[eddy_berry]

Thread Title: Look who's showing blackberry some love again.

^^ Not these guys! ^^ HAHAHA

I kid. I kid. Don't burn me. lol. I had to. This thread got really depressing very quickly.

[Omnitech]

When a company that cares about it's customers and IT"S reputation, fails to delivery or "execute" as promised. They tend to go out of their way to at least try and make things right with the consumer.

No offense intended but you sound a bit like a teenager with sentiments like that.

If you chose a laptop computer that turns out to get reviewed as inferior to the top brand - do you run to them and demand 2 free batteries and half a dozen free software applications as "compensation" for your "terrible loss" at not having a top-rated product?

They built a product that cost them a certain amount of money to produce and sell at a reasonable profit. Your job is to decide if that product works the way you want it to at the price you want to pay. If you decide later that you are disappointed in your choice, it is not the vendor's responsibility to pay you "disappointment compensation".

If the product is decent but not top-notch and selling for a price people are still willing to pay - there is still room in the market for alternatives to the "top brand". Nothing wrong with choices.

If the product is clearly not competitive at all and this becomes widely apparent then it will likely lead to disappointing sales and the company then gets to decide how they proceed from there. Nowhere in that equation is a step where people who have become overcome with "buyer's remorse" automatically are entitled to some kind of "I made a buying mistake compensation". Some things are possible and some are not. The Playbook was designed to sell for ~$599 but only sold a piddling quantity at less than half that. That doesn't mean that through some amazing feat of magic BlackBerry all the sudden is making a fat profit on a device that probably cost them more to make than what they are giving them away for. Businesses are not charities, even when you think they owe you "disappointment compensation".

Self-entitlement FTW.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you are risk-averse, don't buy anything but mainstream, top-rated products that everyone else is buying. If you made a bad buying decision, take personal responsibility for that instead of looking for others to blame. The market will take care of the rest.

[Omnitech]

I expected a little better from you, too. Do you really believe that BB cares about you, individually? They sure as hell didn't care much about a number of my customers who were BB users, who came to ME for help with their BB phones because they couldn't get any from BB.

First of all, I am not the one making claims about large companies "personally caring about meeeeeeeee".

Secondly, whether or not you feel that a particular vendor is providing "adequate help" for their products has little necessary relationship to "not caring about meeeeeeee".

As I wrote previously, MOST of the issues at play are questions of execution and effective corporate management, not questions of "uncaring souls running that mean company".

It makes no difference HOW much some person or company "cares" - you're not going to get a large cash donation from a penniless person or a massively expensive feel-good program (you know, like the giant retail chain colossus that people keep demanding here from BlackBerry) from a broke company.

Classic narcissistic blame-shifting.

YES - two companies can be distinguished - ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING THE SAME - in terms of which one chooses a more ethical business philosphy, or a less ethical business philosophy. So we have examples like Enron and ExxonMobile (And perhaps to a lesser extent T-Mobile USA) on one side, and the original "HP Way" and Toms of Maine on the other. Given the same conditions and choices, you can choose to be transparent, straightforward, law-abiding, graceful and generous to the community and your workers, or you can choose to be secretive, sleazy, community-hostile, money-grubbing, employee-abusing cheaters.

No one can accuse RIM/BlackBerry of being a secretive organization whose intent is to build the lousiest products that sell for the highest margins so they can get richer than sin and laugh all the way to the bank. In case you haven't noticed, BlackBerry's financial situation is dire.

If anyone honestly thinks that BlackBerry - or any other company - does not want happy customers, they are fools. OF COURSE they want happy customers. Whether or not they SUCCEED at that is another matter entirely.

"Do not ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". (Or lack of corporate execution skills)

Anyway, the person I responded to was insinuating that Apple, Google, and Microsoft doesn't care about individual users, because they are big companies who make money. My points were these:

No, actually - you tried to suggest that there is no such thing as an "international company" that does business in a fair and equitable and straightforward manner. The statement you were responding to was actually this:

"Legere is a **** who doesn't give a rats behind about customers. They are just a means to an end for him.

And your response was this:

And of course, you can't say the exact same thing about BlackBerry, or any other international company, right?

Does anyone here really think BB cares about you, individually? How could they. How could any company of that size? All they can do is create policies that their customers find favorable.

Or is T-Mobile a bad company because they are in business to make a profit? Heaven forbid! That's no way to run a business!

So it was YOU who turned it into the usual bi-polar polemic about "If you don't like the way a company does business, YOU MUST BE AGAINST ALL CAPITALISM OF ANY KIND" BS.

