6 ms·

I think you are being a little melodramatic. This is to vet an idea, not a sustainable way to build a business. I even said that it could/should be more of a th

by aberman 16y ago

I think you are being a little melodramatic. This is to vet an idea, not a sustainable way to build a business. I even said that it could/should be more of a thought experiment. And besides, I'm not recommending that you maliciously and deleteriously deceive people. pg on naughtiness: "Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not goody-two-shoes good. Morally they care about getting the big questions right but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word "naughty" rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules--but not rules that matter. This quality may be redundant, though; it may be implied by imagination."

edw519 16y ago
Sorry to say, Rich, that was not the response I expected. AFAIC, there is no gray area here. I have argued (yes, many have disagreed with me) the same for years here. A little background... I have seen more deals than you can imagine ruined because someone lost trust. As simple as that. The salesman fibbing to his wife on the phone in front of the customer. The contractor paying the 3rd party vendor a little extra to get his customer's deal. I even saw someone lose a million dollar deal because he took his customer for a ride in his leased car with the speedometer disconnected. And the reasoning was always the same: "If he could do this little thing to someone else, what will he do with my big deal?" It's not a matter of what is effective. It's a matter of what's right and wrong. For many people (me included, of course), there is no gray area. I realize that jaywalking != murder, but deception in business tactics is always a big deal. When one has little more than your reputation to judge, all data that affects that reputation is fair game. I was disappointed with the original post. Calling deception "a little melodramatic" and citing a pg naughtiness quote as an excuse leaves me more disappointed than ever.
- elai 16y ago
  So if they said that "We are waiting for more customer response before offering this service" would that be fine?
- aberman 16y ago
  If I had more time, I'd go through all your previous HN comments disparaging WePay for different reasons. Somehow I doubt your motivation for doing so is a sterling commitment to morality. If it was, I doubt you would introduce your criticism with: "A company built to handle other people's money...", and instead, just focus your criticism on the point you are attacking.
  - edw519 16y ago
    No need for you to waste any time. Here they are: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959512 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959512 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959304 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959304 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959114 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959114 The first was meant as a compliment. I think you have a great idea and appear to be doing a great job with that idea. I have recommended you to quite a few people as the perfect solution to their problem. I wish you nothing but great success. The other two were in response to a rant about airline customer service on your corporate blog. I thought this was a bad idea and tried my best to explain why. I think the main reason I responded like that was because I saw a young company I cared about potentially making a mistake and I wanted to point it out. To be honest, I didn't ever remember the 3 previous comments when I responded to this thread. I would have never put 2 & 2 together if you hadn't pointed it out. Thinking that someone giving you feedback because they "have it in for you" can be a dangerous assumption. I realize that hn is much bigger than it once was, but it's still a great sandbox to try stuff out and fix problems before the rest of the world finds out. Thus the feedback. Somehow I doubt your motivation for doing so is a sterling commitment to morality. Do you respond to others who provide you feedback like this? I sure hope not.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - tptacek 16y ago
