For one, they could have could have not massively scaled back consumer memory manufacturing as a matter of duty to customers. But money and greed must prevail.
Isn't it the case that public companies owe a primary legal/fiduciary duty to shareholders over customers?
The question of choice between a profitable vs unprofitable venture is easy. But yeah, to what extent is choosing profitable instead of VERY profitable a breach of duty to shareholders?
The overwhelming majority of incentives for executives is and always has been aligned with squeezing more value out of customers, in the form of increased margins, lowest possible costs with the highest prices the market will tolerate.
There are a few, I mean very few executives who stand firm on defending good faith toward customer happiness and quality. One of the only things stopping the spiral is competition. That’s why there’s an incentive to consolidate into a few massive conglomerates.
glimshe · · focus · HN ↗
SlightlyLeftPad · · focus · HN ↗
Cyan488 · · focus · HN ↗
The question of choice between a profitable vs unprofitable venture is easy. But yeah, to what extent is choosing profitable instead of VERY profitable a breach of duty to shareholders?
micromacrofoot · · focus · HN ↗
avoiding the destruction of good faith with consumers is a legitimate business interest
pessimizer · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
SlightlyLeftPad · · focus · HN ↗
There are a few, I mean very few executives who stand firm on defending good faith toward customer happiness and quality. One of the only things stopping the spiral is competition. That’s why there’s an incentive to consolidate into a few massive conglomerates.
micromacrofoot · · focus · HN ↗