You could. not should, not must, could. it's called having sympathy. Most people aren't psychopathic.
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
A stranger who entered into a contract with me for a service and didn't fulfill their part of the contract is not entitled to keep my money. If I decide on my own to wash my hands of the situation, that action does not equate to me thinking the owner of the business is entitled.
If you take emotion out of the equation and look at this from a legal contract perspective, which it is, the issue is much more clear. People should be offered a refund. If some decide to refuse out of some made up ethics sandwich filled with feelings and other subjective ingredients, so be it.
Last edited:
No one even had to ask, it’s being automatically given and is prorated.
So the customers got what they paid for and the developers got paid for what they provided.
Tapbots has 2 employees. They probably have money saved plus they have other apps to make revenue from. They will likely be fine.
That said, I’d probably reject the refund since I’d have used the $6 yearly often which is already half off the .99 monthly sub so would just consider it even.
With every monetisation model comes its pros and cons. They made their bed by choosing to pursue the subscription model, now they must lie in it. It's simple.
I’ll never forget when I bought one of the versions of the app years ago and tweeted about how Apple refunded me, but I still got to use the app. one of them mentioned me and called me out lol.
I was young! but thought that was interesting.
my subscription ends in April so I’m not requesting a refund, but can totally see why people would. I’m sure the developers have plenty of money. and if not, they can cut back on certain aspects of life.
I was young! but thought that was interesting.
my subscription ends in April so I’m not requesting a refund, but can totally see why people would. I’m sure the developers have plenty of money. and if not, they can cut back on certain aspects of life.
This is a messy situation and as far as I’m concerned there’s really no right side in terms of whether people should get the refunds or not.
Ultimately Twitter was the one that moved the goal post and closed access to APIs they had publicly marketed and had developer arrangements with, with terms that didn’t prevent the APIs being revoked. Developers had no flexibility to put in place stronger conditions so that’s a poor argument by people making the case for this. Devs could simply choose to develop something else but there was consumer demand for the apps and Twitter had shown they were supportive of third party clients. Lastly, the API could have been implemented to support Ads if Twitter had wanted to…the implementation of the API and its limits financially was 100% in their control.
In terms of asking for refunds:
- the Devs are out as they lost access required to provide a service. It was not intentional. Devs are humans and need to eat and this is a loss for them
- the customers are out as they also lost access to the service. People should be well aware now that the current economic climate is not good and many people are struggling. Yes, the sub fee is not a lot but for many people every bit helps and while they can maybe afford or justify a sub to an app they use daily, users may not be in a position to essentially donate money away for no return either. Keep in mind these people may be out for further costs now such as an Ivory subscription (meaning Tweetbot devs are in fact being paid and many of their users would have signed up prior to this notice going out) or maybe one of the Twitter clients that allows user level API keys to be entered (Sprint Twitter app is an example).
- Apple has nothing to do with this really so not like they should fork out the costs
Now, at least Tweetbot had the foresight to transition to Mastodon and it seems that’s working ok for them so far. As above, a number of their customers will have resubscribed and it’s up for debate if they should pay for Ivory AND Tweetbot when they can’t use the later. Twitterific devs could have moved the code base too which seems to be what a lot of Twitter apps devs are doing (Tweetbot, Spring to Mona, Aviary). I’m not across why they decided to shut the door entirely rather than chase Mastodon support like the rest of the market did. Maybe they don’t think Mastodon has a future, I can’t say.
Anyway I think the only party really accountable here is Twitter, who had every right to do what they did however they did so in a way that was incredibly hostile to devs but more importantly their user base. There’s ways to handle these transitions that allow a much smoother sunset period. Unfortunately they also are the party that has no real financial responsibility or impact in the outcome so we’re in a situation where either the consumer or developer has to lose out, and BOTH are casualties of Twitters actions.
Ultimately Twitter was the one that moved the goal post and closed access to APIs they had publicly marketed and had developer arrangements with, with terms that didn’t prevent the APIs being revoked. Developers had no flexibility to put in place stronger conditions so that’s a poor argument by people making the case for this. Devs could simply choose to develop something else but there was consumer demand for the apps and Twitter had shown they were supportive of third party clients. Lastly, the API could have been implemented to support Ads if Twitter had wanted to…the implementation of the API and its limits financially was 100% in their control.
