4 ms·

A good friend of Bezos' (like his brother maybe) needs to pull him aside and tell him how pathetic and sad this tactic is making him look. He's ruining his repu

A good friend of Bezos' (like his brother maybe) needs to pull him aside and tell him how pathetic and sad this tactic is making him look. He's ruining his reputation among people he needs to recruit, like engineers, who might not otherwise fall for the false Bezos-is-mustache-twirling-capitalist narrative. Bezos actually seems to be a fairly good person with good motivations in general. But he's also extremely competitive and willing to hit below the belt like Bill Gates was famous for doing. Elon Musk is doing the Steve Jobs thing, where he out-competes his rivals by creating better products. Bezos should switch over to this approach ASAP, for the good of himself and everyone else.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Rebelgecko 5y ago
Honestly, I think the main difference between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos is their PR. Elon Musk portrays himself as an affable nerd who posts memes on Twitter, whereas Bezos has forgone a hair transplant and embraced the Lex Luthor look. In the early days of SpaceX, they filed a lawsuit asking the government to dismantle the company that was their main competitor for EELV[1] and no one blinked an eye. I don't think it hurt their recruiting at all. If you eventually[2] get good results from your product, it seems like people are willing to overlook litigiousness. [1]: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/spacex.summons.and.complaint.pdf http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/spacex.summons.and.comp... [2]: Emphasis on eventually. Blue Origin hasn't put a payload in orbit yet, but OTOH when SpaceX tried to dissolve ULA neither had they.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  The SpaceX lawsuit against Kistler was nothing like the Blue Origin efforts to kneecap SpaceX. They were fighting for survival in a biased competitive environment against a lazy, unproductive, but politically-connected rival. See https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2049413/ https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2049413/ . Blue Origin is just rolling rocks downhill on the enemy camp, hoping to get lucky. Because hey, it's easier than putting payloads into orbit, right? They need to lead, follow, or GTFO the way.
  - Rebelgecko 5y ago
    I have the opposite takeaway actually. Contract protests are pretty common, although they don't always make it to the Court of Federal Claims. OTOH, filing a lawsuit saying that the government should shut down another launch provider even when you're not competing for the same contracts (yet) seems like more of a kneecapping effort. Like I said, SpaceX and ULA both filed lawsuits before they ever made it to orbit so I don't think that criticism applies exclusively to one company.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      One obvious difference is that Blue Origin has less at stake, because they can't fail. Musk famously put his last $40M on the line in 2008 to keep the company afloat, while Bezos is basically Citizen Kane. "You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years."
    - panick21 5y ago
      You are taking things out of context. ULA was a government formed monopoly and the Dod basically wanted to hand them a block contract that would basically give them a monopoly for very long time. SpaceX would have been excluded from Dod flights for basically a decade or more, even within a few years they had the means to compete. This was clearly a totally anti-competitive and this is why SpaceX won and since then such large block contracts are no longer done. The Dod still hands out too many launches at once but what they tried with ULA initially was far, far worse.
- panick21 5y ago
