"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 an hour 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.

	▲	borski 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

paulddraper 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is WILD to put those statements together in the same article.

▲

embedding-shape 2 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 2 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 an hour 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.

▲

CityOfThrowaway an hour 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.

	▲	rafram 29 minutes ago \| parent \| 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.
	▲	windexh8er an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| 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.
	▲	gneray an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		+1

▲

yawnxyz 15 minutes 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.

▲

smrtinsert an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]