| ▲ | urams 20 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your 4D chess model of their thinking is that the risk they run of mentioning a direct competitor, that their potential customers would also be considering, is so great that the value of that comparison is dwarfed by the costs of the risk, so they don't do it. This is some next level strategic thinking. I have to wonder, though, why doesn't Palantir mention them? https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apalantir.com+samdesk They seem to mention actual competitors: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Apalantir.com+c3 Given your 4D chess logic, they really should be mentioning all their competitors to poison their wells. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | laimewhisps 20 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This isn't as complicated as you're making it. Both companies market themselves as surveillance tools for oppressive regimes. Flock is similar. Do they have exactly the same business model? No. But their brand is spying on the public and protecting those in power. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||