Microsoft vs. Computer Security
|
|
|
Comments (4)
As I recall, the problem occurred when the person made a right turn and accidently signed left turn while someone ran into the rear end of the car.
So, that was the bottom line. It was cheaper to settle law suits than have a recall.
Moral, ethical?
I don't do Ford.
That would be Don Henley.
Legal Disclaimer: I am Scottish :)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post

People keep paying good money for Microsoft OS's, so why should Microsoft lower their profit margins by investing in better code? I'm not talking about fixing being 'the right thing to do', or a 'nice thing to do'. I'm just asking why a corporation should lower its own profit margins when the stuff they sell keeps selling at the extremely high markup prices, even though it doesn't work.
Now if their sales start dropping, they might have to fix things, but first they should try a little razzle dazle and see if saying they are serious about security works. After all talk is cheap. A corporation should definitely invest a few measly dollars in a ad campaign before actually trying to fix things.
They can knock the competition too in these ad campaigns. Can't hurt to sling a little mud, and it beats the heck out of actually having to fix your own problems.
Then if the talk doesn't work, actually see the absolute minimum they will have to spend to make the product good enough. Of course they should claim it is the best, but they better not waste the stockholder's profits making it the best, just spend enough to keep customers relatively satisfied.
Who was it who said 'crap is king?', they weren't kidding. As long as market demand for sub-standard software allows MS to make huge profits, they will continue to peddle the same junk they always have.