In terms of asking for refunds:
- the Devs are out as they lost access required to provide a service. It was not intentional. Devs are humans and need to eat and this is a loss for them
- the customers are out as they also lost access to the service. People should be well aware now that the current economic climate is not good and many people are struggling. Yes, the sub fee is not a lot but for many people every bit helps and while they can maybe afford or justify a sub to an app they use daily, users may not be in a position to essentially donate money away for no return either. Keep in mind these people may be out for further costs now such as an Ivory subscription (meaning Tweetbot devs are in fact being paid and many of their users would have signed up prior to this notice going out) or maybe one of the Twitter clients that allows user level API keys to be entered (Sprint Twitter app is an example).
- Apple has nothing to do with this really so not like they should fork out the costs
Now, at least Tweetbot had the foresight to transition to Mastodon and it seems that’s working ok for them so far. As above, a number of their customers will have resubscribed and it’s up for debate if they should pay for Ivory AND Tweetbot when they can’t use the later. Twitterific devs could have moved the code base too which seems to be what a lot of Twitter apps devs are doing (Tweetbot, Spring to Mona, Aviary). I’m not across why they decided to shut the door entirely rather than chase Mastodon support like the rest of the market did. Maybe they don’t think Mastodon has a future, I can’t say.
Anyway I think the only party really accountable here is Twitter, who had every right to do what they did however they did so in a way that was incredibly hostile to devs but more importantly their user base. There’s ways to handle these transitions that allow a much smoother sunset period. Unfortunately they also are the party that has no real financial responsibility or impact in the outcome so we’re in a situation where either the consumer or developer has to lose out, and BOTH are casualties of Twitters actions.
No harm in asking but why be judgemental to those of their ask for one or not. It’s a company not a charity, their provide a service for payment of said service is not provided a refund is warranted. Having proper financial management is key in the event something drastic could effect a companies viability regardless if was due to internal or external factors. It has nothing to do with empathy or sympathy it’s just business…requesting a charitable option.
If this was an individual’s mortgage I am sure a lender would be willing to work with them or other arrangements made, imagine if the home owner requested from the loan lender to just forgive any outstanding payment(s).
John Voorhees (@johnvoorhees@macstories.net)
Twitter left the developers at Tapbots and The Iconfactory in a terrible spot. Not only did shutting down the Twitter API break Tweetbot and Twitterrific without notice, but both developers now face potentially large refunds to customers. However, if you were a subscriber of either app, you...
mastodon.macstories.net
Each to their own, I'm not in the habit for paying for goods not received. Tweetbot is not a charity.
Tweetbot and Twitterrific Face the Cliff
There is something noble about two longtime rivals — competitors, yes, but with nothing but deep respect and camaraderie for each other — facing this terrible cliff together, with dignity and grace, considering their users first, as ever.
daringfireball.net
We call this “emotional blackmail”. There is nothing wrong about asking a refund. But if someone feels good about donating the money to the developer, they now have the choice. But claiming that those who ask for a refund as scummy is totally inappropriate, and dare I say, ridiculous.
Reading through this thread really makes me wonder what the Venn diagram looks like of those talking about “not a charity” and those who voted for Trump. I’m guessing these are pretty much a single circle.
A man that if he were running either of these companies would not provide a refund in these circumstances without a length legal battle. 😂
A man that if he were running either of these companies would not provide a refund in these circumstances without a length legal battle. 😂
People who? My main timeline except for ads it's shows only people I follow, or suggest (if I check that) tweets from people related to the ones I follow, and the list where I have my own curated themes.
IMHO Elon takeover was the best thing both for Twitter and it's rivals too as people is now aware on alternatives.
I think many will be supporting the apps and will not ask for a refund.
These developers did not make “tens of millions”. These are small, third party developers with small numbers of employees. Apple will still keep it’s cut of the refunded subscriptions though so you can feel better about that.
If apps used a third party payment process, they would have yoinked your subscription.
Another case where apps using IAP is good for the consumer.
Another case where apps using IAP is good for the consumer.