    No, that's really what Ed's like. He's also _really_ not OK with you smoking up to relax ("You have trouble reading and writing and 'rithmetic, so you need a little chemical help. You pussy."); I'm pretty sure he also once posted he'd never work with you if you pirated software. I've been surprised by many things he's said. I think he's coming from a principled place. That doesn't mean I agree with him totally... but I don't think he's gunning for you. If Ed's disappointed with you, someone else in the real world who could be vital to your business is going to be similarly disappointed. Why not figure out how to fix it? You're going to be successful either way, we all know it, but for the most part nobody in the real world is going to give enough of a shit about you to get past the first negative reaction they have to you. Might as well use Ed as a scientific curiosity.
- heed 16y ago
  >I have seen more deals than you can imagine ruined because someone lost trust. If you found that (in general) more business deals were lost as a result of being completely honest and outwardly truthful than being deceptive, would you still be involved in business? Completely hypothetical and probably untrue, but I'm curious how strong your ethics are.
  - edw519 16y ago
    I'm curious how strong your ethics are AFAIC, "ethics" is not a scalar, but a switchable bit, so it's not a matter of strength, but binaryness. would you still be involved in business? It sounds like you're asking, "Would I ever sacrifice my personal standards for money?" Then answer is, "No, it's just not worth it." If I had to compromise my ethics (or any other part of myself) just to improve my chances of making a deal or be more effective in business, I wouldn't even bother. I'd probably just go off and drink beer or write poetry or something like that. You may not like or understand my answer, but that's just the way it is. Life is just too short to live it any way other than how you choose.
- jamiequint 16y ago
  Are you saying that you believe that nobody should attempt to do smoke tests to measure product demand because you regard that as deceiving consumers? Its one thing to lie to make a sale, a completely different thing to not actually be able to deliver a product nobody ever paid for. The point of view you present seems extremely pedantic.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    But, it's not that hard to do a smoke test that doesn't deceive consumers. What's odd though is the company that everyone looks to as getting consumers the best doesn't appear to do any of this sort of validating.
    - aberman 16y ago
      I'm not recommending that companies do this to figure out how to acquire customers. I'm saying a person should do this to help determine whether an idea is worth pursuing.
    - jamiequint 16y ago
      How would you recommend doing it? Which company are you referring to?
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        The company I was thinking of was Apple. I think interviewing people is a good idea. The fact of the matter is at the "idea" stage you don't have enough information to present to people to really give them a feel for if your specific product is viable. But by interviewing a fair number of people, you can understand what their legitimate needs are and what they're willing to pay for it. Of course it's not foolproof, but I think it will actually be better than the approach given in this blog.
      - richcollins 16y ago
        You can still test ad copy and landing page copy that promises a future product in exchange for an email address.
- JesseAldridge 16y ago
  I think there's an important distinction to be made between lying to potential users and lying to friends, family, or business partners. Morality is ultimately about results. I mean, it would be ok to lie in order to prevent the apocalypse, right? Lying to users could be justified as a means to an end, if the end is sufficiently worthwhile. Lying to someone close to you has a much greater cost due to its potential to ruin your relationship, create lots of emotional pain, and end up causing a lot of collateral damage. Things should work out as long as everybody is clear about where the line is: white lies to potential users -- maybe ok; white lies to somebody close to you -- not ok.
  - gintas 16y ago
    > Morality is ultimately about results. Or it's not. See deontological vs. consequentialist conceptions of morality.
    - JesseAldridge 16y ago
      "Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will." And if you have a good will then you seek good results, so both philosphies end up in the same place, right?
      - philwelch 16y ago
        No, not really. The question can be summed up as "do the ends justify the means?".
- EGreg 16y ago
  did you expect a profuse apology?

