News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Twitter refused to pay AWS bill, so Amazon refused to pay for ads. Parent comment

Re:Twitter refused to pay AWS bill, so Amazon refused to pay... by funstuff007 on Sunday March 05, 2023 @08:26PM (#35036395)
That's a very naive view. At the customer size of Twitter, it's more like the old adage. If you owe the bank $1MM it's your problem, but if you own the bank $100MM it's their problem.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Twitter refused to pay AWS bill, so Amazon refused to pay... by lolc on Monday March 06, 2023 @01:49AM (#35038185)
Yes and when refusing service Amazon would not be fulfilling their part of the contract. Negotiations would be harder for them in that case.

Cutting service is the very last cudgel to come out for large contracts. And only when counterparty's insolvency is looming. Which may or may not be the case for Twitter.

If Amazon concluded Twitter's insolvency was near it would certainly negotiate on the contract. Before cutting service. Which is why it's interesting to watch Amazon's reaction here.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Twitter refused to pay AWS bill, so Amazon refused to pay... by seo-speedwagon on Monday March 06, 2023 @09:51AM (#35041668)
It’s funny to think about AWS doing hardball arm twisting stuff like “we moved all your S3 objects into Glacier Deep Storage, we’ll be happy to help you retrieve them once we straighten out this little problem with your bill”

But I think what you’re saying seems more likely

[ Parent | on HN ]