2 ms·

Would this not amount to being happy about all cost reductions at the expense of a customer? Say I get less laundry detergent for the same price, should I be ha

Would this not amount to being happy about all cost reductions at the expense of a customer? Say I get less laundry detergent for the same price, should I be happy for the opportunity to wash my clothes less often to not pay more money to the manufacturer, as it is a lower hanging fruit? To MSFT there is no lower hanging fruit to more revenue than reducing what they give a customer while charging the same amount of money, so no I'm not particularly impressed that MSFT is stiffing their customers. I'm also not impressed that MSFT manages to do that while also getting cheers because they figured out the right words to say to get people on their side. To me, that is deeply unethical behaviour.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> To me, that is deeply unethical behaviour. This is just 2024 again. My theory is here that regardless of what you might otherwise think of ESG, I think one of the key things to bear in mind is it imposes is that customer value is not the top priority. I understand of course that the longer-term idea is that, say, all businesses get better at waste disposal, and once that happens businesses can prioritise customer value again, but that will take a long time, if ever, to manifest all its goals fully. Additionally, in reality it seems that it encourages businesses to become performative in the way you're highlighting.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  Private companies in market economies have always been incentivized to maximize profit, and one way to do that is to charge as possible for as little as possible. Nothing has changed. The only difference here is now they have a bunch of people cheering them on for saving the planet when they do this. If you cheer on all other forms of shrinkflation, then sure, this is something you would also like. I should be clear that I don't think profit maximization is bad, I'm pro market economies, and this is just a fact of life in a market economy, but it's also nothing new, and it has nothing to do with saving the planet. The main thing I'm bothered about is that this practice is cheered on by environmentalists when it is done by a company that has done everything possible to disrupt market dynamics. If one laundry detergent manufacturer does shrinkflation, I can fairly easily switch to another, if MSFT does shrinkflation on cloud storage, and they bundled it with everything else, I can't easily switch. MSFT will also keep doing this, their first aim with this to become irreplaceable, and then they can start jacking up prices, and now they also figured out how to get some praise for saving the planet while they engage in incredibly immoral business practises. This is impressive, but more in that it actually works.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > The main thing I'm bothered about is that this practice is cheered on by environmentalists when it is done by a company that has done everything possible to disrupt market dynamics. If one laundry detergent manufacturer does shrinkflation, I can fairly easily switch to another, if MSFT does shrinkflation on cloud storage, and they bundled it with everything else, I can't easily switch. Well, I think I agree. The only reason I brought up ESG is it gives all detergent manufacturers the incentive to provide the same shrinkflation, and gain points for it. Not to say they will; I just thought it was an interesting angle. I do think that offering infinite space and then limiting it to 20GB isn't quite the same as shrinkflation. It was silly to ever offer unlimited space. But they are definitely tightening the screws, I agree.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> To me, that is deeply unethical behaviour. This is just 2024 again. My theory is here that regardless of what you might otherwise think of ESG, I think one of the key things to bear in mind is it imposes is that customer value is not the top priority. I understand of course that the longer-term idea is that, say, all businesses get better at waste disposal, and once that happens businesses can prioritise customer value again, but that will take a long time, if ever, to manifest all its goals fully. Additionally, in reality it seems that it encourages businesses to become performative in the way you're highlighting.

flanked-evergl 3y ago
Private companies in market economies have always been incentivized to maximize profit, and one way to do that is to charge as possible for as little as possible. Nothing has changed. The only difference here is now they have a bunch of people cheering them on for saving the planet when they do this. If you cheer on all other forms of shrinkflation, then sure, this is something you would also like. I should be clear that I don't think profit maximization is bad, I'm pro market economies, and this is just a fact of life in a market economy, but it's also nothing new, and it has nothing to do with saving the planet. The main thing I'm bothered about is that this practice is cheered on by environmentalists when it is done by a company that has done everything possible to disrupt market dynamics. If one laundry detergent manufacturer does shrinkflation, I can fairly easily switch to another, if MSFT does shrinkflation on cloud storage, and they bundled it with everything else, I can't easily switch. MSFT will also keep doing this, their first aim with this to become irreplaceable, and then they can start jacking up prices, and now they also figured out how to get some praise for saving the planet while they engage in incredibly immoral business practises. This is impressive, but more in that it actually works.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > The main thing I'm bothered about is that this practice is cheered on by environmentalists when it is done by a company that has done everything possible to disrupt market dynamics. If one laundry detergent manufacturer does shrinkflation, I can fairly easily switch to another, if MSFT does shrinkflation on cloud storage, and they bundled it with everything else, I can't easily switch. Well, I think I agree. The only reason I brought up ESG is it gives all detergent manufacturers the incentive to provide the same shrinkflation, and gain points for it. Not to say they will; I just thought it was an interesting angle. I do think that offering infinite space and then limiting it to 20GB isn't quite the same as shrinkflation. It was silly to ever offer unlimited space. But they are definitely tightening the screws, I agree.