For example:

All companies are in business to make profits - that's no crime, and it's not immoral either.

See above, I never claimed this. But neither does it mean that profit trumps all other factors. There are equitable and civil and fair and honest ways of doing capitalism, as well as the opposite.

You on the other hand, seem to be a member of the camp that claims that because Cash is King, we cannot even have a discussion about business ethics.

If that is such a universal axiom, why do almost all business schools teach courses in business ethics??.

ethics - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School
Business Ethics: Roles and Responsibilities - Book - Harvard Business School
Business Ethics - Research - Harvard Business School
Business Ethics in an Organizational Context." Panelist. "Society for Business Ethics Annual Meeting - Lecture - Harvard Business School
Business Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
In Defense of Business Ethics - Said Business School Centre for Corporate Reputation | University of Oxford Podcasts - Audio and Video Lectures
The Botwinick Prize in Ethics | The Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Center for Leadership
https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/leadership/
Behavioral Economics, Business Ethics, & Leadership | Courses at Columbia Business School

BB has among the lowest-rated customer satisfaction in the industry. Even CrackBerry users complain about it, and rightly so. Kind of hard to be throwing stones at other companies, don't you think?

Whether a company's customers are happy with the product and service has no inherent link to a company's business ethics. It has a more direct relationship with their industry expertise, corporate management and execution abilities. Like I said before: only a fool would assume that ANY company "does not want happy customers".

And not making a profit doesn't somehow make a company angelic and altruistic.

I never made that claim either.

I never said "all international companies are managed the same way", but I'm pretty sure they'll all admit to be looking to make a profit.

Oh, but as pointed-out above, you certainly did suggest that one cannot expect any "international company" to have any interest whatsoever besides making money.

That's just patently ridiculous.

Perhaps you need to stop reading Murdoch's Wall St. Journal so much and get a little broader perspective.

[tinochiko]

Apple does it. Have you ever used their customer support? It is excellent.

Except when you have a broken screen, then you have to fork up..


And I said limited manpower, Apple set up their own vendor stores.. something BlackBerry doesn't have..and most likely can't currently afford to..


TechCraze C0008DDD1

[anon(3993749)]

Could BlackBerry sue Tmobile for this? This will affect BlackBerry financially and it seems like a direct attack to BlackBerry

Posted via CB10

Not in the US. There are not enough government regulations when it comes to false advertising and market monopolies.

Posted via CB10

[birdman_38]

First of all, I am not the one making claims about large companies "personally caring about meeeeeeeee".

Secondly, whether or not you feel that a particular vendor is providing "adequate help" for their products has little necessary relationship to "not caring about meeeeeeee".

As I wrote previously, MOST of the issues at play are questions of execution and effective corporate management, not questions of "uncaring souls running that mean company".

It makes no difference HOW much some person or company "cares" - you're not going to get a large cash donation from a penniless person or a massively expensive feel-good program (you know, like the giant retail chain colossus that people keep demanding here from BlackBerry) from a broke company.

Classic narcissistic blame-shifting.

YES - two companies can be distinguished - ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING THE SAME - in terms of which one chooses a more ethical business philosphy, or a less ethical business philosophy. So we have examples like Enron and ExxonMobile (And perhaps to a lesser extent T-Mobile USA) on one side, and the original "HP Way" and Toms of Maine on the other. Given the same conditions and choices, you can choose to be transparent, straightforward, law-abiding, graceful and generous to the community and your workers, or you can choose to be secretive, sleazy, community-hostile, money-grubbing, employee-abusing cheaters.

No one can accuse RIM/BlackBerry of being a secretive organization whose intent is to build the lousiest products that sell for the highest margins so they can get richer than sin and laugh all the way to the bank. In case you haven't noticed, BlackBerry's financial situation is dire.

If anyone honestly thinks that BlackBerry - or any other company - does not want happy customers, they are fools. OF COURSE they want happy customers. Whether or not they SUCCEED at that is another matter entirely.

"Do not ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". (Or lack of corporate execution skills)





No, actually - you tried to suggest that there is no such thing as an "international company" that does business in a fair and equitable and straightforward manner. The statement you were responding to was actually this:

"Legere is a **** who doesn't give a rats behind about customers. They are just a means to an end for him.

And your response was this:




So it was YOU who turned it into the usual bi-polar polemic about "If you don't like the way a company does business, YOU MUST BE AGAINST ALL CAPITALISM OF ANY KIND" BS.

