CEOs are literally paid to deal with these emotions constructively. In this case, that would have looked like welcoming a competitor to the space and being ready to win on execution, because ideas are free.
A prime example of this is the response Slack gave when Microsoft launched Teams. It was a direct copy-cat and they didn't throw a temper tantrum. They welcomed Microsoft into the space and saw it as validation of their product.
> it was a direct copy-cat and they didn't throw a temper tantrum
I’m seeing people conclude a lot more about Plaid from the CEO’s outburst than from Stripe’s announcement. If a competitor throws into your ring and your first move is to call foul on technicalities, it suggests you don’t think you can win on merit alone.
Welcoming competition is different from approving of a competitor abusing their platform to sell only their own products. Note that I am not saying this is what Microsoft is doing, just saying that this is what Slack claims to believe they are doing.
IMO, their welcoming of competition, on an even playing field, only strengthens their request that Microsoft compete fairly.
And Steve Jobs was an asshole who died believing citrus would cure his cancer while parking in handicapped parking lot zones so, maybe don't idolize him.
Where did you get "verbal abuse" from? We're talking about competition, so a far closer analogy would be an NBA player having to play a a game against one of their friends. Should they not have to do that in exchange for their salary?
Any sufficiently good idea is really hard to communicate but really easy to demonstrate. That means you get a head start, but the next person gets it for free. That head start is your time to build a business with a moat. If you haven't done it by then, the next person will.
A defined specification is very different from an idea. RSA is a perfect example. I would say the "idea" here is public key cryptography. It was total genius when it was invented, and 99.999% of the world didn't care a lick.
Once it was implemented in several crypto systems, including RSA, and people started using it, the value became clear.
Was the publication sold to anyone? Why did Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman decide to create a company using the concept rather than just sell the publication itself?
Yeesh, I'm glad he didn't say that. What a vapid soundbite. I don't mean that to reflect on you, you worded it exactly as a CEO would. "We welcome competition", what a joke!
A lot of CEOs say this platitude. They are initially worried, but it often turns out to be good news because it accelerates or is a sign of a growing market.
I get the CEO speak, but I think rchaud is saying "no one welcomes competition - everyone wants a monopoly and to make as much money as possible". So saying otherwise sounds like garbage.
People only "want competition" in the manner of controlled opposition, where they know they can beat someone.
Competition is going to come whether you like it or not. You can whine about it, or you can use it as a tool to push yourself to be better.
rchaud find this to be a platitude, but frankly, I don't give a shit what he thinks. If I'm a good CEO, I care much more about how my employees react to the new competition than to how this internet rando feels about my public response.
Speaking of effective communication, I don't think your tone effectively persuades skeptical listeners. You are on a forum of Internet randos, having a polite discussion.
I’ll attempt to gently point out something that’s important to me: this is also an example of how males discuss things.
It’s very difficult to bring up this topic in a constructive, thoughtful, and impactful way. But I urge you to really sit down and think carefully about it, even for a few minutes.
His tone was the tone I used to use. I still do, sometimes. I have to catch myself, because old habits are hard to break.
The reason I decided to break the habit is because it discourages people like my wife from becoming engineers, let alone founders. She’s one of the most talented hackers I know. And you’d be reasonable to suspect that I’m exaggerating or being nice because she’s a woman, but you’d be mistaken. If you’re a react dev, there’s a very strong probability that if you went head to hews with her in a “who can ship a great looking website faster?” contest, you would lose badly. I didn’t believe it until I saw it more than once.
The world is worse without people like her as engineers. And — most importantly — it’s worth altering our behavior in the default case, not to be nice or to be more inclusive, but because it will make everyone’s lives better in the long run.
Just some food for thought. It didn’t sink in for me until I pointed out she could be paid a lot more if only she’d aggressively negotiate. She mentioned “yeah, I know it’s how men do it.” A little switch flipped in my head. It doesn’t need to be this way; we decide to be this way.
That was a bit of a gambit on my part. Operating as an internet rando myself, I knew I didn't need to communicate like a CEO. In fact, I calculated that my message would distance myself from typical CEO-speak, imbuing myself with a bit of anti-authoritarian branding that might actually appeal to the people who least understood my first message.
You're probably right that there are some fence sitters who were put off by that aggressive follow up. I hope they can judge the initial comment on its own merits, and challenge or ask for clarification if it's helpful.