[rosmax_1337]

They claimed companies like Google and some universities trusted their software. If you read it word by word, it was only a claim that people who worked at the companies and who studied at the universities trusted their software, but the usage of company and university logos also made clear claim that the companies and universities themselves had endorsed it.

They admitted it was for marketing purposes, and I added that rather than to euphemize it as marketing, they should instead admit that they lied, otherwise their attempt at honesty comes of as manipulative. It is possible to tell a lie by the usage of logos and layout, not only in text.

This has now been removed from their website, you can see their original layout here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230625170119/https://www.open-...

[dotandgtfo]

I don't really attribute this maliciously. Yeah, it may be overstepping it a bit but the wording can make sense (but they should definitively change it). Developers generally aren't great marketers and these guys aren't native in english.

[rosmax_1337]

>I don't really attribute this maliciously.

I don't attribute it to stupidity. (Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.)

They tried to use other organizations logos in their "loved by section" to make their product seem more trustworthy than it was. By using smart language they could have gotten away with it in case of a lawsuit, and most companies don't even bother to go after stuff like this. By the time a lawsuit could have been relevant, their landing page would have changed. It's because I respect their competence that I attribute it as intentional.

Don't get me wrong, I don't give a rats ass about what someone does with some large company/organization logos on their website, it's not that I'm trying to stop some misuse of their trademarks. But if you chat with us about your page, and try to be honest about that the section there is toeing the line of truth, don't call it marketing, just tell us you lied on your webpage. It's not the end of the world to tell a lie on the internet.

[caboteria]

> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Sorry, this false dichotomy is one of my pet peeves. It should read "Never attribute to something that which is adequately explained by something else."

[rosmax_1337]

The observation that stupidity and incompetence is more common than malice (by many degrees) is correct. It's not a true logical dichotomy, it's just a saying.

[SantalBlush]

The saying presents it as a dichotomy, which is why the saying is wrong. It is also parroted way too often on HN.

It might as well be, "Never attribute to hunger that which can be explained by incompetence." Is it easier to see why that fails as any sort of useful proverb?

[bheadmaster]

It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity" - it only proposes to also keep supidity in mind in case malice is assumed. Nobody is saying there can't be a third cause - you're fighting a strawman. Besides, what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly?

[x3874]

It's false advertising. This can get expensive quickly.