Can second this. I had an enterprise client that was interested in using these for fast development etc. Wasn’t my project or the reason I was there but I was curious so I kept up with it.

Eventually they abandoned the company but stuck with the concept by going with another company. Complaints were the same, extremely buggy interface, dataloss, but also terrible support. That may have been there fault though for not using their actual domain for the test period (and not mentioning that they were an F200 or something).

▲

ericpauley an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I won't claim strong enthusiasm for Sprites, but in my experience (albeit way back in 2021) Fly's support was absolutely top-notch, up to and including Kurt personally working with me to help debug our deployments. This was as a small business only billing a few hundred a month.

	▲	ofjcihen an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This would have been much more recent. Maybe something changed? Either way I wasn’t privy to the actual details, just that it was one of their gripes.

▲

Imustaskforhelp an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> (and not mentioning that they were an F200 or something).

I am not a F200 company or anything, just a normal guy but I have the opinion that I personally like the companies who treat normal accounts and the general experience/support. I have just felt like as if its a good litmus test depending on things. What are your opinion on things and was the enterprise client opening up a normal account intentionally similar to line of thinking or for other reasons?

▲

ofjcihen an hour ago | parent [-]

I had some conversations with the lead on the project and his reasoning was something along the lines of “we’ve been suckered into using something with sweetheart attention before only to have the rug pulled when we’re ‘reliant’”.

I also think he might have not wanted the attention that putting the company name on the account might get.

Were those good reasons? Honestly I don’t know, but apparently the experience of using the product spoke for itself.

	▲	Imustaskforhelp 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> “we’ve been suckered into using something with sweetheart attention before only to have the rug pulled when we’re ‘reliant’”. It makes me feel like this is like the corporate form of love-bombing perhaps, oof, I think that two reasons for this could be that most companies would want to do anything for contracts with large companies, (especially within B2B?), of course I feel as if some additional attention is a good point but excess of anything is bad as you have said that they learnt from. Its good to know that they learnt from it though :-D and perhaps other companies could also learn from it as I believe that wisdom comes from learning from other people's mistakes as well. Another reason is that companies like to really show about other large companies using it. I have heard when a company literally said (users of this product also use)... and then proceeds to show the names of recognizable companies like Lovable/OpenAI/Anthropic/Google. (that too very sneakily) There is also the part of used by engineers at (Big tech) etc. but I think I remember cases where the engineer doesn't use it as part of their day job at Big tech but rather on the side and there are so many engineers and the amount of use could vary just as well (because otherwise the company could just say "used at Google/Microsoft etc." itself.) I found that part silly but perhaps my heart still tries to understand other people and my explaination of it is perhaps that with all the new companies, one of the filters that people select for trust is seeing what other large companies are. This makes us, say, transfer the trust we have from the brand of these large companies (Google/Microsoft/Lovable etc.) and into smaller brands.