by aberman 16y ago

edw519 16y ago

Sorry to say, Rich, that was not the response I expected. AFAIC, there is no gray area here. I have argued (yes, many have disagreed with me) the same for years here. A little background... I have seen more deals than you can imagine ruined because someone lost trust. As simple as that. The salesman fibbing to his wife on the phone in front of the customer. The contractor paying the 3rd party vendor a little extra to get his customer's deal. I even saw someone lose a million dollar deal because he took his customer for a ride in his leased car with the speedometer disconnected. And the reasoning was always the same: "If he could do this little thing to someone else, what will he do with my big deal?" It's not a matter of what is effective. It's a matter of what's right and wrong. For many people (me included, of course), there is no gray area. I realize that jaywalking != murder, but deception in business tactics is always a big deal. When one has little more than your reputation to judge, all data that affects that reputation is fair game. I was disappointed with the original post. Calling deception "a little melodramatic" and citing a pg naughtiness quote as an excuse leaves me more disappointed than ever.

elai 16y ago
So if they said that "We are waiting for more customer response before offering this service" would that be fine?
aberman 16y ago
If I had more time, I'd go through all your previous HN comments disparaging WePay for different reasons. Somehow I doubt your motivation for doing so is a sterling commitment to morality. If it was, I doubt you would introduce your criticism with: "A company built to handle other people's money...", and instead, just focus your criticism on the point you are attacking.
- edw519 16y ago
  No need for you to waste any time. Here they are: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959512 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959512 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959304 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959304 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959114 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959114 The first was meant as a compliment. I think you have a great idea and appear to be doing a great job with that idea. I have recommended you to quite a few people as the perfect solution to their problem. I wish you nothing but great success. The other two were in response to a rant about airline customer service on your corporate blog. I thought this was a bad idea and tried my best to explain why. I think the main reason I responded like that was because I saw a young company I cared about potentially making a mistake and I wanted to point it out. To be honest, I didn't ever remember the 3 previous comments when I responded to this thread. I would have never put 2 & 2 together if you hadn't pointed it out. Thinking that someone giving you feedback because they "have it in for you" can be a dangerous assumption. I realize that hn is much bigger than it once was, but it's still a great sandbox to try stuff out and fix problems before the rest of the world finds out. Thus the feedback. Somehow I doubt your motivation for doing so is a sterling commitment to morality. Do you respond to others who provide you feedback like this? I sure hope not.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- tptacek 16y ago
  No, that's really what Ed's like. He's also _really_ not OK with you smoking up to relax ("You have trouble reading and writing and 'rithmetic, so you need a little chemical help. You pussy."); I'm pretty sure he also once posted he'd never work with you if you pirated software. I've been surprised by many things he's said. I think he's coming from a principled place. That doesn't mean I agree with him totally... but I don't think he's gunning for you. If Ed's disappointed with you, someone else in the real world who could be vital to your business is going to be similarly disappointed. Why not figure out how to fix it? You're going to be successful either way, we all know it, but for the most part nobody in the real world is going to give enough of a shit about you to get past the first negative reaction they have to you. Might as well use Ed as a scientific curiosity.
heed 16y ago
>I have seen more deals than you can imagine ruined because someone lost trust. If you found that (in general) more business deals were lost as a result of being completely honest and outwardly truthful than being deceptive, would you still be involved in business? Completely hypothetical and probably untrue, but I'm curious how strong your ethics are.
- edw519 16y ago
  I'm curious how strong your ethics are AFAIC, "ethics" is not a scalar, but a switchable bit, so it's not a matter of strength, but binaryness. would you still be involved in business? It sounds like you're asking, "Would I ever sacrifice my personal standards for money?" Then answer is, "No, it's just not worth it." If I had to compromise my ethics (or any other part of myself) just to improve my chances of making a deal or be more effective in business, I wouldn't even bother. I'd probably just go off and drink beer or write poetry or something like that. You may not like or understand my answer, but that's just the way it is. Life is just too short to live it any way other than how you choose.
jamiequint 16y ago
Are you saying that you believe that nobody should attempt to do smoke tests to measure product demand because you regard that as deceiving consumers? Its one thing to lie to make a sale, a completely different thing to not actually be able to deliver a product nobody ever paid for. The point of view you present seems extremely pedantic.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  But, it's not that hard to do a smoke test that doesn't deceive consumers. What's odd though is the company that everyone looks to as getting consumers the best doesn't appear to do any of this sort of validating.
  - aberman 16y ago
    I'm not recommending that companies do this to figure out how to acquire customers. I'm saying a person should do this to help determine whether an idea is worth pursuing.
  - jamiequint 16y ago
    How would you recommend doing it? Which company are you referring to?
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      The company I was thinking of was Apple. I think interviewing people is a good idea. The fact of the matter is at the "idea" stage you don't have enough information to present to people to really give them a feel for if your specific product is viable. But by interviewing a fair number of people, you can understand what their legitimate needs are and what they're willing to pay for it. Of course it's not foolproof, but I think it will actually be better than the approach given in this blog.
    - richcollins 16y ago
      You can still test ad copy and landing page copy that promises a future product in exchange for an email address.
JesseAldridge 16y ago
I think there's an important distinction to be made between lying to potential users and lying to friends, family, or business partners. Morality is ultimately about results. I mean, it would be ok to lie in order to prevent the apocalypse, right? Lying to users could be justified as a means to an end, if the end is sufficiently worthwhile. Lying to someone close to you has a much greater cost due to its potential to ruin your relationship, create lots of emotional pain, and end up causing a lot of collateral damage. Things should work out as long as everybody is clear about where the line is: white lies to potential users -- maybe ok; white lies to somebody close to you -- not ok.
- gintas 16y ago
  > Morality is ultimately about results. Or it's not. See deontological vs. consequentialist conceptions of morality.
  - JesseAldridge 16y ago
    "Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will." And if you have a good will then you seek good results, so both philosphies end up in the same place, right?
    - philwelch 16y ago
      No, not really. The question can be summed up as "do the ends justify the means?".
EGreg 16y ago
did you expect a profuse apology?