[TeMPOraL]

> it would not surprise me for other corporate to also cancel "low paying customers" for "high paying customers"

At least going by all the entrepreneurship articles I've read over the decade, "firing your customers" is a term of art, and a recommended approach for dealing with unprofitable and/or annoying customers - so I guess this shouldn't be surprising.

> Loyalty is beyond dead so cancelling a contract is just a cost of business if they feel the alternative gives more money.

Not to be TOO snarky, but that's kind of the point of contracts - contract cancellation terms aren't an "or else..." threat, but rather an agreed upon exit strategy. Termination fines aren't punishment, they're compensation for inconvenience.

[PrimeMcFly]

> Not to be TOO snarky

Repeating this verbatim in your reply means you are trying to be pretty snarky, fyi.

[boringg]

I mean they were both being intentionally snarky. The second snarky comment was used in a mocking tone because the first comment didnt seem to have much empirical evidence to support it

[johnnyanmac]

I don't, and that's why I preferenced it as such. Sort of like how you'll self-preface yourself with something like "nit:" before making a nitpick that's meant to be treated as a small note but nothing to consider or delve too strongly over.

The idea is to diffuse siutations like this before it comes about, but I guess nothing is perfect.