| ▲ | drewda 5 hours ago |
| > As we focus on Claude Platform capabilities and connecting agents to APIs, we’ll be winding down all hosted Stainless products, including our SDK generator. Starting today, new signups, projects, and SDKs will not be available. For better or worse, it's an acquihire. |
|
| ▲ | atomicthumbs 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "Hundreds of companies rely on Stainless to generate SDKs, CLIs, and MCP servers—the libraries, command-line tools, and connectors that let developers and agents use an API." not anymore lol |
| |
| ▲ | windexh8er 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm waiting for the Enterprise space to wise up. For anyone who's ever worked with any reasonably large company as a vendor (especially a small one) you know how painful redlines in legal can be. Why TF haven't enterprise made it more painful for these events? Basically state that if the service is purchased/sold/shuttered prior to the contract expiry date that a significant penalty (e.g. full refund) is required and including some portion of investment made to onboard said service/product/tool. I can't even imagine the money wasted on turn-and-burns in the F1000 alone. The US needs a wake up call with respect to consumer / buyer protections. The life of the snake oil salesman is plentiful these days, and you have a lot of AI-psychotic executives who can't seem to get enough. | | |
| ▲ | ElFitz 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Why TF haven't enterprise made it more painful for these events? They mostly have. By mostly refraining from dealing with startups and companies they deem either “too young” or "too small" to be reliable partners. And, when they do, imposing long sales cycles. And thus the enterprise well is poisoned for most startups. | |
| ▲ | borski an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Usually because they need the technology the vendor is selling. But buyers try to insert this language into partner/ biz dev contracts all the time. Much less common for sales. | | |
| ▲ | bartread 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 100%. A place I worked some years ago we even had an escrow foisted on us by our larger partner in the agreement so that they’d be able to continue running the software we were building if we went under. Honestly, it was a pain in the ass and meant that for them alone we ended up running an older version of the software than we offered to clients because as we developed its capabilities it became ever more integrated into our core platform and we weren’t about to escrow that. When the agreement came up for renewal at the three year mark we managed to get the escrow clauses removed. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Why TF haven't enterprise made it more painful for these events? Hadn't heard of Stainless before today. Did it have enterprise customers? |
| |
| ▲ | prpl 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "rely" is overly strong in these cases usually (more like "make use of") | |
| ▲ | smrtinsert 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | what is the value in destroying those relationships? I assume it was acquisition to defend against another company owning a key part of their delivery pipeline, but killing the public product is just bad press. | | |
| ▲ | somewhatgoated 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | the relationships and enterprise customers they have are probably wildly blown out of proportion and few if any actually used the product in production. They can also keep the product running behind the scenes for a select few and just shut down the public facing part | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | paulddraper 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is WILD to put those statements together in the same article. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What's WILD is people ending up relying on these essentially startup-slops that just serves to give you future technical debt once you have to eventually moved away because they got acquired by $INSERT_BAD_GUY_OF_THE_MONTH | | |
| ▲ | shimman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The only people "relying" on this are other startups whose VC benefactors force them to use other products under their portfolio in order to goose up their numbers. | | |
| ▲ | b65e8bee43c2ed0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | that makes so much sense. I always wondered how the fuck did all those ZIRP era "hello world as a service" bullshit startups have any customers at all. | | |
| ▲ | nerdsniper 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Well, my org decided to pay for Monday.com, and still does, even though no one uses it. We also pay for Asana, and the wonks use that instead. I suspect a lot of larger orgs just have site-wide subscriptions with volume discounts that they don’t need. |
| |
| ▲ | CityOfThrowaway 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've raised venture from a lot of the big firms (and a lot of small firms) and have never had any of them attempt to force me to use anything. | | |
| ▲ | windexh8er 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You may not even see it. I worked in a startup whose founder had money dipped into about a dozen products in the cyber security vertical. Many of those startups, I later found out, had access or used products from others in his portfolio. Basically taking $50k and cycling it through all of them buying something from the other one. I doubt it was a money laundering scheme, but it sure was convenient to just add logos of "customers" to the Nascar pitch slide. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > any of those startups, I later found out, had access or used products from others in his portfolio This is just us angel investors being kooky. If I meet someone I'm impressed by, I'll tend to fall into a pattern where half of my conversations over the next weeks will wind up with me making an introduction to them because I think they could be vaguely helpful to the problem just described to me. (In most cases, the effect fades after a few weeks. In some, it doesn't–those are winners.) |
| |
| ▲ | rafram an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Go to the website of pretty much any AI startupslop, Google who led their series A, then Google who led the series A of the other AI startups (it’s always other AI startups) whose logos they show as users/testimonials/case studies on their landing page. You’ll start seeing a pattern. | | | |
| ▲ | gneray 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | +1 |
|
| |
| ▲ | yawnxyz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Stainless was a fantastic product; every product/service has to start from somewhere | |
| ▲ | jMyles 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It may be that there are many projects relying on Stainless, or, as a sibling comment points out, it may be portfolio-based stack selection rather than actual feature dependence. Either way, it does seem irresponsible and tone deaf for an acquiring/hiring company and an acquired/hired company to send these conflicting signals. If one puts oneself out there as dependable in the face hopes and needs of other, smaller, up-and-coming projects, then a rapid wind-down for $ is incongruent with such a posture. So much so that, at least for my part, I'd be quite reluctant to hire someone who had engaged in this sort of bob-and-weave pursuit. |
| |
| ▲ | mcintyre1994 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They didn’t. The first is from the Stainless blog post, the second is from Anthropic’s. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | btown 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| FYI the above quote is (sadly) real and is from Stainless's blog post: https://www.stainless.com/blog/stainless-is-joining-anthropi... |
|
| ▲ | layer8 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A Stainless steal? ;) |
|
| ▲ | gen220 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wow, OpenAI is a stainless customer right? |
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
