3 ms·
EEE is, among other things, a pattern of incentives. Embrace: We care about our customers. If someone other than us creates something that would be valuable to
by mncharity 6y ago
EEE is, among other things, a pattern of incentives.
Embrace: We care about our customers. If someone other than us creates something that would be valuable to them, of course we're going to embrace it. To do otherwise, would be a Not Invented Here failure, would be to let down our customers.
Extend: We care about our customers. We are a major center of innovation, working constantly to improve things for them. We're not going to hold back on helping them just because some standards committee is moving like cold molasses, riven by politics, technically tasteless, or has conflict interests optimizing for things other than the best interests of our customers. And we're certainly not going to later break things for our customers merely because some committee eventually decides it wants things done differently. They're just committees. More people are benefiting from our work than theirs. We're not going to hurt our customers just because some committees have a disproportionate sense of entitlement and importantance.
Extinguish: We care about our customers. And those who are potentially our customers. We want to make it as easy as possible for people to gain the benefits of being our customers. The health of our competitors, and even of people unfortunate to not yet be our customers, are not our motivating responsibility. We're focused on our customers, and what happens to that portion of the industry that isn't, can't be what we optimize for. And we're just a normal commercial company, so of course we're not going to fail to compete with our competitors. If nothing else, we owe it to their customers who may soon be ours. And of course to our stockholders.
Much evil in the world is arguably an emergent property of regrettable incentives.
I mention this only because this post is for whatever reason trending today, and past discussions have repeatedly been of unusually disappointing quality for tech topic on HN. Perhaps this comment will help prune some of the inevitable "but they're good people now, not evil, so there's no problem" comments.
- marcosdumay 6y agoIt is different when you go out of your way to extend the product in a way that is incompatible for no gain for your clients (and often in detriment of them). And when you make sure not to support the standard and use your market dominance to push your competitors out. Nothing on the Halloween Documents resembles good faith. Those cases where companies just want to improve their products are much more benign and fail to have the same extinguishing power.
- mercer 6y agoI don't see how you could be any more up the ass of bad incentives. Nobody disputes that Microsoft's incentives are 'regrettable', so what point are you really trying to make?
- core-questions 6y ago> so what point are you really trying to make? Incentives can result in individuals making "good" decisions relative to their environment that result in organizations making "bad" decisions relative to the playing field as a whole. This is essentially the Tragedy of the Commons on a meta-scale, and requires regulation or sovereign action to overcome.
- runawaybottle 6y agoThe general point exists in Finance, right? When you incentivize greed, you get certain systemic outcomes. In other words, these things tend to play out the same way, hence why the same things are said about it over and over again. If we could boil it down to a word, we’d have to just call it a pattern.
- SerLava 6y agoExtension can include duplicating functionality, or making something barely easier and also proprietary.