It's surprising to me that in that entire thread, not one person expressed any misgivings about the fact that the author actively deceived his/her customers (indeed practically brags about having done so). This despite the fact that the OP added:
There has been a lot of discussion about what the anonymous poster did right. How about some things that he/she could have done better?
I just joined the group to post that surely he/she could have done better by not lying. But the thread is old and there was no Reply link, which is just as well: it would have been rude to butt in like that.
I've been vaguely aware of this group for a while. I've read several of Eric Ries' posts, I have Steve Blank's book, and I like Steve Blank's blog a lot. The ideas of customer development make a lot of sense. But the above makes me think there's something wrong with this community. I'd rather surround myself with people whose first reaction to something like that is WTF.
Edit: Obviously if the message to the customer had been, "these are just mockups as we figure out what you need," there would be no ethical objection. That's part of what I can't understand. What would have been the problem with just telling the truth?
There has been a lot of discussion about what the anonymous poster did right. How about some things that he/she could have done better?
I just joined the group to post that surely he/she could have done better by not lying. But the thread is old and there was no Reply link, which is just as well: it would have been rude to butt in like that.
I've been vaguely aware of this group for a while. I've read several of Eric Ries' posts, I have Steve Blank's book, and I like Steve Blank's blog a lot. The ideas of customer development make a lot of sense. But the above makes me think there's something wrong with this community. I'd rather surround myself with people whose first reaction to something like that is WTF.
Edit: Obviously if the message to the customer had been, "these are just mockups as we figure out what you need," there would be no ethical objection. That's part of what I can't understand. What would have been the problem with just telling the truth?