It's usually put against the class of arguments that being derivative or being recombinant is in itself a valid criticism of a product. The company isn't going to give up any revenue just because it found a better target market for a similar good; and neither will accepting the existence of predecessors help the predecessors any. Not to falsely represent your point, but do you believe that changing industries makes this any less the case?
Plus the extent that Soylent is a substitute for Ensure or Boost or those peanut bars they give to starving earthquake victims isn't total: Soylent is based in consumer feedback while Ensure/Boost have stopped innovating; Soylent is aiming for use in perpetuity while Ensure/Boost are meant to be stopgap measures, etc.
I like the product a lot so I'm going to be speaking vehemently about it, but that doesn't mean I'm not open for criticism. I'm wondering what your thoughts are.
Untrue. Ensure keep bringing new flavours and slight changes to formulation. That's tricky to do because regulation - the fact that Soylent appear to ignore all regulation is a bug not a feature.
> Soylent is aiming for use in perpetuity while Ensure/Boost are meant to be stopgap measures,
Soylent supporters need to stop spreading this lie. It's been debunked in every single Soylent thread. It's purely dishonest FUD by now.
I see this a lot. It is ridiculous.