And yet, none of their competitors has as much benevolence as Wufoo (certainly not Google). The Wufoos are on a mission from God, and you really don't want to get in the way of people like that (you can see what happened to all the cops chasing Jake and Elwood...those guys never stood a chance). Wufoo is kinda like that.
It seems pretty obvious to me that pg's talk was exactly about what makes Wufoo such a terror. They have a near infinite supply of morale built right into how they approach their business...they can't fail because it would never cross their mind to accept failure because what they're doing is The Right Thing--as long as they do The Right Thing, they have succeeded. And as long as they have that approach and you don't, you wouldn't want to try to beat them in their space. And, of course, having "beat Wufoo" as one of your guiding principles you would have already lost.
pg may be getting a bit zen on us, but I think there's a real kernel of truth in there.
I have some reservations about your claim that "having "beat Wufoo" as one of your guiding principles you would have already lost.". Namely, it scares me that we're so willing to just assign the high ground to one group, and say that they trying to dislodge them is not "being good".
I realize that what you are saying is that your goal should be to "be good", and that if your goal is to beat Wufoo, then your goal isn't to be good. But that's a slippery slope. My goal might be to make the best product in this market, and that implicitly means that I want to beat Wufoo by the simple virtue of being better than them.
(Disclaimer: I have nothing against Wufoo. I haven't really used their product either).
"Namely, it scares me that we're so willing to just assign the high ground to one group, and say that they trying to dislodge them is not "being good"."
You've misinterpreted my intent (and are easily scared). If you knew me, and the way I talk about competitors of Virtualmin and VM2 (who, generally, are not doing good by their users), you'd know that I don't have a problem with taking aim at competitors. But, it's an issue of mindset and morale, which is a core part of pg's talk. If you decided you have to "beat Wufoo" in order to be successful, every day that you aren't beating Wufoo is a day that you've lost. As another speaker at Startup School pointed out (in a different context, but it applies here) losing all the time really sucks. So, if you're thinking "I've gotta beat Wufoo" and Wufoo is thinking "I've gotta make an awesome product for my customers" you will lose and by losing you will find you feel more and more drained every day. While your competitor that is thinking "I made my product more awesome today and users loved it!" is going to feel great. They will come back the next day ready to do it again, while you'll come back the next day thinking, "This sucks."
That's all I'm saying. No one has a monopoly on "good". But, if a market already has a product that clearly meets the definition, it might be wise to pick another market. Nobody is saying you can't possibly beat Wufoo...but, pg said he wouldn't want to try. You, or anyone else, are welcome to go against that advice, but you may find it's a harder row to hoe than you expected.
I think we agree more than we disagree, and I'm sorry for doing a bad job of getting my point across.
I agree that if you set out to "beat Wufoo", then you are not going about it the right way, and you'll probably lose. What I worry about is that if you set out to "make the best product for your customers", and you don't believe Wufoo is it, then in some way, you have an implicit goal of "beating Wufoo", but one which I find acceptable.
I also entirely agree that a market which has a "good" product (both in terms of the product, and in terms of the intentions) might be the wrong market to enter (Google and search is also an example). However, I think we both agree that it is a market that you CAN enter, and you CAN win, even though it might be harder.
It may seem like a strange analogy, but this sounds alot like Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. He "freed the slaves" to take the moral high ground. Any chance the Confederacy had to gain a European ally was blown away in an instant. How could they side with the enemy of freedom?
Same idea with a vendor who is beloved by its customers. His enemy is their enemy.
It seems pretty obvious to me that pg's talk was exactly about what makes Wufoo such a terror. They have a near infinite supply of morale built right into how they approach their business...they can't fail because it would never cross their mind to accept failure because what they're doing is The Right Thing--as long as they do The Right Thing, they have succeeded. And as long as they have that approach and you don't, you wouldn't want to try to beat them in their space. And, of course, having "beat Wufoo" as one of your guiding principles you would have already lost.
pg may be getting a bit zen on us, but I think there's a real kernel of truth in there.