Live data from Hacker News

Goodbye, Twilio

blog.miguelgrinberg.com

161–170 of 353 posts

Re: Goodbye, Twilio

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny to me that I’m reading this while listening to “Abolish Silicon Valley” by Wendy Liu. I don’t think any CEO can be moral if your primary obligation is “shareholder value”. Or in plain language: making other people more rich at the cost of others. I’m just happy the guy got out when the company didn’t align with his values anymore and he has the means to afford himself a conscience.

> making other people more rich at the cost of others Not everything is zero sum. There is a reason that when you purchase something both sides say thank you.

The world is 100% legally zero sum

unless you can legally appropriate property with no money or any other type of compensation then where is this magical free pie?

Re: Goodbye, Twilio

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> viable business A developer run and developer focused business could absolutely be a viable business. But it wouldn’t be the 10x hockey stick growth company venture capitalists demand and ultimately they hold the power here. So we get the inevitable.

Where does the money come from? Customers don't magically appear. Any, and I mean _any_ example you can dream of, will require something more than just the product. Price, promotion, product, and distribution. You need all four.

> Where does the money come from?

You realise that businesses are successfully formed without venture capital, right?

I’m not saying “create a business and ignore the entire concept of marketing”. I’m saying that you can create a small business with a tight focus and it can be a success, a great success even, without the necessity of scaling to the level VC investments usually require you to.

Re: Goodbye, Twilio

#163
post #97

"The company was great when it was just engineers, but then they hired account managers and sales reps and business people and marketers who ruined everything." Common refrain from developers at SaaS companies who don't realize that the party they were enjoying all these years was directly funded by VC dollars, and these other people who they hate so much in fact do critical jobs and are necessary for converting all…

I think you read a different article. Miguel is aggrieved by the fact that it is no longer a developer focused company, which was the reason for its success.

Sure, you need sales, marketing and the rest of it; it does not mean that you need to forget what made you great in the first place.

Re: Goodbye, Twilio

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a startup lives and dies by revenue or fundraising. Engineers are a means of achieving revenue for many startups, but that does not mean they live and die by their engineers. There are plenty of large companies that got there without engineering excellence.

If you really want an adventure into this 'engineers vs. funding', look up Roberts Space Industries.

Is that really a representative example though? Roberts basically invented a gaming subgenre despite himself until he had so much money there was no one left who could say "stop, that's enough". His ambition appears to keep engineers busy with an ever growing product scope.

Re: Goodbye, Twilio

#165
The trend we are seeing across the tech industry and business in general is to know/consolidate/extract/exploit. Even users who pay now are still "the product". Who are the buyers? Intelligence agencies, both governmental and private who have different aims, but with the same intermediate goal is to know everything about you.

The only (ONLY) motive is profit. Growth, growth, growth above all costs at the expense of people and the environment. Jeff jumped into this thread to try to color it with verbiage such as:

> we came to the conclusion that the world doesn't need more communications, it needs better communications. More relevant. More effective.

This is another way to habituate and legitimate the exploitation of users for those few who profit. An example, is the A2P 10DLC registration that is being forced on users of the product that will charge a registration fee, a vetting fee, and a recurring monthly cost. From what I can tell, there is no legal basis forcing this. The Telco cartel got together and came up with a way to make more money off of you. Sure they will talk about it in terms of "improving your experience" and "stopping spam texts". While there may be a kernel of truth in there, that is not the main reason. Go back to rule number 1: profit, profit, profit.

It is a shame that the Telcos are strong arming the CSP middlemen to make them abide by these rules or not deliver their messages. And of course that rolls down to the end users.

But I think the bigger issue here is that they need to know exactly who you are in terms of registration. Blocking VOIP numbers for OTP verification, etc etc. Why do you think this is? Because they will take all of the data you provide, the metadata you produce and sell it to third parties for profit at your expense and without your consent (or otherwise wrapped up in a "privacy policy" that is too long that no one reads).

None of what I am saying is new, it is the same old playbook that most people are ignorant of. I suggest reading The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff for a deeper study of this topic.

If you would like to refute any of this @jeffiel I would welcome it. I find the forced registration of A2P 10DLC absolutely horrifying. The trend for everybody is to put them into a "pre-crime" bucket. In doing so, we lose all privacy on the web, and with it the web itself.

Edit: I don't know Jeff and I am not making my comment about a personal attack or a character (mis)representation. My point is to look at trends in general, at the decline of privacy for the growth of profit, and how language is used to characterize it as something else selling it as you are getting a better experience through personalization, relevancy, effective, etc. Zuboff touches on this in her book and it is recently in my mind so my comments are coming through the lens of this recent discovery. However, the larger anti-privacy trend and centralization across the web is not new, and I stand that we are all losers if we allow this trend to continue.

Re: Goodbye, Twilio

#166
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's the alternative for something straightforward like that?

A raspberry pi with a 4g hat? Overkill I suppose, in the past for similar stuff I've used a microcontroller with a GPRS modem, but since the 2g switch off I'm not sure it can be done that simply.

4g hats don't even work with many providers anymore since many US carriers are whitelisting only their allowed devices to send SMS on their networks.

Re: Goodbye, Twilio

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't one. This headache is legal, not Twilio

There is, it's called a USB 4G modem that plugs straight into whatever server you want.

Many carriers don't allow non-authorized devices like 4g modems to send SMS on their networks now. That's a recent change (last year).

Re: Goodbye, Twilio

#168
For my teams, we used Twilio services on projects very early in the company's lifecycle. Its always been a running joke about how the company's trajectory will play out. So far the cynics seem to have won out. In hindsight it wasn't very difficult to predict but the trajectory Twilio is on appears to repeat itself on more than a few of the tech companies we invested in or utilized. ugh! Moral of the story, is to get off someone else's platform as soon as reasonably possible.

Re: Goodbye, Twilio

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> making other people more rich at the cost of others Not everything is zero sum. There is a reason that when you purchase something both sides say thank you.

The world is 100% legally zero sum unless you can legally appropriate property with no money or any other type of compensation then where is this magical free pie?

The world is trivially not zero sum. If it were zero sum we would all be living worse off than medieval peasants

Re: Goodbye, Twilio

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really want an adventure into this 'engineers vs. funding', look up Roberts Space Industries.

Is that really a representative example though? Roberts basically invented a gaming subgenre despite himself until he had so much money there was no one left who could say "stop, that's enough". His ambition appears to keep engineers busy with an ever growing product scope.

That’s… an over simplification. But it’s an example of what happens when sales people are trying to sell jpegs and mpegs before anyone has done any development. It drives development to the point that virtually nothing is “done” and everything is half-done.
Post reply on HN