Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If you have business policies that actively disable you from being able to compete, then in a way its "self-defeating". You could say that "self-defeating" is the same as anti-competitive, because, well, if your company doesn't exist, that's one less competitor.

Imperfect analogy: If Uber gave away every ride for free, that would be more "competitive" for some definition (lower fares = more competitive rate), but, Uber would go out of business within months.

That example isn't as strong as in this case though, but the general idea holds (price isn't as clear as business model). In this case Sentry is saying in order to survive as a company they can't sacrifice their only source of revenue completely, or they'd have no advantage. In doing so, they are keeping their own company alive, which increases competition against other companies in their area.

So it reduces competition of their own product against themselves, while it increases competition (by keeping them afloat) by making them stronger against their competitors. There's no real better way to phrase this, and I think the shorthand here works just fine. I don't see this as doublespeak or even lax phrasing, just choosing a frame that makes sense given Sentry is the one speaking.




> Imperfect analogy: If Uber gave away every ride for free, that would be more "competitive" for some definition (lower fares = more competitive rate), but, Uber would go out of business within months.

On the flip side...now if Uber were to provide rides below cost with the intention of putting the competition out of business then that would be the textbook definition of "anti-competitive" behavior.

Sentry is actually exercising their government granted monopoly (aka copyright) to ensure that no competitor is able to use their codebase to directly compete against them which is the exact opposite of increasing competition.

I have no dog in this fight and am not judging what they're doing so...


I don’t think you caught my claim exactly. Let’s say Sentry is being honest when they say they have to do this else they wouldn’t be able to make enough money to survive. In that case, it’s good for competition.

A better analogy: T-Mobile will go out of business because they set poor terms on franchisees that let them exploit and take business from T-Mobile. Now T-Mobile is days away from folding. Here’s two scenarios:

1. They fail, both T-Mobile and franchisees go under.

2. They change the terms, killing the franchise model. Only T-Mobile survives.

In this case I see number 2 as better for the market. Better to have one bigger competitor in a nearly monopolized market than have none - it’s more competitive and you’d see lower prices for end users than if they failed. Same goes for Segment.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: