myconv: This feels notably off the original topic. … I've been hearing that Apple in general has stopped giving a damn a few years ago. … Only stuff I've heard indirectly since I've never bought Apple but I've been hearing it very consistently from many sources. Don't buy Apple. Or limit to old used purchases.
But that story feels like a experience I had at Aldis, I've had a few returns I needed to do there because of low quality product they sell (like a complete line of product can have issues, like sweet potato chips that consistently have a portion of chips in the bag burnt black) They have a policy where they give you your money back and give you a new product. But it seems if you use it a few times, even if the circumstances are completely legit (you can show them exactly how the product was inferior) they don't care. If you do it too much, they simply ban you, treating you like a thief abusing their policy. Well then don't have such a generous policy and listen to customer feedback regarding quality issues instead of blaming it on them like you could never possibly have quality control issues!
I was a sticker-loving Apple fan when Wozniac and Jobs began, back when they were a elite niche in the
bellum omnium contra omnes computer revolution frontier of the 1980s. I loved the idea of a Newton, for example. But I felt the last of any sentimentality ebb away when it was revealed that the Mac hardware was, as many had prophesied, indeed a generation worse than the best PC architecture, whilst being more expensive, because it was now clear that the brand had matured to the point where it wasn't necessary to actually
be better.
Australia has mandated federal customer protection laws — usually referred to in fine print as "your statutory rights" — that ensure a customer will be able to return faulty goods, to the seller, for a full refund, even if it is not defective.
Trilarion: Very interesting experiences. Thanks for sharing them. I didn't know sellers can "buy" negative reviews on eBay. That just seems like it refutes the very purpose of reviews. It seems that many big marketplaces do rather cater to the sellers and less to the buyers which is a big mistake IMHO.
Customers should honor consumer friendliness and quality standards, but at the very least friendly return policies, as much as possible.
The was an article in the
Wall Street Journal, first week of November, by Khadeeja Safdar, analyzing the new normal. People are now given a Customer Lifetime Value, which is a risk calculated by the prices paid, against the perks received, in line with advertisement targets; it is possible to have a negative value (this is no surprise to a small sales office: in a SOHO, there are some customers who require more effort to service than a company can pay to provide), and is typically used to score probabilities for airline class upgrades, or access to higher technical competency when calling a helpdesk (instead of the barely-literate monkeys who man the general line).
All bank accounts, all mobile telephony, and
all online shopping use CLVs.
Distrust Falsification
This is just technology, however, and therefore is ethically neutral; if you use Uber, for instance, your passenger rating is analogous to the driver's rating, and I am confident Adam Smith would find this an acceptable compromise that builds resilience efficiently.
Online shopping provides even more metadata, collecting browser visits to competitors, say, and the keywords used in searches, to estimate whether the seller needs to offer any more incentive to close the deal. "Churn" scores can be calculated, both on products and people; if you habitually change between several providers they are probably less likely to tempt you with anything except raw low pricing; theshholds can be calculated beyond which customers will not pay for a service, etc.
Oh, and the next generation of Smart Assistants (Google, Amazon, Apple) will not just have a passive (read: always on) speaker to listen for commands, but also now include a camera (or probably two).