Surface Duo price cuts rile early adopters

[Redaktion]

Microsoft's Surface Duo is already starting to see some relatively steep price cuts of up to US$200. Naturally, early adopters aren't happy and Microsoft isn't doing a lot to appease customers other than pointing then to the 60-day return policy.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Surface-Duo-price-cuts-rile-early-adopters.499331.0.html

[S.Yu]

That's a very Microsoft thing to do.

[vertigo]

This is one of the reasons why you shouldn't be an early adopter unless you have money to burn. That said, I hate when companies pull this crap, refusing to refund the difference even when still inside the refund window, not to mention suggesting customers refund and repurchase, since that's such a massive waste all-around. I can only assume they figure most people won't bother and, while they'll lose more money on those that do than they would by issuing a refund, they'll come out ahead overall. Still, when I'm in a situation like this, I'd much rather receive a partial refund (say $100-150 in this case) vs having to return and repurchase, in which case everyone wins and the company's image fares better, instead of coming across as dicks.

[Thrilled Therry]

But people take the lumps with Google everyday. Maybe the antitrust lawsuit will punch Google in the face like it did Microsoft.

[vertigo]

But people take the lumps with Google everyday. Maybe the antitrust lawsuit will punch Google in the face like it did Microsoft.

Hopefully not, considering the MS suit was kneecapped after, and it clearly didn't do much to affect them, since they're pulling the same crap now they were then.

[S.Yu]

But people take the lumps with Google everyday. Maybe the antitrust lawsuit will punch Google in the face like it did Microsoft.

Hopefully not, considering the MS suit was kneecapped after, and it clearly didn't do much to affect them, since they're pulling the same crap now they were then.

Oh please...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/in-china-big-tech-isnt-the-enemy-its-the-strategy/ar-BB1awXqA?ocid=spartanntp
You'll have to drop this mentality for at least a few decades, for as long as China is a major oligarchy, if China's power drops to the level of Russia or Iran, you could start thinking about breaking up the most competitive western companies again, until then, it's a luxury no longer affordable.

[vertigo]

But people take the lumps with Google everyday. Maybe the antitrust lawsuit will punch Google in the face like it did Microsoft.

Hopefully not, considering the MS suit was kneecapped after, and it clearly didn't do much to affect them, since they're pulling the same crap now they were then.

Oh please...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/in-china-big-tech-isnt-the-enemy-its-the-strategy/ar-BB1awXqA?ocid=spartanntp
You'll have to drop this mentality for at least a few decades, for as long as China is a major oligarchy, if China's power drops to the level of Russia or Iran, you could start thinking about breaking up the most competitive western companies again, until then, it's a luxury no longer affordable.

Oh please...
I'm well aware of how Chinese companies function and the threat they pose. But I'm also not naive enough to believe the answer is to allow our own companies free reign to do what they want in order to compete, partly because the difference is their companies are working with their government in order to benefit the government, whereas the companies here are working both with and against the government in order to benefit themselves and, more specifically, their executives.

But also because even if we allow monopolies and the resulting anti-consumer practices, US companies are still bound by rules that Chinese companies aren't. And because companies being monopolies doesn't necessarily, and often doesn't, mean they will be more competitive because of it. When they're allowed to become overly powerful, they don't use that power to compete against the unfairly advantaged Chinese companies, they often send jobs to China to further cut their costs and achieve their only goal: the further enrichment of their executives.

Monopolies have also shown to not really help, since things have become much worse over the past couple decades, during the same time many of these monopolies formed and others grew stronger. Yet you think that somehow continuing on this course will lead to a win in a few decades. Look at Intel, a monopoly that has made modest improvements over the past several years, not pushing themselves and therefore leading to a near stagnation because they didn't have any real competition, which is pretty much what happened ~17 years ago when they did the same thing until AMD came out with the Athlon 64. Look at how customer service has gone to crap with so many companies because there's no real competition to encourage them to actually listen to their customers and take care of them, which has only contributed to the overall problem because many people figure if they're going to get a mediocre product with crap support, they may as well get the cheaper one from China.

Monopolies stifle competition and innovation, that's why antitrust laws exist. So saying we need them to stand up to Chinese companies is just ludicrous. Really, that problem just makes it that much more important to deal with the monopolies. Sure, breaking them up would reduce their influence and power, but that also means they wouldn't be as capable of quashing startups that threaten them, allowing for other companies to grow and contribute meaningfully, nor would they have as much sway with Congress via lobbyists, having laws that benefit them and make things easier for them, leading to more profits, instead of actually working to make good products.

