Yes he very clearly was. The article tries to make it as clear as possible that this guy is a massive scumbag who was fucking others over to save a dime at each

Yes he very clearly was. The article tries to make it as clear as possible that this guy is a massive scumbag who was fucking others over to save a dime at each opportunity. The clearest example is: > A couple of months later, the ad agency agreed to buy a new file server. A real one. Aaron built the box with a glad heart. > But the agency never paid for it. So he had his company agree to pay for a replacement server but after they procured it he just refused to pay for it and forced the MSP to eat the cost instead. > Why does everybody think it is absolute must to maximise the profits? Maybe he was ok with his profits and just didn't care to optimise his business as long as he has comfortable life? Is there something wrong with it. This clearly isn't the case as the article says quote: > The Ferrari-owning boss got wind of this mess and would berate Aaron and his crew whenever the server became unavailable, citing the enormous cost of outages. So he was penny pinching and refused to do things that would allow the company to save money while harassing the MSP each time his self inflicted problem occurred. This is a trend with a lot of these types where they will not spend a dime to fix a problem in a perceived cost center but then each the problem predictably occurs, they subject said "cost center" with abuse for not fixing the problem despite actively being the reason the problem is unresolved.