Hello IT. Have you tried turning it off and turning it back on again?
43 karma · joined January 14, 2016
You're kidding, right? Vast majority of Americans have poor outcomes despite being insured. Let's not even talk about the uninsured that are constantly kicked to the curb as soon as they're stable. Medical debt is a big issue in the US regardless of your insurance status. Medical bankruptcy is a thing. People have to choose between food and life saving drugs like insulin which are cheap and easily available pretty much everywhere in the world. Do you want me to go on?
Countries like India already have protections like these in place. They haven't regulated the streaming space yet. However, the other channels are very well regulated and content cannot be tied to the delivery channel. This means consumers win at the end of the day and competition is preserved. Content can be acquired by competitors _without_ consolidation.
I think you got it backwards. Users will seek out SOFTWARE alternatives. They're easier to change than the hardware. They're likelier to go the Ubuntu or Linux Mint route than to die on a Debian hill.
In another situation the FTB received my payment and failed to apply the payment to a tax year. They didn’t send a refund but promptly sent a threatening letter. Upon pointing it out they reversed the interest penalties and charges.
Netflix's culture is heavily biased towards collecting metrics and experimenting with them. Their entire ethos is data oriented therefore they tend to capture a lot of metrics. You are terming it as a 'runaway engineering division that's lost' is unfair. You probably need to work at their scale for a while to appreciate the complexity of their business and technology needs. If it was easy to build Netflix, then everyone would.
OP, its great that you apologize to your users but your write up does not capture any actions that you would take to avoid recurrence of these issues in the future.
I don't mean to attack you but your post reeks of American exceptionalism and elitism. Allow me to explain:
Your post is based on an underlying assumption that 'Western companies' lose because CCP / China creates a very uneven playing field. Thats the only reason in your mind that Western companies lose. This is not true. Western companies have lost in foreign markets due to variety of reasons not the least of which is a hostile local government.
The Chinese government's job is to ensure a level playing field for everybody and regulate its market in its own best interests not foreign interests. They're doing exactly what the US government and other Western countries have been doing for a long time. In fact Western companies and countries have had a long head start and several factors in their favor historically. Some that come to my mind are investment capital availability, ability to take on more debt due to different regulatory policies in domiciled country, US government's ability to impose trade sanctions, tariffs, favorable currency exchange rates, etc.
Traditionally the US (and other western countries, Europe included) have used various tactics to gain advantage in foreign markets. When the host government is weak, they have typically won. However in markets such as China (and India to an extent), the local government has created effective competitors that have crushed foreign rivals in some situations. In others their western counterparts have flourished. For example, Coke, Tesla and various companies have done really well as opposed to Google, Uber, etc.
One of the greatest reasons Western companies have failed in markets such as China (and India) is because they enter it with an air of arrogance. They assume the market works in the same way as the rest of the world. Let me cite an example from India which arguably is more open at welcoming Western goods and services than China.
When Dominoes first entered the Indian market, they sold the same pizzas that they sold in the US. Sure, the average Indian consumer would love to eat at Dominoes because of the brand value. However they got 2 things terribly wrong which caused them to wind down operations. First, the pizzas tasted like crap to the average Indian consumer. Even though they had money to spend, American Pizza recipes do not jive well with Indian taste buds. Second, the pricing was all wrong. The Indian market was price sensitive. Nobody was willing to pay for a crappy tasting pizza (to the Indian taste buds) when there were so many other local foods that could be had for lesser price. It wasn't a question of affordability, Dominos simply did not provide enough value for the customer. They eventually failed. Learned from their mistakes, relaunched with better pricing and Indianized their pizza offerings. They're doing pretty well now. Had they done their research well they wouldn't have made the mistake. In case of Dominos they were able to relaunch after taking massive losses. However, many others choose to exit the market. In this specific instance it wasn't the government, but the company's fault for launch such a crappy product at the wrong price.
If there is actual an actual court case against WhiteHat Jr, they will likely tone down their scammy ads and might get slapped with a bit of fine and life will go on.