I bought Tailwind Plus when it was still Tailwind UI years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it in hobbyist projects and some professional projects. Would have pushed for company license if my current company isn’t exclusively native apps.

Eventually AI agents will have to pay to access libraries.

This is what you get when you sell a lifetime product

Tailwind UI is a phenomenal product, but, there's a simple mathematical reason you cannot sell code like in this way to create a sustainable business

Create a license that prevents AI companies that generate html based on tailwind from doing it without being in a commercial package. Let them know of the license change and give them 3 months to adjust. Keep tailwind accessible and allow that llm instruction to make it's way into the codebase so it gets picked up by multiple "AI" businesses that output code. This is your new business model.

Open source was not ready for this type of businesses that don't give a dam about rights or copyrights.

It was probably inevitable. Building a commercial offering (mostly templates) around code which could be considered as "commodity" is extremely hard to do. I'm glad Adam and his team have had a lot of success already with this, but for sure it was not sustainable on the long run. If you are reading this, thanks Adam for having created Tailwind. It's not for everyone, but it's for some people, and that's good enough for me. We need options, and you were a solid one of them.

This pretty much accurately covers what's really happening: "Tailwind CSS Lays off 75% of Engineers Due to Brutal AI - or... 3 People Fired Because CEO Sucks..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc-WZRIWc38

The PR author posted a TikTok link [1] the thread later explaining their position. Their behaviour seems very unprofessional to me. Mayve the just want to increase engagement to their accounts. Tailwind definetly made the right call here.

[1] https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZThLjg284/

AI taking jobs by users avoiding ads. It makes me wonder how widespread this is and what other "not so obvious" job-taking effects it has.

Quoting Adam,

> And making it easier for LLMs to read our docs just means less traffic to our docs which means less people learning about our paid products and the business being even less sustainable.

> But the reality is that 75% of the people on our engineering team lost their jobs here yesterday because of the brutal impact AI has had on our business.

NYT and other Billion dollar media house can sue the AI companies for copyright violations and get into cozy deals. But the individuals and small companies are left in lurch.

Instead of ganging up on developers for not making their product LLM friendly, they should force the AI companies to ensure that a part of their $20 or $200 goes to the sources of the data used in the LLM responses.

Something like Ad words, where people whose content is used by LLMs can register as a publisher and get compensated.

Oh it wouldn't be sustainable AI companies? Whose fault is that?