I did a quick review of Twitter's new API pricing, I can't spend a lot of time on it given that I'm paddling as fast as I can to get a new Drummer online that doesn't depend on Twitter logins. But the first problem I see is that they think (apparently) that each dev has a single app. Which for me is vary far from the truth. Heroku made the same mistake, they came up with what they felt was a fair price, assuming the developer made one big app. The problem is with a free product running for so many years, we made lots of really small apps. Why build something huge when the idea is small. The cost of staying with Heroku would have been totally diseconomic when full servers that could run all my apps for $10 a month. Why should I pay Heroku $500 for the same thing, even though I had to do a lot of work to dig out of the hole. Now with Twitter, I think I'll just bow out, and let other people find out if this is workable or not. I'll leave my servers running, and if they stop working, we'll figure out what if anything to do then. None of the apps I've made that depend on Twitter are worth $100 a month to keep running. That's another story, because the Twitter ecosystem for cool utilities was practically non-existent. All that energy from now on clearly is going to Mastodon where there is no vendor who can turn the cart over, at least not yet (don't rule it out, it could happen).