So you thought it is loable to not exploit your opponents weaknesses?
And it is loable to leave potential customers stranded with a subpar service that has failed their expectations by not being available?
It think you should read Sirlin's definition of a scrub[0], and decide if you want to continue being one, but you have no moral high ground, you are just limited by your own made up rules.
So you thought it is loable to not exploit your opponents weaknesses?
There's a big difference between exploiting a weakness in general, and taking advantage of an extraordinary circumstance that harms your competitor. To me, this comes down to sportsmanship.
To use a bit of an analogy... I wrestled in high-school. We trained to identify weaknesses in the game of our opponents, so I might well enter into a match with a guy thinking "I know he's susceptible to upper body takedowns like a lateral drop or an armspin, so I'm going to pointedly attack that way". That's trying to exploit a weakness, and it's totally reasonable, expected and fair. But if I'm wrestling a guy and he slips on a wet spot on the mat and tears a groin muscle and is laying on the mat writhing in pain, should I jump on him and try to score a quick pin? No, of course not. Good sportsmanship dictates stand back, let the ref step in, give the guy his medical timeout, and then see what happens. If he can't continue, then you either "win" via forfeit or the match is vacated completely (I forget exactly which would have happened in that case when I was in HS).
Same in the business world... if my competitor has a known, exploitable weakness, like a less mature infrastructure and problems with uptime, and I market and sell based on an overall better quality of service, that's one thing. But if the competitor experiences a "black swan" event, should I "jump on and go for the quick pin"? I say "no", that doing that would be just as unethical as in the wrestling example.
I disagree about the adequacy of the analogy. The more apt analogy would be if I know he is susceptible to upper body takedowns. Sendgrid didn't do their homework and decided to treat a technical problem like a PR problem.
We are talking about email services not rocket science. Nor is it the case that an vindictive ex-employee took advantage of some inside knowledge to take their servers down(which would still be negligence on my book). They have been shown to be unable to deal with the basic hazards of hosting and email service. Plus instead of trying to learn and solve the real issue (hey we all have much room for growth) they decided to defuse the situation with PR.
I like the general sentiment, and I generally act the same way, but I can't help but think, "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying." Another analogy: I played tennis in high school and in every match I've played in my life, there are no refs and the players call balls in or out on their own. Some people cheat on that and, all else equal, they tend to win more points. If I had millions of dollars at stake on these matches, I'd be a hell of a lot more likely to cheat than I did. As it was, I'd try to call things fair unless my opponent was cheating; then I'd blatantly call balls out to, um, "persuade" my opponent to knock it off. None of your opponents choked you in high school? No hard to see punches?
The analogy somewhat falls apart because reputation matters more in business: the OP is to some degree PR.
If you play for points, of course it makes sense to cheat.
If you play to be a better human being, and better at tennis, you are just fucking yourself in the ear if you cheat.
When you cheat, you know you can't win in a fair fight. You may win -- but you know you don't "deserve" it. You can tell yourself you "deserve" it because you were smart enough to take advantage, but some part of you will know you're a liar, and you couldn't hack it in a fair fight.
This is also why lying to people is a waste of time, because it creates a layer between you and the rest of the world. Chronic liars often find themselves facing depression because "nobody knows the real me." And cheats, when in a position where cheating won't help them, lack confidence.
Yours is far from a universal opinion. Plenty of people who cheat could probably win a fair fight, but cheating makes it easier. Watch any sport at any level and you'll see "cheaters" win.
And it is loable to leave potential customers stranded with a subpar service that has failed their expectations by not being available?
It think you should read Sirlin's definition of a scrub[0], and decide if you want to continue being one, but you have no moral high ground, you are just limited by your own made up rules.
[0]:http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html