A gentlemen's agreement • Hacker News Board

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#81

Post by mindcrime » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 9:16 PM UTC

rz2k wrote: post #79

mindcrime wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and advocating an effective blacklist of companies that evangelize on the subject of reliability Who did that, and what does it have to do with this discussion? There really isn't any kind of stretch to call this anti-competitive. I think you're seeing something that isn't there. We'll probably just have to "agree to disagree" on this point.

This resembles a statement to the effect of not considering an economic phenomenon because it was not immediately obvious. Professional courtesy occurs in many professions including law, medicine and finance, and it causes real economic harm even though the harm is so spread out that it frequently goes unnoticed. The very nature of this type of collusion is that it is not obvious on the surface, and though the harm i…

it is nonsense to pretend that preparation, capacity, and redundancy have no effect, and that they are not only effective marketing topics, but features that are ultimately very important to users.

FWIW, I never claimed that, and I don't think the OP did either. At least for myself, I am very specifically referring to the "black swan event" situation, where something external, unlikely and damaging happens to a competitor. In that case, I don't see how showing some restraint, and not launching a targeted campaign to try and leech their customers, is anti-competitive. And to the extent that you can, somehow, define it so, I would argue that any damage is so absurdly trivial that it can be ignored.

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#82

Post by ahoyhere » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 9:57 PM UTC

rz2k wrote: post #80

ahoyhere wrote: post #75

Sad to see the discussion is more about "what'll get you customers" instead of "what does it mean to do business ethically." Capitalism, fine. Competitiveness, fine. Postmark is not a company afraid of customers or competition. But they believe in competing in a classy, ethical way. Most importantly, their competitive advantages are based on facts , things they can control, things their competitors could control but…

Their is a long time debate between the ideals of communitarism and the ideals of cosmopolitanism, but another term for courteous noncompete agreements with your competitors is cronyism. When does being nice to your competitors undermine your users' best interests? When does generosity toward people within your industry community benefit your industry at the expense of other communities, and how old does your company…

"but another term for courteous noncompete agreements with your competitors is cronyism."

And another term for this sentence is a strawman argument. Nobody at all said there was a gentleman's agreement not to compete. Please read the article.

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#83

Post by rz2k » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #81

rz2k wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This resembles a statement to the effect of not considering an economic phenomenon because it was not immediately obvious. Professional courtesy occurs in many professions including law, medicine and finance, and it causes real economic harm even though the harm is so spread out that it frequently goes unnoticed. The very nature of this type of collusion is that it is not obvious on the surface, and though the harm i…

it is nonsense to pretend that preparation, capacity, and redundancy have no effect, and that they are not only effective marketing topics, but features that are ultimately very important to users. FWIW, I never claimed that, and I don't think the OP did either. At least for myself, I am very specifically referring to the "black swan event" situation, where something external, unlikely and damaging happens to a compe…

When Rackspace or Amazon Web Services go down, customers recognize that they are fragile, and no one claims that black swan events are irrelevant. The discussion around black swan events revolves around how bad our instincts are when it comes to the high likelihood of rare events. And, the point is that they should not be excluded from our models.

If the two hurricanes and two tsunamis that rose to the level of 'astonishing' during the past decade are the only time that people grasp their likelihood, it is counter productive to treat these events as irrelevant. The same goes for DDoS attacks.

It doesn't matter what people think about this specific issue, since there should be no doubt that there will be many more attempts at this type of vigilantism. No one wants their company beholden to other people's whims and angers, so they should have better defenses. Whether competitors point out their failings or not should be the least of anyone's worries. The capacity to handle attacks up to varying levels of size shouldn't be an impolite or unmentionable subject, it should be a key part of business contingency plans for businesses and their customers.

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#84

Post by rz2k » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 10:23 PM UTC

ahoyhere wrote: post #82

rz2k wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their is a long time debate between the ideals of communitarism and the ideals of cosmopolitanism, but another term for courteous noncompete agreements with your competitors is cronyism. When does being nice to your competitors undermine your users' best interests? When does generosity toward people within your industry community benefit your industry at the expense of other communities, and how old does your company…

"but another term for courteous noncompete agreements with your competitors is cronyism." And another term for this sentence is a strawman argument. Nobody at all said there was a gentleman's agreement not to compete . Please read the article.

You might argue that it is a slippery slope argument, which is not a problem in itself, especially since there is a loose definition for what constitutes cronyism, but it is not a straw man argument.

The post calls for not drawing attention to when a competitor experiences a failure. That sort of chumminess does not encourage more robust infrastructure, it makes it difficult for new entrants to compete based on better reliability, and ultimately does not benefit customers.

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#85

Post by pseut » Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 11:17 PM UTC

ahoyhere wrote: post #74

pseut wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the general sentiment, and I generally act the same way, but I can't help but think, "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying." Another analogy: I played tennis in high school and in every match I've played in my life, there are no refs and the players call balls in or out on their own. Some people cheat on that and, all else equal, they tend to win more points. If I had millions of dollars at stake on these m…

If you play for points, of course it makes sense to cheat. If you play to be a better human being, and better at tennis, you are just fucking yourself in the ear if you cheat. When you cheat, you know you can't win in a fair fight. You may win -- but you know you don't "deserve" it. You can tell yourself you "deserve" it because you were smart enough to take advantage, but some part of you will know you're a liar, an…

Yours is far from a universal opinion. Plenty of people who cheat could probably win a fair fight, but cheating makes it easier. Watch any sport at any level and you'll see "cheaters" win.