The answer to Chinese companies isn't to destroy our own corporate environment by allowing (or, in your case, encouraging) a handful of extremely large, rich, and powerful companies to rule it, it's to fight back against what makes their companies so unfairly competitive. That means holding them accountable for IP theft, not making stupid deals with them that benefit them much more than us (not to mention making them hold up their end of the deals), instituting tariffs (if not on the goods themselves, then on the companies when they shift manufacturing overseas, there and elsewhere), requiring companies to maintain certain levels of worker pay and treatment (and actually making them accountable for it), and improving the laws for product labeling regarding country of origin. Another change desperately needed is to start holding executives criminally liable and actually prosecute and incarcerate them.

But sure, we could instead just tell Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, et al that they have carte blanche because we need them to save us and they're our only hope and we trust them...

[S.Yu]

But people take the lumps with Google everyday. Maybe the antitrust lawsuit will punch Google in the face like it did Microsoft.

Hopefully not, considering the MS suit was kneecapped after, and it clearly didn't do much to affect them, since they're pulling the same crap now they were then.

Oh please...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/in-china-big-tech-isnt-the-enemy-its-the-strategy/ar-BB1awXqA?ocid=spartanntp
You'll have to drop this mentality for at least a few decades, for as long as China is a major oligarchy, if China's power drops to the level of Russia or Iran, you could start thinking about breaking up the most competitive western companies again, until then, it's a luxury no longer affordable.

Oh please...
I'm well aware of how Chinese companies function and the threat they pose. But I'm also not naive enough to believe the answer is to allow our own companies free reign to do what they want in order to compete, partly because the difference is their companies are working with their government in order to benefit the government, whereas the companies here are working both with and against the government in order to benefit themselves and, more specifically, their executives.

But also because even if we allow monopolies and the resulting anti-consumer practices, US companies are still bound by rules that Chinese companies aren't. And because companies being monopolies doesn't necessarily, and often doesn't, mean they will be more competitive because of it. When they're allowed to become overly powerful, they don't use that power to compete against the unfairly advantaged Chinese companies, they often send jobs to China to further cut their costs and achieve their only goal: the further enrichment of their executives.

Monopolies have also shown to not really help, since things have become much worse over the past couple decades, during the same time many of these monopolies formed and others grew stronger. Yet you think that somehow continuing on this course will lead to a win in a few decades. Look at Intel, a monopoly that has made modest improvements over the past several years, not pushing themselves and therefore leading to a near stagnation because they didn't have any real competition, which is pretty much what happened ~17 years ago when they did the same thing until AMD came out with the Athlon 64. Look at how customer service has gone to crap with so many companies because there's no real competition to encourage them to actually listen to their customers and take care of them, which has only contributed to the overall problem because many people figure if they're going to get a mediocre product with crap support, they may as well get the cheaper one from China.

Monopolies stifle competition and innovation, that's why antitrust laws exist. So saying we need them to stand up to Chinese companies is just ludicrous. Really, that problem just makes it that much more important to deal with the monopolies. Sure, breaking them up would reduce their influence and power, but that also means they wouldn't be as capable of quashing startups that threaten them, allowing for other companies to grow and contribute meaningfully, nor would they have as much sway with Congress via lobbyists, having laws that benefit them and make things easier for them, leading to more profits, instead of actually working to make good products.

The answer to Chinese companies isn't to destroy our own corporate environment by allowing (or, in your case, encouraging) a handful of extremely large, rich, and powerful companies to rule it, it's to fight back against what makes their companies so unfairly competitive. That means holding them accountable for IP theft, not making stupid deals with them that benefit them much more than us (not to mention making them hold up their end of the deals), instituting tariffs (if not on the goods themselves, then on the companies when they shift manufacturing overseas, there and elsewhere), requiring companies to maintain certain levels of worker pay and treatment (and actually making them accountable for it), and improving the laws for product labeling regarding country of origin. Another change desperately needed is to start holding executives criminally liable and actually prosecute and incarcerate them.

But sure, we could instead just tell Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, et al that they have carte blanche because we need them to save us and they're our only hope and we trust them...

You obviously ignored the article I linked to and went on ranting your outdated and misplaced attacks that that very article rebuked.