← Back to context

Comment by 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.

"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

  • 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.

    • > 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.

    • 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.

      1 reply →

    • > Why TF haven't enterprise made it more painful for these events?

      Hadn't heard of Stainless before today. Did it have enterprise customers?

  • "rely" is overly strong in these cases usually (more like "make use of")

  • 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.

    • 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

      1 reply →

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

    • 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

      11 replies →