5 ms·

> What is interesting here is that Synology leadership is quite technical Vagueposting out of necessity: I worked at a different company that made popular cons

> What is interesting here is that Synology leadership is quite technical Vagueposting out of necessity: I worked at a different company that made popular consumer products and had leadership with technical backgrounds. That company also went through a period of trying to lock down the platform for profits, which everyone hated. The root cause was that the technical leadership had started to think two things: That their customers were so loyal to the brand that they wouldn’t leave, and that the customers weren’t smart enough to recognize that the artificial restrictions had no real basis in reality. I remember attending a meeting where the CEO bragged about a decision he made that arbitrarily worsened a product for consumers. He laughed that people still bought it and loved it. “Can you believe that? They’ll buy anything we tell them to.” was the paraphrased statement I remember. Of course, the backlash came when they pushed too hard. Fortunately this company recognized what was going on and the CEO moved on to other matters, leaving product choices back to the teams. I wonder if something similar happened with Synology. Regarding employee morale: It was very depressing for me during this period to open Hacker News and see threads complaining about my employer. I can confirm that it spurred a job search for me.

stonemetal12 1y ago
> a period of trying to lock down the platform for profits, .... their customers were so loyal to the brand that they wouldn’t leave Isn't that a contradictory position? Locking in raises the cost of disloyalty, loyal customers (by definition) don't need to be locked in. You only need to lock in loyal customers if you are planning on turning customer hostile.
- glenstein 1y ago
  A good habit to practice is to see how far you can go reconciling apparent contradictions with charitable interpretation. I think in this case, I can see "brand loyalty" on a continuum ranging from "feels good about product" to "so completely loyal that lock-in would be redundant". The furthest extreme would produce an effective contradiction, but anything short of that can make sense of the term while leaving space to understand lock in as a rational, or at-least non-contradictory action. I think that can backfire spectacularly, as we're seeing with Synology, but I suspect that a non-trivial amount of the time, it simply happens and works, no revolt is staged, and profits flow (for better or worse). The example coming to my mind right how is Pitney Bowes, which sells big envelope stamping and sealing machines. They sell a proprietary sealing fluid (wtf) that, as far as I can tell, is water with blue food coloring. And a costly proprietary red ink cartridge for stamping. But people sign the contracts and the world keeps on keeping on.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > Isn't that a contradictory position? Locking in raises the cost of disloyalty, loyal customers (by definition) don't need to be locked in. In this case, the customers were loyal to Synology for the NAS but not the hard drives. By locking them in further, they thought they could capture their customers' hard drive purchasing, too. They thought the brand loyalty would allow it.
- taneq 1y ago
  You answered your own question. You see this a lot when a company’s founders leave and are replaced by MBAs. Customer goodwill isn’t a tangible asset, so the MBAs burn it to produce more quarterly revenue. It works great for a while until the customers wisely decide never to let that company burn them again. By that stage the MBAs have scored even higher paying jobs at bigger companies based on how much they boosted profits, so I guess it continues to work for them afterwards too.
toomuchtodo 1y ago
Do you think more employee ownership and control, a "seat at the table," would've prevented technically competent leadership from testing customer hostile business decisions? > Regarding employee morale: It was very depressing for me during this period to open Hacker News and see threads complaining about my employer. I can confirm that it spurred a job search for me. Indeed. I believe that if you're a shareholder employee owner, you are likely incentivized to not kill the golden goose versus folks at the top making decisions unilaterally, but you also need some ability to say no to bad decisions. Like Costco, employee and customer happiness first, profits after. (big fan of employee ownership and control contributors, aligning incentives and outcomes and all that jazz)
- yabones 1y ago
  Absolutely agree. I'm a huge fan of co-op type ownership structures for this reason. They might not be moonshots or unicorns, but they always have longevity.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Mondragon Corporation. Have a look, fascinating.
  - itsoktocry 1y ago
    >They might not be moonshots or unicorns, but they always have longevity. We're going to need a fact-check on this. I'll bet the failure rate of co-ops is well beyond those of standard business structures.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      No, it's actually true, they are quite stable. What they lack though is outliers in terms of success. They tend to be quite conservative and as a consequence they are risk averse and tend to play it safe. For a high return you need a different appetite for risk. Of course the key to a different risk appetite is to be able to externalize the negatives of that risk but to be able to reap the rewards. Such asymmetric bets are at the root of most successful business empires, you'd never see them in a co-op.
grues-dinner 1y ago
> Can you believe that? They’ll buy anything we tell them to. Sounds very much like "doing a Ratner": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Or a Zuck.
wnevets 1y ago
> “Can you believe that? They’ll buy anything we tell them to.” was the paraphrased statement I remember. Apple is only company that is allowed to get away with that.
calenti 1y ago
Complacency about customers requires a monopoly, which Synology does not have.
MrDarcy 1y ago
Sonos?
- jacquesm 1y ago
  I almost bought their junk. I went to a store nearby that was promoting them (I live within 10 km of their headquarters and felt like supporting the locals). That didn't really work out though: cloud not optional. For a bunch of speakers. Account required. So, no sale. Salesguy was all pissed and I should 'get with the times'. No thank you. My hardware is mine.
quickthrowman 1y ago
I’m assuming it was Sonos, I know you can’t confirm but it fits pretty well. Hope you landed somewhere with management that isn’t stupid.

