3 ms·
A tiny bit easier, at the risk of reducing the profitability of the company, which could mean losing their jobs.
by m000 1y ago
A tiny bit easier, at the risk of reducing the profitability of the company, which could mean losing their jobs.
- bapak 1y agoDoesn't make much sense to me? How would they argue that? "Don't ban third party HDDs, you'll earn less on sales and you won't have to pay me". Wut
- glenstein 1y agoEvidently profitability went down due to the change, so if anything they were fighting for their jobs by opposing it. (If it is indeed true that they were opposing it internally, still not sure where exactly that claim is coming from.)
- INTPenis 1y agoIt depends on who their target audience is. VMware for example have strict hardware compatibility lists because their target audience is big enterprise. But Synology being a consumer NAS, this decision was perhaps not wise. They're sort of standing in two markets. They need to make a decision as to which products are enterprise and which are consumer. I don't think any enterprise clients would mind a strict HCL.