For example:




See above, I never claimed this. But neither does it mean that profit trumps all other factors. There are equitable and civil and fair and honest ways of doing capitalism, as well as the opposite.

You on the other hand, seem to be a member of the camp that claims that because Cash is King, we cannot even have a discussion about business ethics.

If that is such a universal axiom, why do almost all business schools teach courses in business ethics??.

ethics - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School
Business Ethics: Roles and Responsibilities - Book - Harvard Business School
Business Ethics - Research - Harvard Business School
Business Ethics in an Organizational Context." Panelist. "Society for Business Ethics Annual Meeting - Lecture - Harvard Business School
Business Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
In Defense of Business Ethics - Said Business School Centre for Corporate Reputation | University of Oxford Podcasts - Audio and Video Lectures
The Botwinick Prize in Ethics | The Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Center for Leadership
https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/leadership/
Behavioral Economics, Business Ethics, & Leadership | Courses at Columbia Business School






Whether a company's customers are happy with the product and service has no inherent link to a company's business ethics. It has a more direct relationship with their industry expertise, corporate management and execution abilities. Like I said before: only a fool would assume that ANY company "does not want happy customers".





I never made that claim either.





Oh, but as pointed-out above, you certainly did suggest that one cannot expect any "international company" to have any interest whatsoever besides making money.

That's just patently ridiculous.

Perhaps you need to stop reading Murdoch's Wall St. Journal so much and get a little broader perspective.

Dude, that response is really disturbing. You need to relax.

[Omnitech]

Dude, that response is really disturbing. You need to relax.

If you can't handle complex concepts, I'd recommend turning the computer off and making a nice camomile tea for yourself.

[birdman_38]

If you can't handle complex concepts, I'd recommend turning the computer off and making a nice camomile tea for yourself.

I'd recommend that for you as well.

[tchocky77]

Except when you have a broken screen, then you have to fork up..


And I said limited manpower, Apple set up their own vendor stores.. something BlackBerry doesn't have..and most likely can't currently afford to..


TechCraze C0008DDD1

It's hit or miss. You take a busted iPhone to an Apple store,...and there's maybe a 50/50 chance the guy behind the desk either fixes your phone, or gives you a new one, for free. True story. I've seen it happen and you can find lots of accounts of it happening.

Either way. Apple does owe you anything for being a klutz.

[tinochiko]

It's hit or miss. You take a busted iPhone to an Apple store,...and there's maybe a 50/50 chance the guy behind the desk either fixes your phone, or gives you a new one, for free. True story. I've seen it happen and you can find lots of accounts of it happening.

Either way. Apple does owe you anything for being a klutz.

Right.. nothing to do with phone design at all, it's the persons fault.. thats why more iPhones are returned for cracked screen than any other phone even when sale numbers are taken into account.. maybe clumsy people are just drawn to Apple..

And that may be the unofficial word.. but broken screen isn't covered by Apple unless you buy Apple care.. and if you have another issue with the phone and a cracked screen they force you to pay to get the screen replaced first.. and if you go third party then no support for you..

Those 50/50 guys the ones that give a new phone will be going against apple policy and so actually aren't doing their job correctly.. so if the 'care' is given in a way contrary to company policy.. the company cares.. logic

You can find lots more accounts of people annoyed that they've had to shell out for what could be actually perceived as a design flaw.. yes other phones aren't immune to cracks in the screen from drops, but not to the extent that IPhones do and get they advertise 'super strong gorilla glass'.. false advertising.. etc etc

Apples and BlackBerry's, compared them right or don't compare them

TechCraze C0008DDD1

[tchocky77]

To me it's commonly known that if you drop a glass object, it might break. That's not really a design flaw. It's glass. "Gorilla" or otherwise. Personal responsibility. Ya know?

[raino]

Right.. nothing to do with phone design at all, it's the persons fault.. thats why more iPhones are returned for cracked screen than any other phone even when sale numbers are taken into account.. maybe clumsy people are just drawn to Apple..

This sounds very statisticky. I would love to read through the source for this, please share.

To me it's commonly known that if you drop a glass object, it might break. That's not really a design flaw. It's glass. "Gorilla" or otherwise. Personal responsibility. Ya know?

Personal responsibility or not, if what was said in the previous post is true, not making screens as shatter-resistant as competitors and having an official policy to not replace devices without Apple Care and that too only if the screen's the sole issue, that's quite a nice way of making money:

1. Save on hardware or design costs by not making screens as shatter-proof.
2. Make people pay (a good amount) for a screen replacement, new phone or whatever it takes for a fix.