• kautau@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “The components used to build the products are largely unique to the products, resulting in long lead times for ordering such component parts from suppliers,” and Twitter must give “written approval for Wiwynn to purchase the necessary components to manufacture the customer products…and expressly assumed liabilities for the procurement costs.”

    So basically they were bespoke servers that are great for Twitter, custom designed, and definitely aren’t easy to just resell elsewhere, so because Twitter isn’t paying, the IT company is eating the loss right now

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      By keeping them on, they’re continuing to incurr expenses, as well as assuring any future “customers” that they can feel free to walk all over them.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        2 months ago

        It sounds like in this transaction they are purely a hardware provider, they shipped the bespoke hardware to Twitter based on twitters order, musk took over, and is now refusing to pay them because he doesn’t want whatever the hardware is after having gutted Twitter, and they haven’t been paid

        • locuester@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yep! It’s more nuanced than the title leads on. But “Elon bad” is the train with momentum around here.

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I wouldn’t describe taking over a company and then not fulfilling obligations incurred prior to the purchase as good behavior. Would you?

            • locuester@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              2 months ago

              If it was done in knowingly and in bad faith, no I would not. With this particular case, all I know is what’s in that article which doesn’t describe the situation in detail. The court case would provide the full picture.

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                2 months ago

                Who would be the bad faith actor here? Wiwynn? If they don’t have an order, that’s going to fall flat pretty fast. Seems like a pretty risky bet at $60 million. Twitter? Then it isn’t Wiwynn’s problem, Twitter can take care of their bill, and deal with their internal issues.

                • locuester@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I don’t know. Perhaps as part of the acquisition there were some terms regarding situations like this that are in dispute. Even more nuanced, perhaps Wiwynn knowingly took advantage of the acquisition communication issues to assert a level of standing orders that should have been reconsidered.

                  Who knows, speculating doesn’t move the needle.

                  • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    So stop speculating that the situation is “more nuanced” than the objective article title that paints a picture you don’t like.