  > Elon Musk portrays himself as an affable nerd who posts memes on Twitter Because that's what he is. > whereas Bezos has forgone a hair transplant and embraced the Lex Luthor look. I'm not sure how you that makes sense. Are you saying that if Musk were bold he couldn't be an 'affable nerd'. > In the early days of SpaceX, they filed a lawsuit asking the government to dismantle the company that was their main competitor for EELV[1] and no one blinked an eye. Because the government was clearly engaging in totally unfair monopolistic behavior (the government having formed ULA and simply handed it all space launch contracts) that was against the rules government has for itself and SpaceX won this lawsuit. Since then DoD launches have been handed out with a commercial competition. SpaceX also filed a law-suit against NASA for engaging in highly anti-competitive favor granting to a competitor for the COTS program. This was recognized and since NASA has done a very good job at commercial selection. The thing is, people (who are knowledgeable) judge you based on the details of what you do not the broad facts (X filed a lawsuit). SpaceX filed lawsuits against unfair competition and most people interested in space were aware of these unfair practices and wanted them change. BlueOrigin in contrast profited from the progress SpaceX produced and was able to bid for all NASA programs since. There was competition, they lost, complained and lost and the sued the government (and will certainly lose again) based on what everybody understands to be terrible claims, delaying the whole government moon program. Amazon in turn has engaged in a years long campaign trying to stop or disrupt Starlink while their own project is and was half a decade behind. Their claims are highly questionable and at times just flat nonsense and have been dismissed multiple times. However each opportunity they come back new reasons to complain. This leaves people who are observing this with only one conclusion, Amazon doesn't care about the details of Starlink proposal and their ongoing efforts with FCC, rather they are simply trying to disrupt and slow down competition. Details and context matter.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  Personally, even ignoring the vast differences in the competitive landscape between then and now, I think there is a substantial difference between a) objecting on antitrust grounds to a merger that even the FTC itself tacitly admitted was likely to have strong anticompetitive effects^[1], and b) the incessant nuisance lawsuits brought by Blue Origin against (directly or indirectly) SpaceX. And I think that's true even if you disagree with my characterization of them as "incessant nuisance lawsuits". ^[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance#Formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance#Formati...
greedo 5y ago
If you judge someone by how they treat people, Bezos is not a "fairly good person." Whether it's warehouse workers, businesses that "partner" on Amazon, or corporate employees, Bezos treats people like shit. I also question whether he has "good motivations." He wanted to dominate commerce. Not just books, but everything sold. This is not a good motivation and Amazon should be getting busted up.
- staunch 5y ago
  Anyone who has has worked on such massive projects as Bezos is going to have some failures along the way. It doesn't matter how good a person they are, there will be some accidental collateral damage along the way, at the very least. The average person has had much less negative impact in their life than Bezos, but they have also had almost infinitely less positive impact as well. In other words, it doesn't really make sense to zoom in on the failures Bezos has had without putting them into the context of his successes. And I've never really seen a clear-headed examination of Bezos' positive and negative impact. My guess is that he's doing extremely good overall, even if his negative impact is a bit higher than would be ideal. This is similar to how many people claim that technology, or even social media, is an evil force in the world while completely ignoring the massive good it has done for people (grandparents living richer and more connected lives with their grandchildren, communities of people supporting each other, political organization, etc).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
jjeaff 5y ago
I'm not so sure that dichotomy holds up. Jobs and Musk may have outcompeted their rivals, but both have been notorious for taking advantage of employees as well as anti-competitive practices in multiple cases. Not to mention Musk taking advantage of customers with misleading and at times unsafe products like self driving.
- postmeta 5y ago
  they also inspire employees with an appealing vision of the future

