Every single one of those contracts has fine print that says that Amazon/Google/Microsoft can revoke service and end their relationship with you whenever they want.

But it does in fact help to be paying them. There was nothing in this arrangement for Twitter at all.

The value for Twitter depends on who uses/used the client, what value they were providing to Twitter, and whether they'll stick around to continue providing that value.

Why do you think that it helps to be paying? What would prevent Twitter from doing the exact same thing in that scenario?

If Twitter was making money on third-party apps instead of losing money, they’d be less likely to shut them off.

* * *

Sure but you can restore your backups somewhere else if absolutely necessary

No, the difference is you can sub in another provider for AWS. You can't sub in another Twitter for TweetBot.

Of course you can, they’re working on a Mastodon client right now.

That's a different product. There's no alternative for a Twitter client blocked from Twitter's API.

(This is not a value judgement of Mastodon vs Twitter)

There is an implied social contract that comes along with even free services that a company won't make a change like this effective immediately and won't make a change like this with zero communication. Part of Musk's approach to leading Twitter is simply ignoring these type of social and in some cases even legal obligations to others.

If this incident truly represents Twitter's change in approach to third-party clients, that change in policy is being executed in the most petty and malicious way it could be done.

> executed in the most petty and malicious way it could be done.

This is not to excuse Twitter's actual behavior, which is clearly shitty. But: More petty and malicious would be to shut off access, then contact devs and promise that access would be restored if they just make these tiny changes to their app, and also sign this NDA forbidding discussion of the process. Then string along for a week or a month demanding just one more tiny change after change.

Then ghost.

And you think that AWS won't just rip the rug out from under you someday when you're no longer profitable for them or "shifting to a different focus" happens?

Also, AWS routinely makes a bunch of companies obsolete at each re:Invent conference