stonemetal12 1y ago

> a period of trying to lock down the platform for profits, .... their customers were so loyal to the brand that they wouldn’t leave Isn't that a contradictory position? Locking in raises the cost of disloyalty, loyal customers (by definition) don't need to be locked in. You only need to lock in loyal customers if you are planning on turning customer hostile.

glenstein 1y ago
A good habit to practice is to see how far you can go reconciling apparent contradictions with charitable interpretation. I think in this case, I can see "brand loyalty" on a continuum ranging from "feels good about product" to "so completely loyal that lock-in would be redundant". The furthest extreme would produce an effective contradiction, but anything short of that can make sense of the term while leaving space to understand lock in as a rational, or at-least non-contradictory action. I think that can backfire spectacularly, as we're seeing with Synology, but I suspect that a non-trivial amount of the time, it simply happens and works, no revolt is staged, and profits flow (for better or worse). The example coming to my mind right how is Pitney Bowes, which sells big envelope stamping and sealing machines. They sell a proprietary sealing fluid (wtf) that, as far as I can tell, is water with blue food coloring. And a costly proprietary red ink cartridge for stamping. But people sign the contracts and the world keeps on keeping on.
Aurornis 1y ago
> Isn't that a contradictory position? Locking in raises the cost of disloyalty, loyal customers (by definition) don't need to be locked in. In this case, the customers were loyal to Synology for the NAS but not the hard drives. By locking them in further, they thought they could capture their customers' hard drive purchasing, too. They thought the brand loyalty would allow it.
taneq 1y ago
You answered your own question. You see this a lot when a company’s founders leave and are replaced by MBAs. Customer goodwill isn’t a tangible asset, so the MBAs burn it to produce more quarterly revenue. It works great for a while until the customers wisely decide never to let that company burn them again. By that stage the MBAs have scored even higher paying jobs at bigger companies based on how much they boosted profits, so I guess it continues to work for them afterwards too.

toomuchtodo 1y ago

Do you think more employee ownership and control, a "seat at the table," would've prevented technically competent leadership from testing customer hostile business decisions? > Regarding employee morale: It was very depressing for me during this period to open Hacker News and see threads complaining about my employer. I can confirm that it spurred a job search for me. Indeed. I believe that if you're a shareholder employee owner, you are likely incentivized to not kill the golden goose versus folks at the top making decisions unilaterally, but you also need some ability to say no to bad decisions. Like Costco, employee and customer happiness first, profits after. (big fan of employee ownership and control contributors, aligning incentives and outcomes and all that jazz)

yabones 1y ago
Absolutely agree. I'm a huge fan of co-op type ownership structures for this reason. They might not be moonshots or unicorns, but they always have longevity.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Mondragon Corporation. Have a look, fascinating.
- itsoktocry 1y ago
  >They might not be moonshots or unicorns, but they always have longevity. We're going to need a fact-check on this. I'll bet the failure rate of co-ops is well beyond those of standard business structures.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    No, it's actually true, they are quite stable. What they lack though is outliers in terms of success. They tend to be quite conservative and as a consequence they are risk averse and tend to play it safe. For a high return you need a different appetite for risk. Of course the key to a different risk appetite is to be able to externalize the negatives of that risk but to be able to reap the rewards. Such asymmetric bets are at the root of most successful business empires, you'd never see them in a co-op.

grues-dinner 1y ago

> Can you believe that? They’ll buy anything we tell them to. Sounds very much like "doing a Ratner": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner

jacquesm 1y ago
Or a Zuck.

wnevets 1y ago

> “Can you believe that? They’ll buy anything we tell them to.” was the paraphrased statement I remember. Apple is only company that is allowed to get away with that.

calenti 1y ago

Complacency about customers requires a monopoly, which Synology does not have.

MrDarcy 1y ago

Sonos?

jacquesm 1y ago
I almost bought their junk. I went to a store nearby that was promoting them (I live within 10 km of their headquarters and felt like supporting the locals). That didn't really work out though: cloud not optional. For a bunch of speakers. Account required. So, no sale. Salesguy was all pissed and I should 'get with the times'. No thank you. My hardware is mine.

quickthrowman 1y ago

I’m assuming it was Sonos, I know you can’t confirm but it fits pretty well. Hope you landed somewhere with management that isn’t stupid.