3 ms·
My argument isn't that they shouldn't be upset. It's that they have handled a situation so poorly that their actions and consequences are worse than what they a
by brandon272 17y ago
My argument isn't that they shouldn't be upset. It's that they have handled a situation so poorly that their actions and consequences are worse than what they are originally critiquing!
Mozilla made a mistake by posting images that they shouldn't have posted. If they wanted that design, they should have coughed up the cash and gotten MetaLab to do the work. But publicly shaming a company to try and damage their reputation, including posting private e-mails for the world to see without so much as a courtesy call to the person you have a problem before you distribute a message which may reach hundreds of thousands, or millions of eyes is, at best, horribly short sighted and extraordinarily unprofessional.
- rimantas 17y agoSo posting someones work you did not pay for in public and using for promotion is ok, complaining about that in public is not ok? Strange world, indeed.
- ubernostrum 17y agoIf the claims you were making were true you might have a point. Unfortunately, it does not appear the facts are on your side.
- anthonyb 17y agoHow are his claims not true? Mozilla posted Metalab's designs on a public wiki page and used them for promotion - after rejecting the design (ie. not paying for it). If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it. That's pretty straightforward ethical behaviour, I would've thought.
- brandon272 17y agoMetaLab did no work for Mozilla beyond giving them an estimate for work to be completed. The concept drawing the Mozilla mistakenly posted on their wiki was, by all accounts, a concept that was produced internally at Mozilla.
- Semiapies 17y agoAn estimate that Mozilla rejected before using the design they were unwilling to pay for. EDIT: If I were MetaLabs, I would not be horrified at the prospect that people perfectly willing to rip me off would be reluctant to hire me.