to the developers. Who may need to be finding new work.
So I guess my nature makes it difficult to “stand on principle” about paying for a service I am no longer getting in this situation. It isn’t like the developers chose to stop offering the service.
Conversely, to mitigate risks of something like this catching them fully flat footed, the developers could have been continuing to offer a mix of license types beyond just 100% subscription
I didn't request a refund on my annual sub, but I definitely see multiple sides to all of this.
I’m supporting the developers by signing up for Ivory. Which is a subscription. I don’t subscribe to the Twitter apps, but if I did, I would unsubscribe and get a refund.🍸🐈
You mean stoping vacations and live from subscriber subsidy on bogus updates....
Of course not, is they where aware this could happen as early as from 2011 there where explicit warnings on this to happen.
Twitter’s relationship with third-party apps is messy — but it’s not over
Twitter has weighed in on the latest changes.
mashable.com
That is a horrible example, which often happens when people try and make up analogies on the spot. First off, who is the employee and who is the employer? If Tweetbot is the employee then Twitter (the employer who fired them) is not asking for any payback. If Tweetbot is the employee and the consumer is the employer then that is not the screnario. It would be like an employee was paid for a full year's worth of salary, and then when they are fired halfway through the year, asked to pay back the salary they had not yet earned. John just needs to stay in his lane, he is getting more cringe. His interview with the Apple Execs a while ago was a train wreck.
As John Gruber points out on Daring Fireball, this is akin to a person getting fired and then having to pay back their last six months of salary.
I agree with part of what you said. I too "feel" for the situation, it's really a lose-lose scenario, likely even for Twitter. However, as you pointed out, the companies either played the gamble or were ignorant. If it was the gamble, their luck ran out. If it was ignorance, it finally caught up to them. However, "getting what they deserve" in my opinion sort of goes against your "I feel for both companies" statement. So I don't agree with "getting what you deserve" in the "tough luck" perspective. That is not empathetic, and I tend to be, especially for anyone with the fortitude to build a successful business, regardless of how "smart" or "stupid" your business decisions were.
Whether or not someone would ask for a refund or not likely comes down to how much empathy they have for the situation. Personally having my own business, I know full well the risks that come along with the reward. There are thousands of factors that I don't have control of that I have to navigate, therefore there are thousands of choices on a weekly basis that I make that can affect the outcome of the business. That is literally just how it goes. Do I have empathy that their business and employees are impacted? Yeah. Does the situation suck and wasn't really "fair", sure. But they are doing the right thing by refunding. I see no problem in asking people if they want to forego that refund because of their product/customer service experience with the company.
It is always great sitting in the ivory tower. Running a business is a tough thing. There are tons of no-win scenarios you are faced with. You never make the "right" decision, you just move forward. It sucks for everyone in this case. It is not about having a backbone or having integrity. Likely the T's & C's didn't even require them to refund anything. I haven't read a T&C in the past 5 years in which the company would have to. But they are offering it anyway, AND they are asking if people want to CHOOSE to not receive the refund, that would help them out. Good for everyone.
There’s a pretty profound moral question that’s being raised here: should we ever blame people for not being charitable (either giving what is not owed or declining what is owed)? Is neutrality ever negative?
It’s a tough question because mathematically neutral should be neutral and therefore blameless, yet I think many hold a belief that when one is in a position to help, one should—probably stemming from the belief that because the world gives more advantage to some than others, the more fortunate have an obligation to help the less fortunate. But maybe the main problem is, it’s many times not clear who is more/less fortunate especially when you look at the overall picture.
Point is, this is not clear cut.
It’s a tough question because mathematically neutral should be neutral and therefore blameless, yet I think many hold a belief that when one is in a position to help, one should—probably stemming from the belief that because the world gives more advantage to some than others, the more fortunate have an obligation to help the less fortunate. But maybe the main problem is, it’s many times not clear who is more/less fortunate especially when you look at the overall picture.
Point is, this is not clear cut.
Musk just killed off these companies without notice. The "contracts" are just agreements that developers accept when they create a developer account. That is the only contract. It's not like you have your lawyer negotiate with Twitter.
Musk simply cut off these companies without even changing the agreement. It took Twitter a week to update the agreement. See this Engadget article: https://www.engadget.com/twitter-new-developer-terms-ban-third-party-clients-211247096.html.
From the article:
"Twitter previously said it was “enforcing long-standing API rules,” but hadn’t cited which rules developers were violating."
"But the company's suggestion that the rule was "longstanding" doesn't line up with its history. Twitter clients have long been a part of Twitter. Twitterrific, one of the most prominent apps affected by the API shut-off last week, was created before Twitter had a native iOS app of its own, and is credited with coining the word “tweet,” as well as other features now commonly associated with Twitter’s app."
" In fact, Twitter previously changed its developer policies in 2021 to remove a section that discouraged — but didn't prohibit — app makers from "replicating" its core service. The change was part of a broader shift by Twitter to improve its relationship with developers, including the makers of third-party clients. "
I think Twitterrific’s Sean Heber said it best:
“We are sorry to say that the app’s sudden and undignified demise is due to an unannounced and undocumented policy change by an increasingly capricious Twitter – a Twitter that we no longer recognize as trustworthy nor want to work with any longer.”
Not unauthorized at all. In fact in 2021 Twitter eased the language in the developer agreement around the use of these APIs for just these kinds of apps.
Wrong. See https://www.engadget.com/twitter-new-developer-terms-ban-third-party-clients-211247096.html. Twitter actually updated their developer agreement in 2021 to soften the language to encourage these kinds of applications.
If Apple would allow developers to charge for major upgrades (like we used to have in the olden days) then we wouldn’t need subscriptions.
I wonder how many people disagreeing with asking for a refund disagreed with the US government bailing out banks. I guess Tweetbot was too big to fail. Businesses fail all the time for various reasons. The Tapbot team is talented; they'll rebound w/out a pseudo-socialist public/customer bailout.
If Elon was smart he would have charged for access to the API. Either way, I want my refund. The developer wrote code once, why are they entitled to perpetual compensation when the work is complete?
These apps were loyal to Twitter for a decade. And made it what it is today, including the bird logo and the ”tweet”. Twitter was too stupid to realise mobile apps come first, and only offered a subpar mobile app themselves.
Pretty sure the devs had close contacts within Twitter, and had confidence they could continue their business model. Last year, Twitter even worked on a new improved api.
The only scumbag here is Musk. Let’s focus our anger on him. If you want your 50 cents back, please do if it makes you feel better. But these apps were great and what happened is not at all what they deserved.
Pretty sure the devs had close contacts within Twitter, and had confidence they could continue their business model. Last year, Twitter even worked on a new improved api.
The only scumbag here is Musk. Let’s focus our anger on him. If you want your 50 cents back, please do if it makes you feel better. But these apps were great and what happened is not at all what they deserved.
