Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A gentlemen's agreement

wildbit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#41

Post by mindcrime »

rz2k wrote: post #34
samolang wrote: post #12

I strongly disagree. That is not how capitalism works. You should take advantage of every opportunity you can to get people to try your product. If you have a superior product they'll stay, if you don't they won't.

Furthermore, "gentleman's agreements" like these are fundamentally anti-competitive. The sentiment is an us vs. them one, where 'us' is vendors, and 'them' is customers. While misleading statements about competitors should be unacceptable, since it hurts customers and the industry, the same cannot be said for vigorous competition. It is also worth pointing out that it's expensive to prepare for rare events, and the c…

Furthermore, "gentleman's agreements" like these are fundamentally anti-competitive.

That's quite a stretch, given the usual definition of anti-competitive. A "gentleman's agreement" to not lower prices, or not to expand into a certain market, etc., would be genuinely anti-competitive. This is simply an agreement to not kick somebody when they're down. That's just good sportsmanship and integrity. Personally, I think more companies should display this kind of thinking.

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#42

Post by PuercoPop »

So you thought it is loable to not exploit your opponents weaknesses?

And it is loable to leave potential customers stranded with a subpar service that has failed their expectations by not being available?

It think you should read Sirlin's definition of a scrub[0], and decide if you want to continue being one, but you have no moral high ground, you are just limited by your own made up rules.

[0]:http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#43

Post by cnagele »

samolang wrote: post #12

I strongly disagree. That is not how capitalism works. You should take advantage of every opportunity you can to get people to try your product. If you have a superior product they'll stay, if you don't they won't.

Capitalism works how you want it to work, that is the beauty of it. It's the business principles that lead the decisions that are made, either big or small. The point of the post is deciding what principles you set, and how they will shape the company as it grows. It's my personal feeling (along with my wife and business partner) that while we have competitors, and we compete every day, there are still some boundaries.

There are an abundance of opportunities to obtain new customers and demonstrate a superior product. While this might be one of them, it is not one I respect as a tactic to grow a business, and one I would never use myself.

Don't forget, the principles you set early should stick with your company as it grows. If you "take advantage of every opportunity you can" you may one day find yourself in a place you do not respect either. I think this is the definition of what people have termed "evil companies" in our industry.

It's your choice of course, and that's the beauty of it.

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#44

Post by mindcrime »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #18

Getting 6 nines uptime costs money, if you make that investment in infrastructure/staff then you deserve to make it a selling point. OTOH I can certainly see an exception when it comes to what is effectively digital terrorism. There seems to be at least some belief that Adria was let go at least partly to stop the fallout from the DDOS attack. You can't let 4channers get the idea that they can set policy decisions th…

Getting 6 nines uptime costs money, if you make that investment in infrastructure/staff then you deserve to make it a selling point.

Certainly, and I don't see the OP arguing against that. The OP just seems to be saying something that's analogous to the old schoolyard ethic of "don't kick someone when they're down".

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#45

Post by vinceguidry »

I'm curious as to where she got that notion. Do things like this happen often enough among her market segment to where a reasonable person could form such an expectation? I mean, I can see having a personal conviction to not stoop to such levels, but expecting my competitors to share it? That sounds rather illogical, and could lead to getting caught flat-footed in such an event.

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#46

Post by jiggy2011 »

mindcrime wrote: post #44
jiggy2011 wrote: post #18

Getting 6 nines uptime costs money, if you make that investment in infrastructure/staff then you deserve to make it a selling point. OTOH I can certainly see an exception when it comes to what is effectively digital terrorism. There seems to be at least some belief that Adria was let go at least partly to stop the fallout from the DDOS attack. You can't let 4channers get the idea that they can set policy decisions th…

Getting 6 nines uptime costs money, if you make that investment in infrastructure/staff then you deserve to make it a selling point. Certainly, and I don't see the OP arguing against that. The OP just seems to be saying something that's analogous to the old schoolyard ethic of "don't kick someone when they're down".

Well, that depends.

If I can win customers by pointing out that company X is having problems and you wouldn't have those problems with my company (or at least would be less likely to) because we have superior infrastructure etc then I think it's perfectly fair to point that out.

If OTOH they are suffering as a consequence of some retard-spasm of the internetz that could just as easily have happened to us and more crucially is more likely to happen to us if 4chan get their way this time around.

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#47

Post by bjterry »

PuercoPop wrote: post #42

So you thought it is loable to not exploit your opponents weaknesses? And it is loable to leave potential customers stranded with a subpar service that has failed their expectations by not being available? It think you should read Sirlin's definition of a scrub[0], and decide if you want to continue being one, but you have no moral high ground, you are just limited by your own made up rules. [0]: http://www.sirlin.ne…

The English word for loable is "laudable." Also, I agree that that is a great article. Cheers :)

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#48

Post by mindcrime »

PuercoPop wrote: post #42

So you thought it is loable to not exploit your opponents weaknesses? And it is loable to leave potential customers stranded with a subpar service that has failed their expectations by not being available? It think you should read Sirlin's definition of a scrub[0], and decide if you want to continue being one, but you have no moral high ground, you are just limited by your own made up rules. [0]: http://www.sirlin.ne…

So you thought it is loable to not exploit your opponents weaknesses?

There's a big difference between exploiting a weakness in general, and taking advantage of an extraordinary circumstance that harms your competitor. To me, this comes down to sportsmanship.

To use a bit of an analogy... I wrestled in high-school. We trained to identify weaknesses in the game of our opponents, so I might well enter into a match with a guy thinking "I know he's susceptible to upper body takedowns like a lateral drop or an armspin, so I'm going to pointedly attack that way". That's trying to exploit a weakness, and it's totally reasonable, expected and fair. But if I'm wrestling a guy and he slips on a wet spot on the mat and tears a groin muscle and is laying on the mat writhing in pain, should I jump on him and try to score a quick pin? No, of course not. Good sportsmanship dictates stand back, let the ref step in, give the guy his medical timeout, and then see what happens. If he can't continue, then you either "win" via forfeit or the match is vacated completely (I forget exactly which would have happened in that case when I was in HS).

Same in the business world... if my competitor has a known, exploitable weakness, like a less mature infrastructure and problems with uptime, and I market and sell based on an overall better quality of service, that's one thing. But if the competitor experiences a "black swan" event, should I "jump on and go for the quick pin"? I say "no", that doing that would be just as unethical as in the wrestling example.

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#49

Post by jusben1369 »

cryptoz wrote: post #27

By writing this post, you're actively working to benefit from someone else's outage. A bit hypocritical, no? Hitting the front page of HN with a post talking about how great you are? Yeah, okay, you're not trying to benefit off this outage at all.

You do realize the logic of your argument results in "You can't comment on this because any exposure you receive based on your comment makes you a hypocrite based your comments"

Re: A gentlemen's agreement

#50

Post by lancefisher »

benatkin wrote: post #20

I agree with most of this, but they should have waited weeks to post this, so it didn't seem like they were trying to use reverse psychology to engage in the exact behavior that they're railing against. Also "gentlemen's agreement" was a poor choice of words because it isn't a gender neutral term.

The term "gentlemen's agreement" pretty well defines what she is talking about. I don't know if the fact that a woman wrote this post changes your mind.
Post reply on HN