5 ms·
I read this as an announcement of the 'why' they dropped it for their own 150 active users. There's nothing wrong with saying you stop something because it has
by deugtniet 7y ago
I read this as an announcement of the 'why' they dropped it for their own 150 active users. There's nothing wrong with saying you stop something because it has become too expensive.
It's not price shaming, it's saying that you're not willing to pay the price that has increased.
It would've been price shaming if it said that it was so much money for so little services.
- mkolodny 7y agoThere's nothing wrong with dropping an internal tool because you don't want to pay for it. Posting about it publicly is a different story. I'm not seeing why they would post about it publicly unless they wanted to put public pressure on Facebook to let them keep using it for free. To me, that's price shaming.
- hoseja 7y agoGlance at the site: https://home.cern/news https://home.cern/news (for example: https://home.cern/news/official-news/cern/staff-rules-and-regulations-11th-edition-modification-no15 https://home.cern/news/official-news/cern/staff-rules-and-re... ) It's basically an internal memo, except CERN posts them publicly.
- deugtniet 7y agoWhich is very normal state of affairs for research organizations. They try to reach as much of their employees / stakeholders as possible. You'd be surprised how often the work issued email address is not read.
- ethbro 7y ago> You'd be surprised how often the work issued email address is not read. I would not. Yes, I'm talking about you, IT security architects...
- mkolodny 7y agoAh that's a different story. The posts do look more like internal memos. I doubt they're trying to shame Facebook for charging CERN for Workplace. I do wonder what the person who posted this to HN's intentions were, though.
- Symbiote 7y agoIsn't this the open government many people ask for? (CERN is an intergovernmental organisation, so it's similar to a government research department, except the funding and control is shared between several governments.)
- ddalex 7y agoSo it was ok to publicly say that they're trying it out, and FB to benefit from the PR exposure but not ok to say it didn't work out at the price FB is asking. IMHO you're either silent about everything, or open about everything and I support that CERN is open about everything.
- texasbigdata 7y agoPrice shaming? Are we really going there?
- welly 7y agoIt sounds to me like you're comment shaming!
- texasbigdata 7y agoGeez. I guess I'll leave your safe space and we'll both the better off. Semantically, any discussion point that is arbitrarily elevated to outrage is now disallowed? Obviously off topic here, and ignoring certain perhaps universally accepted things that are disallowed, this stance seems stifling. The whole concept of "micro aggressions" or whatever that means.....just seems like virtue signaling. But YRMV.
- martin_a 7y agoI think welly was making a joke.
- welly 7y agoI thought I was too.
- texasbigdata 7y agoWhoosh. My bad.
- martin_a 7y agoHappens to everyone of us once in a while.
- bathtub365 7y agoWho else will protect the public image of large corporations and their pricing models?
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago> “ It would've been price shaming if it said that it was so much money for so little services.” That’s not price shaming, that’s just a review of something you bought that turned out to be a ripoff. It’s a good thing if consumers talk about getting ripped off, whether it’s at a fast food joint or a big enterprise contract.