21–30 of 35 posts
Followed by a template reply from the dean, which completely ignores any points maid in the original letter.
You're reading it backwards. This blog post reads like an email reply to an email blast from the new dean to all alumni. The >'s are the quoted message.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copying is not stealing, at best it's IP infringement. For further clarity consider Thomas Jefferson: "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point,…
> Copying is not stealing But it does nothing to, as Jefferson would certainly point out, improve the human condition, to simply copy what someone else did and crush that someone else with your market dominance. This is just plain evil. Demonstrating, BTW, his own point - he too became an hypocrite that's capable of doing anything immoral in order to make more money, much like the HBS alumni he was criticizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copying is not stealing But it does nothing to, as Jefferson would certainly point out, improve the human condition, to simply copy what someone else did and crush that someone else with your market dominance. This is just plain evil. Demonstrating, BTW, his own point - he too became an hypocrite that's capable of doing anything immoral in order to make more money, much like the HBS alumni he was criticizing.
But he copies and improves, so much that the end product is barely comparable to the original. It's like saying a Ferrari is a descendant of the black T-Ford. Sure, but it proves nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> An ethics lecture from a man whose company This was written a year before Zynga was formed. I still think he's hypocritical, but let's be clear about the context. >> sells spyware (Zwinky toolbar) I have no idea where you got this idea from. Zynga does not make Zwinky, Mindspark Interactive Network does. >> highly profitable add-ons to games under the pretext of charity (Farmville "donations" to Haiti)? A 50% char…
> Zynga does not make Zwinky, Mindspark Interactive Network does. But they need distribution, and they got that through Pincus - See: "I did every horrible thing in the book just to get revenues" : http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus... > Product (red) is a great example where buying a $150 iPod nets a whopping $10 for The Global Fund. You really can not compare the two. The BOM and cost of p…
An ethics lecture from a man whose company sells spyware (Zwinky toolbar) and highly profitable add-ons to games under the pretext of charity (Farmville "donations" to Haiti)? EDIT: oh, and whose company essentially ripped off the idea of Farmville from someone else. Forgot about that one.
>> An ethics lecture from a man whose company This was written a year before Zynga was formed. I still think he's hypocritical, but let's be clear about the context. >> sells spyware (Zwinky toolbar) I have no idea where you got this idea from. Zynga does not make Zwinky, Mindspark Interactive Network does. >> highly profitable add-ons to games under the pretext of charity (Farmville "donations" to Haiti)? A 50% char…
Still, I find it a little ironic that he would later say things like, "I did every horrible thing in the book to get the revenues" -- paraphrasing since I don't recall the exact quote.
As far as the charity split is concerned, I agree 50% isn't bad in most cases. However, I imagine margins are essentially zip for Zynga in this case, whereas most charities that take a cut of donations do have high operating costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> An ethics lecture from a man whose company This was written a year before Zynga was formed. I still think he's hypocritical, but let's be clear about the context. >> sells spyware (Zwinky toolbar) I have no idea where you got this idea from. Zynga does not make Zwinky, Mindspark Interactive Network does. >> highly profitable add-ons to games under the pretext of charity (Farmville "donations" to Haiti)? A 50% char…
> Zynga does not make Zwinky, Mindspark Interactive Network does. But they need distribution, and they got that through Pincus - See: "I did every horrible thing in the book just to get revenues" : http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus... > Product (red) is a great example where buying a $150 iPod nets a whopping $10 for The Global Fund. You really can not compare the two. The BOM and cost of p…
Point conceded, I didn't know about that.
> You really can not compare the two.
A fair comparison isn't far out of reach - Shazam (red) only donates 20% of its iPhone app sales. My point isn't about these specific deals, it's that charity-share deals aren't uncommon and a 50% share is above industry standard.
And for what it's worth, Zynga did spike their contributions to 100% after the earthquake hit. Through the sales of items in Farmville, they raised over $1.5M for earthquake relief, more than most NGOs, private companies, and countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he copies and improves, so much that the end product is barely comparable to the original. It's like saying a Ferrari is a descendant of the black T-Ford. Sure, but it proves nothing.
I can't argue with Zynga's products being improved versions of their competitors' - I have never used (and have consistently blocked) them. I was questioning the "I don't fucking want innovation. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers" thing, which is plain ugly.
I tried to read this, really I did, but the lack of capitalization makes me want to die a swift death. You're writing to the Harvard Business School. Man up and use the shift key already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't argue with Zynga's products being improved versions of their competitors' - I have never used (and have consistently blocked) them. I was questioning the "I don't fucking want innovation. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers" thing, which is plain ugly.
What we're missing from that quote is context. Also, it appears to have worked for Mr. Pincus and not for his competitors, obviously he did something a little different.
Couldn't that be attributed to his company having a larger user base and more money than its competition?