4 ms·

How much would you pay for that right?

by endisneigh 5y ago

edmcnulty101 5y ago
The company profit, the executives, and the shareholders will take a share of paying for it as well.
- lkxijlewlf 5y ago
  > will They won't. But they should.
- brap 5y ago
  How are you going to enforce that? Are you going to force them to pay from their own salaries and dividends, by law? Well, they'll just bump up the salaries/dividends to offset the cost. The money is coming from customers. Either way, customers are the ones paying for support. Many companies let customers directly pay for support, if they want. No one's forcing you to buy from companies that don't offer this.
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    Get rid of the monopoly. The reason they can have such bad CR is because their marketshare is leaps and bounds beyond the competition so they CAN. They provided an amazing product until they hit monopoly status then started cutting quality.. Oldest trick in the book. Some solutions are to remove whatever government policies are giving them an advantage, or break up the monopoly via government, or provide government help to the competition. There's tons of ways.
    - drstewart 5y ago
      >Get rid of the monopoly. Which monopoly? >The reason they can have such bad CR is because their marketshare is leaps and bounds beyond the competition so they CAN. Defining monopolies by "has bad customer service" is certainly a unique and interesting take. Almost borders on the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Of course, the real irony that you don't understand is that this would entrench monopolies: they're the ones with the resources to hire peons in third world countries to provide bare minimum support. Forcing startups to do the same kills them right out the gate.
      - brap 5y ago
        Agree, and to add to that: > provide government help to the competition This is just paying for CR with extra steps. > remove whatever government policies are giving them an advantage At least we can agree on something :)
        edmcnulty101 5y ago
        > At least we can agree on something :) Woo hoo! So happy!
      - edmcnulty101 5y ago
        > Defining monopolies by "has bad customer service" is certainly a unique and interesting take. That's the dumbest possible interpretation of what I said. Not all monopolies have bad CR: see Amazon. But every single company I've had bad CR experiences with with, I would venture many people would agree, is a monopoly. Google, Utilities, Cell phones, Internet, etc. Any upstart company typically HAS to have good CR because keeping customers is valuable to them. Now this is anecdotal, and I'm not going to provide papers or scientific studies because I don't care enough about this conversation to do that, but where there's smoke there's fire, and I've seen this pattern repeated over and over in the past decade or so, and some one who cares more than me should look further into this.
brap 5y ago
+1. People cost a LOT.
- dagurp 5y ago
  You can hire a lot of people for a small portion of a CEO's salary
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Maybe, but the CEO can probably get good support already.
    - SqueamOssi 5y ago
      ?!?
  - drstewart 5y ago
    Really? How many people can I hire for 10% of Google's CEO salary (= $200,000)? Will that satisfy you for Google's support needs?
mannykannot 5y ago
The whole thing about rights is that you do not have to pay for them. If I have a right to vote, you cannot justify doing something that denies me the option to vote by claiming it is worth something to me. I am principally concerned here with the actions of organizations that create problems for third parties, such as when their actions, or failure to act, facilitate fraud against people who are not their customers.
- kube-system 5y ago
  What makes you think there is no financial cost to the right to vote? https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-costs.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electi... It’s a cost we can all agree on, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    I didn't say it does not exist, I said it does not work as a justification for actions that infringe on rights.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      Sure, especially when we’re talking about rights that are almost universally agreed upon. But it could be a good justification for something like “the right to talk to customer support for Candy Crush”. The OP didn’t specify which companies he was trying to contact.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        It was the originator of this thread (endsleigh) who framed the issue in terms of rights and their value. I am pointing out that this is not a useful way to look at it. Here, you are asking, in effect, whether a Candy Crush player has any such right in the first place, and I think it is completely reasonable to say they do not in such trivial matters. As I mentioned in my original post, I am mainly concerned with third parties, several of whom have shown up in the broader discussion, but customers and ex-customers could have reasonable issues with retroactive policy changes to issues such as privacy.

