[irjustin]

> To me, it only communicates that the issues were embarrassing, inconvenient, or otherwise do not shine a good light.

> Am I reading too much into this, or does this kind of pithy announcement usually hide skeletons? Genuinely curious here.

This line of thinking bothers me. It reads as if you feel like you're owed something from the company. Why does it matter?

If it's fundraising issues, lack of product market fit, founder disputes, team member stole the entire bank account, the end result is the same. They can't run the business. As long as there's a clear message and a path to EOL for active customers, what possible reason could help?

To me, it actually highlights the praise of the team and the products they built together instead of focusing on the details of why they're no longer operable. And reading the other threads here, they did a great job but there simply wasn't large enough captive market.

[Aeolun]

> It reads as if you feel like you're owed something from the company. Why does it matter?

You paid them money and trusted them with your data. Any usage on your part is an investment in the company. Of course you would feel entitled to know why they are ceasing effective immediately

[Hnrobert42]

You paid them money. You got a service. If you bought groceries from a grocery store every week, and one well you showed up to find they were closed, would you feel like you were owed an explanation?

[chii]

Yes. But only because the usual routine is worth something to me, and i would be angry about a change that is forced upon me. Getting an explanation is a way to release that anger.

[alphabettsy]

Annoyed I’d understand, but angry? Other people aren’t required to help maintain your routine.

[ClumsyPilot]

You put in data. They owe you data back.

If you put money in the bank, do you expect to get it back?

[irjustin]

yes, agreed.... but we're talking about being owed an explanation - i think you missed that part of this thread.

[irjustin]

> Any usage on your part is an investment in the company. Of course you would feel entitled to know why they are ceasing effective immediately

Going with the Steelman path - This is true if I sincerely believed in the company, likely promoted them to others, and was emotionally invested. I definitely would want one. As a shareholder, I would demand one.

Anyway, based on the OP's tone of this thread, I doubt they were emotionally invested let alone a paying customer - but assumptions.

[Dylan16807]

You sure didn't steelman the OP.

They said the explanation is suspicious. That doesn't mean they feel like they are personally owed an explanation.

[irjustin]

Was steelmanning what I quoted which was not the OP.

[Dylan16807]

Yes. Which is bad.

[irjustin]

Wait... Why?

[samhuk]

This best describes my feeling.

[jzb]

“Just because they left a comment saying the explanation was suspicious, nobody would reasonably infer they feel entitled to an explanation.”

Uh-huh

[Dylan16807]

What doesn't make sense about that?

Even if you don't owe me any explanation, if you freely give me a bad one I'm allowed to say there's something weird going on. Especially if you chose to make a fully public post about it.

Read the comment again. "perplexed" "It only communicates" "Am I reading too much into this" "curious". I don't see any implication of being owed more. It's a criticism that the post is not leaving the message that is intended.

It's not the same, but it reminds me of the quote: My "Not involved in human trafficking" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.

[dangus]

Not an investment, an exchange of goods and services.

I’m not owed explanation if my local gas station closes down and I bought a tank of gas from them the day before.

[Dylan16807]

A subscription is different from a one-off exchange. The expectation is for it to continue.

[dangus]

Tell that to my local newspaper. Most things come to an end at some point.

[Dylan16807]

I would feel like the local newspaper should tell me why they are shutting down, if it wasn't already obvious because they're a newspaper. Wouldn't you?

That's what we're talking about here, not forcing them to stay up somehow.

[bomewish]

We’re just curious about what happened and we think we could learn from it maybe — was it product market fit, was it unit economics. Lessons in there!! So it would be cool to see more detailed info.

[nvr219]

> Why does it matter?

It matters a lot if the team goes on to found some other product that will go away in 3 years.

[irjustin]

> It matters a lot if the team goes on to found some other product that will go away in 3 years.

You follow team members' track records and avoid products based on who is there?

Just trying to point out how unrealistic this logic actually plays out. It seems like in general, you'll want to avoid startups or companies less than 5 years old.

[ies7]

I don't avoid startup/business less than 5 years old neither I avoid startup where only a few lower members of failed startup moved there.

I avoid doing business with startup founded by a majority team of a failed startup.

[nvr219]

I will do business or avoid doing business with companies based on leadership reputation, yes.