[atlasduo]

Easily explained: when times are tough, delivering growth naturally is hard. Squeezing the customer is the lowest hanging fruit.

Sure, long term reputation is severely damaged, but why would decision makers care? Product owners interests are not aligned with interests of the company itself. Squeeze the customer, get your miniscule growth, call it "unlocking value", get your bonus, slap it onto your resume and move on to the next company. Repeat until retirement.

[barnabee]

When times are tough, accept less growth (or sometimes none) so that when times get good again or someone builds a competitor, all your customers don't leave you.

[immibis]

The real big brain move is to be your own competitor, so you extract value from customers either way. If they don't switch, you get to extract value via planned obsolescence and plain old extortion. If they do switch to avoid the extortion, you at least get to keep the price of their new NAS, and you weren't likely to get the extortion money anyway.

America has thousands of food brands but they're all owned by about 6 companies.

[mihaaly]

This is more about EBITDA.

Serving the needs of customers (practically the quality of the product) sits down in the list of importance. Sales strategy, marketing, PR, organizational culture, company values, ..., basically the self-serving measures come all before that.

[folkrav]

I guess times have been tough for a long damn while then…

[_def]

This is depressing, but feels accurate. How do we collectively get out of this mess?

[ranger_danger]

I think there's actually no point in being profitable, it always seems to lead to even more greed, power and corruption.

Better to have a heart, care more about your customers, don't put profits first, but still make enough to keep the lights on.

I think that would make everyone happier anyways.

[lotsoweiners]

Don’t give them money.