6 ms·

I agree. Attacking the market leader seems desperate to me, and I think it'll lose a lot of goodwill. You don't win customers/users by saying "Our competitor i

by axod 16y ago

I agree. Attacking the market leader seems desperate to me, and I think it'll lose a lot of goodwill. You don't win customers/users by saying "Our competitor is rubbish and here's why". You win them by saying "Our product is awesome and here's why".

kareemm 16y ago
what he's doing is highlighting a key differentiator between their products, and trying to educate the market on why his implementation is more awesome. in other words, he's taken a page out of your "how to win customers" playbook.
- axod 16y ago
  Not sure that worked so well for Diaspora. Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead?
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead? Apple. See Mac v.s PC TV campaign.
    - Kylekramer 16y ago
      Strange definition of ahead.
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        Considering iOS devices, revenue and growth in various markets, they are ahead. Edit: Apparently someone disagrees, and thinks Apple is losing to Microsoft. I'd love to have a company lose to a rival in the same way Apple has.
    - __david__ 16y ago
      In what way are they ahead that had anything to do with that campaign? The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are all markets that they are ahead in but those all have nothing to do with the Mac vs PC campaign. They still are not "ahead" in the general computer marketplace.
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        > In what way are they ahead that had anything to do with that campaign? Because the campaign was more than just Mac v.s. PC. It was also the Apple ecosystem. > The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are all markets that they are ahead in but those all have nothing to do with the Mac vs PC campaign. This statement is not true. The campaigns did impact the perception of the Apple brand. To assume the campaign had nothing to do with the success of these devices is wishful thinking. > They still are not "ahead" in the general computer marketplace. In terms of pure numbers, no. But in numerous other ways to measure success they are. Just look at the growth of Apple after a campaign where it attack the PC. Discounting this isn't smart.
        __david__ 16y ago
        > The campaign was more than just Mac v.s. PC. It was also the Apple ecosystem. It was mostly about the Mac OS X vs. Windows. And I'll repeat, they are still not ahead there. > Just look at the growth of Apple after a campaign where it attack the PC. Discounting this isn't smart. Correlation != causation. I would say instead, "Just look at the growth of Apple after it introduced several really amazing products that had no equal in the marketplace".
        jasonlotito 16y ago
        > Correlation != causation. I would say instead, "Just look at the growth of Apple after it introduced several really amazing products that had no equal in the marketplace". Which is beside the point. Apple's ads and growth are relevant to the question. The question didn't ask for an example where attack advertising directly led to growth. I'm not implying that the ads led directly to Apple's amazing growth and dethroning Microsoft at the revenue level (amongst other areas). Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against attack ads. I'm also not arguing against your points in this comment. Merely that they don't matter in context.

by axod 16y ago

kareemm 16y ago

what he's doing is highlighting a key differentiator between their products, and trying to educate the market on why his implementation is more awesome. in other words, he's taken a page out of your "how to win customers" playbook.

axod 16y ago
Not sure that worked so well for Diaspora. Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead?
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead? Apple. See Mac v.s PC TV campaign.
  - Kylekramer 16y ago
    Strange definition of ahead.
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      Considering iOS devices, revenue and growth in various markets, they are ahead. Edit: Apparently someone disagrees, and thinks Apple is losing to Microsoft. I'd love to have a company lose to a rival in the same way Apple has.
  - __david__ 16y ago
    In what way are they ahead that had anything to do with that campaign? The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are all markets that they are ahead in but those all have nothing to do with the Mac vs PC campaign. They still are not "ahead" in the general computer marketplace.
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      > In what way are they ahead that had anything to do with that campaign? Because the campaign was more than just Mac v.s. PC. It was also the Apple ecosystem. > The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are all markets that they are ahead in but those all have nothing to do with the Mac vs PC campaign. This statement is not true. The campaigns did impact the perception of the Apple brand. To assume the campaign had nothing to do with the success of these devices is wishful thinking. > They still are not "ahead" in the general computer marketplace. In terms of pure numbers, no. But in numerous other ways to measure success they are. Just look at the growth of Apple after a campaign where it attack the PC. Discounting this isn't smart.
      - __david__ 16y ago
        > The campaign was more than just Mac v.s. PC. It was also the Apple ecosystem. It was mostly about the Mac OS X vs. Windows. And I'll repeat, they are still not ahead there. > Just look at the growth of Apple after a campaign where it attack the PC. Discounting this isn't smart. Correlation != causation. I would say instead, "Just look at the growth of Apple after it introduced several really amazing products that had no equal in the marketplace".
        jasonlotito 16y ago
        > Correlation != causation. I would say instead, "Just look at the growth of Apple after it introduced several really amazing products that had no equal in the marketplace". Which is beside the point. Apple's ads and growth are relevant to the question. The question didn't ask for an example where attack advertising directly led to growth. I'm not implying that the ads led directly to Apple's amazing growth and dethroning Microsoft at the revenue level (amongst other areas). Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against attack ads. I'm also not arguing against your points in this comment. Merely that they don't matter in context.