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.
What a load of bunk. Nothing about capitalism per-se prohibits a firm from having a sense of ethics, or from having principles. Promoting this way of thinking is the reason so many lefties find so much ammunition to attack capitalism.
Firms (especially privately held ones) certainly can choose to withhold from certain kinds of behaviour while competing fiercely, and succeeding, in the market.
All I'm saying is capitalism works best when customers are sensitive to problems. The more alternatives they try, the more likely they try the best alternative, the more likely the best companies succeed.
No, but that wasn't a "black swan" event that GoDaddy could not control. They chose to support SOPA. In my mind, that's a pretty different scenario.
All I'm saying is capitalism works best when customers are sensitive to problems. The more alternatives they try, the more likely they try the best alternative, the more likely the best companies succeed.
I basically agree with that; I just think the OP's post is pointing out a very specific edge case where a certain sort of behaviour is indicated.
I don't think a 'gentlemen's agreement' is needed.
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.
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 costs make you less competitive when those rare events are not occurring. This event was difficult to anticipate, but so are large natural disasters, and it isn't difficult to imagine even more random attacks.
Maybe Dyn isn't any more prepared for an unpredictable DDoS attack of the same scale, but I don't know either way, but at the very least there is a case for being part of one's failover plan.
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.
The nod and the wink about refusing to compete, and advocating an effective blacklist of companies that evangelize on the subject of reliability can't be anything more than a nod and a wink, because it would put the signatories in legal jeopardy.
Alternately, they could build extra capacity, and sell terms on how often they would provide overflow capacity to each other, but that would cost more than simply campaigning to prohibit discussion of failures.
There really isn't any kind of stretch to call this anti-competitive. It is pretty much the archetype for using an informal agreement as an enforcement mechanism in order to avoid a mutually detrimental nash equilibrium. More companies could engage in the type of behavior advocated here, but then it wouldn't be the dynamic industry that it is.
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.
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 is real it is often well-intentioned and understood as courteous by the people responsible for it.
Only marginally more obvious is if you even hear people describing whether they raise the hourly rate for their gardener as a courtesy issue in regard to a friend who employs the same person. There the harm is almost blatantly obvious, but I assure you it is a common sentiment.
Here's an actual quote:
>When someone you compete against is suffering, especially as a result of any kind of infrastructure issues, shut up and keep your head down.
and, later:
>Not to mention, do you really want those customers who were so quick to leave? What do you think they’ll do when you go down next time?
which sounds like the argument about trying to hire A, B or C people—it's actually a pretty good idea to target really demanding customers. There is a random component to infrastructure failures, but 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.
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.