Last edited:
Well Elon musks seems like he don’t care about regulations. He screws everyone over again
Elon Musk cut off API access without to its developers and users without any prior notice. He then didn’t even even have the respect to respond to all of the users who got screwed in the process for another several days.
Everybody who is not getting a service they paid for, SHOULD request a refund. Why on earth would you feel sorry for millionaire developers who literally road the Twitter coat tails!
To those who say otherwise, it's akin to paying for uber eats when not receiving a delivery because you feel sorry for the driver. Stupid!
Get your refund people!! 🙄🤦♂️
To those who say otherwise, it's akin to paying for uber eats when not receiving a delivery because you feel sorry for the driver. Stupid!
Get your refund people!! 🙄🤦♂️
I think the overarching issue with this situation is the classification of what is being paid for and what is delivered.
Subscriptions are a recurring form of payment for a "service" but in this case the "service" is access, support and continued upgrades to a software application to interact with Twitter via API (reported, official APIs intended for this purpose.)
Twitter's problem is a lack of "real monetization" of those APIs, so they unceremoniously cut it off... in truth, these third party companies could be within their right to NOT process any refunds beyond anything collect after the cut-off date, and they can keep working on the up and providing updates to it, as per their end of the agreement, and that would be ACCEPTABLE according to their terms... the lack of Twitter service being available to use with it, is on Twitter.
They are not doing this, as it would be more akin to large companies that do not care about customer relations and really only offer token offers to "appease" customers, so they are being (or at least trying) better corporate citizens.
Also, the idea of subscription "service" that is only for support and software updates... this is not a new thing, this has been how companies transact this for DECADES... I work in information technology since the mid 90s and all the companies I have worked for have paid more money out to software/support subscriptions than the capital cost of the initial software purchase or hardware purchases through the life of the product... like imagine buying enterprise software for like 160K and used that software for 10 years paying 45K per years for software and support and never contacting them for updates or support issues (the software works as designed - and since it was backup software, the ultimate use-case of full disaster recovery was never used... seems almost ripe for a refund under these conditions...)
Subscriptions are a recurring form of payment for a "service" but in this case the "service" is access, support and continued upgrades to a software application to interact with Twitter via API (reported, official APIs intended for this purpose.)
Twitter's problem is a lack of "real monetization" of those APIs, so they unceremoniously cut it off... in truth, these third party companies could be within their right to NOT process any refunds beyond anything collect after the cut-off date, and they can keep working on the up and providing updates to it, as per their end of the agreement, and that would be ACCEPTABLE according to their terms... the lack of Twitter service being available to use with it, is on Twitter.
They are not doing this, as it would be more akin to large companies that do not care about customer relations and really only offer token offers to "appease" customers, so they are being (or at least trying) better corporate citizens.
Also, the idea of subscription "service" that is only for support and software updates... this is not a new thing, this has been how companies transact this for DECADES... I work in information technology since the mid 90s and all the companies I have worked for have paid more money out to software/support subscriptions than the capital cost of the initial software purchase or hardware purchases through the life of the product... like imagine buying enterprise software for like 160K and used that software for 10 years paying 45K per years for software and support and never contacting them for updates or support issues (the software works as designed - and since it was backup software, the ultimate use-case of full disaster recovery was never used... seems almost ripe for a refund under these conditions...)
John Gruber is wrong on a key part of his analogy, this is NOT "akin to a person ... having to pay back their last six months of salary". As any good business owner or accountant knows, a pre-paid subscription is akin to giving someone their FUTURE salary EARLY. The developers have to put subscription revenue in a separate account held in reserve, and can only book it as actual income incrementally as its earned, for example transferring one month's worth at a time to their income once that part of the subscription is delivered. The subscription is a fund to get paid out of over time, it isn't something you can spend the entirety of as soon as its received. So while issuing pro-rata refunds would hurt, this is money that was supposed to be held in trust for the customer until earned, and paying it back would not have them going into debt or whatever. And yes, I am a developer myself. This isn't to say I disagree with the idea of customers being nice to the developers and saying they can keep the pre-payments as support. I'm on board with that. But this situation should be characterized right, and not compared to returning past salary that was earned.
Last edited: