[zmoazeni]

OP has explained his side, which is compelling. JPEGmini tweeted "You have only seen one side of the story" https://twitter.com/jpegmini/status/222433391025459200

At what point does he-said/she-said matter for a company? How much is negative publicity worth to an early startup?

1) OP is completely legit, which paints JPEGmini in a bad light. Give him a camera and let it go quietly, and get some kudos for giving out two cameras.

2) OP is not legit, which with his compelling argument will still have people thinking something is fishy. Give him a camera and let it go quietly, and get some kudos for giving out two cameras.

For $850, I think winning the kudos would be far more important than a company trying to prove somebody wrong. Sounds like pride is getting in the way here. Chalk up the the drawing as a lesson-learned and figure out a less ambiguous way to deal with the next one.

[mseebach]

There's an obvious slippery slope you don't want to go down: Just shelling out to shut up any random guy with a dropbox account or even be bullied into responding publicly to said random guy. Assuming, of course, you're sure you did everything right. We have, as you point out, only heard one side of the story.

Right now, the fallout, as in negative publicity, is pretty limited. The guy comes off as bitter and with an axe to grind. If you're in the market for the product and you come across this thread or the current five clicktivists on twitter, are you going to steer clear of the product?

Of course, they shouldn't be smug or arrogant if they happen to be forced to respond later, but ignoring at this stage is definitely the right strategy IMO.

[zmoazeni]

Just shelling out to shut up any random guy with a dropbox account or even be bullied into responding publicly to said random guy.

That's pride talking. Pick and choose your battles. If you're going to pick this one, make it overwhelmingly compelling. I've never heard of this company, but my first impression is negative. Turn that around.

I wouldn't advocate ignoring it. I'd rather you make me love your company or hate it. Ignoring stuff like this is cop out.

Hell, doesn't Nikon have a camera in the $300 range? Even a response like: "We already picked the winner, and we don't have a budget for two cameras, but we were able to spring for Nikon Dxxxx" would be miles better.

Right now, the fallout, as in negative publicity, is pretty limited.

You're right. They were thrown a curve ball, and they can turn it into an opportunity to leave a positive impression on potential customers who have never heard of their product before.

[mseebach]

> That's pride talking. Pick and choose your battles. If you're going to pick this one, make it overwhelmingly compelling.

As I said:

>> Assuming, of course, you're sure you did everything right.

The rest of your post assumes that there is an issue to deal with. There isn't. If they're in the right (again, assuming), being mentioned on the internet doesn't mean they should pivot into crisis mode.

There's a HN post, most of which, including the top comments, is meta and five (5) tweets - all of which are boring knee-jerk condemnation, none of which ask for clarification. If it'd gone viral, if people, if customers started asking what the hell is going on, then respond to them. But at least until that happens, it's a non-issue, PR-wise.

> I've never heard of this company, but my first impression is negative. Turn that around.

Sure. I've also only just heard of this company too. I think their technology and value proposition sounds promising. If I was in the business of putting JPEG images on in the internet, I'd be intrigued.

[ajross]

This is exactly it. Obviously the purpose to this silly contest is marketing. How is that served by getting into a public fight with one of your users?

[ben0x539]

I bet the company already regrets giving out the first camera, given the low turnout.