How much would you pay for that right?

edmcnulty101 5y ago

The company profit, the executives, and the shareholders will take a share of paying for it as well.

lkxijlewlf 5y ago
> will They won't. But they should.
brap 5y ago
How are you going to enforce that? Are you going to force them to pay from their own salaries and dividends, by law? Well, they'll just bump up the salaries/dividends to offset the cost. The money is coming from customers. Either way, customers are the ones paying for support. Many companies let customers directly pay for support, if they want. No one's forcing you to buy from companies that don't offer this.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  Get rid of the monopoly. The reason they can have such bad CR is because their marketshare is leaps and bounds beyond the competition so they CAN. They provided an amazing product until they hit monopoly status then started cutting quality.. Oldest trick in the book. Some solutions are to remove whatever government policies are giving them an advantage, or break up the monopoly via government, or provide government help to the competition. There's tons of ways.
  - drstewart 5y ago
    >Get rid of the monopoly. Which monopoly? >The reason they can have such bad CR is because their marketshare is leaps and bounds beyond the competition so they CAN. Defining monopolies by "has bad customer service" is certainly a unique and interesting take. Almost borders on the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Of course, the real irony that you don't understand is that this would entrench monopolies: they're the ones with the resources to hire peons in third world countries to provide bare minimum support. Forcing startups to do the same kills them right out the gate.
    - brap 5y ago
      Agree, and to add to that: > provide government help to the competition This is just paying for CR with extra steps. > remove whatever government policies are giving them an advantage At least we can agree on something :)
      - edmcnulty101 5y ago
        > At least we can agree on something :) Woo hoo! So happy!
    - edmcnulty101 5y ago
      > Defining monopolies by "has bad customer service" is certainly a unique and interesting take. That's the dumbest possible interpretation of what I said. Not all monopolies have bad CR: see Amazon. But every single company I've had bad CR experiences with with, I would venture many people would agree, is a monopoly. Google, Utilities, Cell phones, Internet, etc. Any upstart company typically HAS to have good CR because keeping customers is valuable to them. Now this is anecdotal, and I'm not going to provide papers or scientific studies because I don't care enough about this conversation to do that, but where there's smoke there's fire, and I've seen this pattern repeated over and over in the past decade or so, and some one who cares more than me should look further into this.

brap 5y ago

+1. People cost a LOT.

dagurp 5y ago
You can hire a lot of people for a small portion of a CEO's salary
- kube-system 5y ago
  Maybe, but the CEO can probably get good support already.
  - SqueamOssi 5y ago
    ?!?
- drstewart 5y ago
  Really? How many people can I hire for 10% of Google's CEO salary (= $200,000)? Will that satisfy you for Google's support needs?

mannykannot 5y ago

The whole thing about rights is that you do not have to pay for them. If I have a right to vote, you cannot justify doing something that denies me the option to vote by claiming it is worth something to me. I am principally concerned here with the actions of organizations that create problems for third parties, such as when their actions, or failure to act, facilitate fraud against people who are not their customers.

kube-system 5y ago
What makes you think there is no financial cost to the right to vote? https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-costs.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electi... It’s a cost we can all agree on, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  I didn't say it does not exist, I said it does not work as a justification for actions that infringe on rights.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Sure, especially when we’re talking about rights that are almost universally agreed upon. But it could be a good justification for something like “the right to talk to customer support for Candy Crush”. The OP didn’t specify which companies he was trying to contact.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      It was the originator of this thread (endsleigh) who framed the issue in terms of rights and their value. I am pointing out that this is not a useful way to look at it. Here, you are asking, in effect, whether a Candy Crush player has any such right in the first place, and I think it is completely reasonable to say they do not in such trivial matters. As I mentioned in my original post, I am mainly concerned with third parties, several of whom have shown up in the broader discussion, but customers and ex-customers could have reasonable issues with retroactive policy changes to issues such as privacy.