Apple Backtracks After Popular Mac App 'Amphetamine' Threatened With Removal Over Branding

[redcaptrickster]

Right, but you can brand anything you like. If people aren't going to buy it because of that then you either change it or fail.

Or do the research to find out if the group that won't buy it is so insignificant that it doesn't matter.

 

[Maximara]

Neither did the ones that had to live through it before they actually had to live through it.

Actually they did. See before the 1930s the term "Great Depression" was used to describe the period between 1873 to 1879/1896 which got renamed the Long Depression. I should note the Long Depression lasted a minimum of 65 months while the Great Depression lasted only 43 months. The reason the Long Depression has a fuzzy date is that there were so many major recessions and Panics between 1879 to 1896 that some economists group the whole thing into one long mess.

 

[MacGizmo]

this might be the laziest app ever.

go into the terminal and type "caffeinate -t 60"

there. your mac will definitely stay awake for 60 seconds. need an hour? -t 3600

need forever? no arguments.

it's not that hard. been using this for years and years.

That's great if that's all you want to do, but Amphetamine offers much more.

 

[prasand]

What you describe is our common perception - we interact as customer with a corporation- which will always be represented by its representatives in sales, training, customer care,support.

Clever companies understand that its those folks where the traction happens and hire and train staff as best they can.

Personally, I would never walk into a Starbucks or BestBuy and think I’m first interacting with a corporation if a barista gives me an attitude. But I guess that’s easier to see than the online App Store process. If so, then maybe people are more willing to delude they are interacting with an intangible entity rather than a person or a program that can be flawed, and the intangible entity must be flawless unlike the person would be.

Personally, it’s completely unrealistic to think that way.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Personally, I would never walk into a Starbucks or BestBuy and think I’m first interacting with a corporation if a barista gives me an attitude. But I guess that’s easier to see than the online App Store process. If so, then maybe people are more willing to delude they are interacting with an intangible entity rather than a person or a program that can be flawed, and the intangible entity must be flawless unlike the person would be.

Personally, it’s completely unrealistic to think that way.

It may seem unrealistic but, that is how most people think when it comes to experiencing some type of problem. The first thing out of their mouth is usually blaming the company entity, which can make it much harder to deal with from a public relations standpoint.

 

[prasand]

It may seem unrealistic but, that is how most people think when it comes to experiencing some type of problem. The first thing out of their mouth is usually blaming the company entity, which can make it much harder to deal with from a public relations standpoint.

It’s unfortunate that the inverse is less likely to be true. Like say, a person has a great interaction with a barista, she was friendly and warm, etc. ... I think a person is more likely to say, “she was such a great employee (or person).” Rather than say, “this is such a great company, because of that one employee.”

 

[Apple_Robert]

It’s unfortunate that the inverse is less likely to be true. Like say, a person has a great interaction with a barista, she was friendly and warm, etc. ... I think a person is more likely to say, “she was such a great employee (or person).” Rather than say, “this is such a great company, because of that one employee.”

We are in agreement. Now days, a positive employee interaction is seen as the odd exception and generally follows the kind of narrative you outlined. Back in the day, (shakes fist at unseen kids) this wasn't the case. Over time, some things have definitely gotten worse.

 

[Maximara]

We are in agreement. Now days, a positive employee interaction is seen as the odd exception and generally follows the kind of narrative you outlined. Back in the day, (shakes fist at unseen kids) this wasn't the case. Over time, some things have definitely gotten worse.

IMHO The Customer Is Not Always Right: Here Are Five Reasons Why outlines part of the reason for this. The other, and related part, is in trying to cater to the unreasonable customer too many companies treat their employees like crap. If the company don't support you when you are in the right then why should you support the company?

"If we adopt the policy of admitting whatever claims the customer makes to be proper, and if we always settle them at face value, we shall be subjected to inevitable losses." - Farrington, Frank (1914). "Successful Salesmanship: Is the Customer Always Right?". Mill Supplies. Vol. 4 no. 9. pp. 45–47. A year later there was Farrington, Frank (1915). "Is the Customer Always Right?". Merck Report. Vol. 24. pp. 134–135. which covered much the same ground.

Too many companies are so afraid of loosing a customer that they will cave in to the most insane demands forgetting there are those who will game the system. My boss described one such situation when the hotel chain he worked for had one of those 100% satisfaction guaranteed promotions and this one couple literally went from one end of the US to the other using that promotion get free rooms.

 

[Apple_Robert]

IMHO The Customer Is Not Always Right: Here Are Five Reasons Why outlines part of the reason for this. The other, and related part, is in trying to cater to the unreasonable customer too many companies treat their employees like crap. If the company don't support you when you are in the right then why should you support the company?

"If we adopt the policy of admitting whatever claims the customer makes to be proper, and if we always settle them at face value, we shall be subjected to inevitable losses." - Farrington, Frank (1914). "Successful Salesmanship: Is the Customer Always Right?". Mill Supplies. Vol. 4 no. 9. pp. 45–47. A year later there was Farrington, Frank (1915). "Is the Customer Always Right?". Merck Report. Vol. 24. pp. 134–135. which covered much the same ground.

Too many companies are so afraid of loosing a customer that they will cave in to the most insane demands forgetting there are those who will game the system. My boss described one such situation when the hotel chain he worked for had one of those 100% satisfaction guaranteed promotions and this one couple literally went from one end of the US to the other using that promotion get free rooms.

I agree that that mentality is happening way too much and ends up costing businesses a lot more than money. That behavior reinforces to the masses, that business x, y, or z will do whatever it takes to make a customer happy. And often times, that happiness is connected to unrealistic, greedy, self-serving expectations that no longer have anything to do with the core complaint.

 

[Maximara]

I agree that that mentality is happening way too much and ends up costing businesses a lot more than money. That behavior reinforces to the masses, that business x, y, or z will do whatever it takes to make a customer happy. And often times, that happiness is connected to unrealistic, greedy, self-serving expectations that no longer have anything to do with the core complaint.

10 Surprising Reasons Why the Customer Isn’t Always Right

"In fact, research based on a Hay Group study found that engaging and enabling your employees results in 40% higger employee performance rates and an 18% increase in customer satisfaction rates. Furthermore, keeping your employees at the forefront of your mind can radically multiply your financial success by up to 450%."

Though if you are cynical much of this article is obvious so it's "surprising" only if you are iiving in some idealized world.

For example. "Customers don’t keep your business’ best interest in mind". And in related news the sun will rise tomorrow.