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Rebelgecko 5y ago

Honestly, I think the main difference between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos is their PR. Elon Musk portrays himself as an affable nerd who posts memes on Twitter, whereas Bezos has forgone a hair transplant and embraced the Lex Luthor look. In the early days of SpaceX, they filed a lawsuit asking the government to dismantle the company that was their main competitor for EELV[1] and no one blinked an eye. I don't think it hurt their recruiting at all. If you eventually[2] get good results from your product, it seems like people are willing to overlook litigiousness. [1]: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/spacex.summons.and.complaint.pdf http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/spacex.summons.and.comp... [2]: Emphasis on eventually. Blue Origin hasn't put a payload in orbit yet, but OTOH when SpaceX tried to dissolve ULA neither had they.

CamperBob2 5y ago
The SpaceX lawsuit against Kistler was nothing like the Blue Origin efforts to kneecap SpaceX. They were fighting for survival in a biased competitive environment against a lazy, unproductive, but politically-connected rival. See https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2049413/ https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2049413/ . Blue Origin is just rolling rocks downhill on the enemy camp, hoping to get lucky. Because hey, it's easier than putting payloads into orbit, right? They need to lead, follow, or GTFO the way.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  I have the opposite takeaway actually. Contract protests are pretty common, although they don't always make it to the Court of Federal Claims. OTOH, filing a lawsuit saying that the government should shut down another launch provider even when you're not competing for the same contracts (yet) seems like more of a kneecapping effort. Like I said, SpaceX and ULA both filed lawsuits before they ever made it to orbit so I don't think that criticism applies exclusively to one company.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    One obvious difference is that Blue Origin has less at stake, because they can't fail. Musk famously put his last $40M on the line in 2008 to keep the company afloat, while Bezos is basically Citizen Kane. "You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years."
  - panick21 5y ago
    You are taking things out of context. ULA was a government formed monopoly and the Dod basically wanted to hand them a block contract that would basically give them a monopoly for very long time. SpaceX would have been excluded from Dod flights for basically a decade or more, even within a few years they had the means to compete. This was clearly a totally anti-competitive and this is why SpaceX won and since then such large block contracts are no longer done. The Dod still hands out too many launches at once but what they tried with ULA initially was far, far worse.
panick21 5y ago
> Elon Musk portrays himself as an affable nerd who posts memes on Twitter Because that's what he is. > whereas Bezos has forgone a hair transplant and embraced the Lex Luthor look. I'm not sure how you that makes sense. Are you saying that if Musk were bold he couldn't be an 'affable nerd'. > In the early days of SpaceX, they filed a lawsuit asking the government to dismantle the company that was their main competitor for EELV[1] and no one blinked an eye. Because the government was clearly engaging in totally unfair monopolistic behavior (the government having formed ULA and simply handed it all space launch contracts) that was against the rules government has for itself and SpaceX won this lawsuit. Since then DoD launches have been handed out with a commercial competition. SpaceX also filed a law-suit against NASA for engaging in highly anti-competitive favor granting to a competitor for the COTS program. This was recognized and since NASA has done a very good job at commercial selection. The thing is, people (who are knowledgeable) judge you based on the details of what you do not the broad facts (X filed a lawsuit). SpaceX filed lawsuits against unfair competition and most people interested in space were aware of these unfair practices and wanted them change. BlueOrigin in contrast profited from the progress SpaceX produced and was able to bid for all NASA programs since. There was competition, they lost, complained and lost and the sued the government (and will certainly lose again) based on what everybody understands to be terrible claims, delaying the whole government moon program. Amazon in turn has engaged in a years long campaign trying to stop or disrupt Starlink while their own project is and was half a decade behind. Their claims are highly questionable and at times just flat nonsense and have been dismissed multiple times. However each opportunity they come back new reasons to complain. This leaves people who are observing this with only one conclusion, Amazon doesn't care about the details of Starlink proposal and their ongoing efforts with FCC, rather they are simply trying to disrupt and slow down competition. Details and context matter.
caconym_ 5y ago
Personally, even ignoring the vast differences in the competitive landscape between then and now, I think there is a substantial difference between a) objecting on antitrust grounds to a merger that even the FTC itself tacitly admitted was likely to have strong anticompetitive effects^[1], and b) the incessant nuisance lawsuits brought by Blue Origin against (directly or indirectly) SpaceX. And I think that's true even if you disagree with my characterization of them as "incessant nuisance lawsuits". ^[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance#Formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance#Formati...

greedo 5y ago

If you judge someone by how they treat people, Bezos is not a "fairly good person." Whether it's warehouse workers, businesses that "partner" on Amazon, or corporate employees, Bezos treats people like shit. I also question whether he has "good motivations." He wanted to dominate commerce. Not just books, but everything sold. This is not a good motivation and Amazon should be getting busted up.

staunch 5y ago
Anyone who has has worked on such massive projects as Bezos is going to have some failures along the way. It doesn't matter how good a person they are, there will be some accidental collateral damage along the way, at the very least. The average person has had much less negative impact in their life than Bezos, but they have also had almost infinitely less positive impact as well. In other words, it doesn't really make sense to zoom in on the failures Bezos has had without putting them into the context of his successes. And I've never really seen a clear-headed examination of Bezos' positive and negative impact. My guess is that he's doing extremely good overall, even if his negative impact is a bit higher than would be ideal. This is similar to how many people claim that technology, or even social media, is an evil force in the world while completely ignoring the massive good it has done for people (grandparents living richer and more connected lives with their grandchildren, communities of people supporting each other, political organization, etc).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

jjeaff 5y ago

I'm not so sure that dichotomy holds up. Jobs and Musk may have outcompeted their rivals, but both have been notorious for taking advantage of employees as well as anti-competitive practices in multiple cases. Not to mention Musk taking advantage of customers with misleading and at times unsafe products like self driving.

postmeta 5y ago
they also inspire employees with an appealing vision of the future