HP exec says quiet part out loud when it comes to locking in print customers::Funny how marketing messages change depending on the audience
HP exec says quiet part out loud when it comes to locking in print customers::Funny how marketing messages change depending on the audience
I believe in evaluating a tech company based on its technological merits and customer service quality, rather than its political connections or decisions.
However, if the boycott shifts to a political basis, specifically regarding Israel, it aligns the act of boycotting HP with the stance of supporting Hamas/Palestine, a viewpoint that is definitely not universally accepted. This politicization could render the boycott ineffective, as it then appeals only to those opposing Israel, not those focused on HP’s technological and service shortcomings.
Boycotting on technological or political ground is the same. It’s all morality based.
You can say that HP handling of customer service or technological choices are not moral and thus grant a boycott. Some people might think that their political decisions are not moral.
I don’t think you can evaluate a tech company only on its technology. For example NSO Group wrote Pegasus which is a good working spying software. Is their tech doing its job? Yes. Did they sell it to dictatorships enabling the wrongful emprisonment of many people? Seems like it.
Your message pivots on the notion that supporting Israel is inherently wrong, which introduces a bias, making your argument logically flawed.
I can criticize HP for its poor technological performance while maintaining my support for Israel.
Consider NSO Group: by your logic, it’s a technologically advanced company with questionable ethics. I find this logical because, although I’m intrigued by the technology behind Pegasus and recognize its technical excellence, I disagree with how its spyware is used. This distinction between technological skill and ethical standing is vital.
Regarding HP, according to your logic, it is deficient both technologically and ethically. Thus, it’s justifiable to criticize it on technological grounds, moral grounds, or both. But for what concerns me, my support for Israel does not factor into my view of HP, as I would only consider boycotting HP for its poor products and services.
If any boycott against HP is generalized as an anti-Israel stance, then HP will continue unaffected, and no boycott will succeed. Hence, it’s vital to boycott HP for its actual failings, not because of a political agenda pushed by a few, which could sabotage the effectiveness of the boycott.
The problem is that there really isn’t a line between business and politics. HPs support for Isreal or anything other political issue is not based on the issue itself but on how it impacts their bottom line. They did the math and determined that supporting Israel earned them better relationships with suppliers, politicians and important (i.e. large business customers). This gives them political capital that they use to limit oversight and regulations that would weaken their competitive position. Then they can continue being shitheads to their customers.
I never said supporting Israel is wrong. I just wanted to respond to your sentence saying that tech company should not be evaluated on their politics. I do not believe this, I think tech company should absolutely be evaluated on their political decisions. Like it has been the case with NSO Group.
So anyone who is against Israel is supporting Hamas? Holy generalization, Batman!