• ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s where their claim is bullshite.

    If it’s a “small percentage” that’s affected, why waste the effort to block it?

    They’re planning on charging a monthly fee, and I they’re lying about the small percentage.

    I think they want to see how many people will convert to their app.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought I read from the article, 0.2% of their users were responsible for 50% of the API calls. Most likely due to how things were integrating or polling?

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or because their app sucks and 99.8% of people set it up and never use it.

        If it were a polling issue, they could have worked with 3rd party integrations and asked for mitigations or changes to the services. The changes shouldn’t be that hard, they’re known problems with documented solutions.

        This is the same as “network neutrality is bad because a small number of users use a lot”

        Hell, they could have set up a “free tier” that had a limited number of requests.

        Or the best answer, they could have made an “all local network” api that allowed them to skip out on data costs entirely for people that don’t want to use their app.

        Why did they skip out on any of the solutions available that allowed users to continue to integrate?

        💰