Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dell Chastized Over Customer Service

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the dude-i'm-still-not-getting-a-dell dept.

The Register is reporting that Dell recently agreed to give into demands from the UK's Office of Fair Trading and alter the agreements that accompany their hardware. From the article: "The OFT has spent the past few months sparring with Dell over the company's terms and conditions. The two organizations recently agreed to settle their issues with Dell changing contracts and making them "fairer to consumers," the OFT said. The specific changes, however, remain secret as neither the OFT nor Dell will reveal exact terms and conditions alterations and as Dell has kept old contracts online."

6 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Leveling the field by Beuno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Finally some stories are kicking in that the balance is being pushed in favour of consumers instead of the other way.
    I think corporations should be punished heavily when they try to get away with abusive practices to trim down the ammount of users that get abused and also to be fair to the corporations who really do make an effort in being fair.

    1. Re:Leveling the field by cortana · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think corporations should be punished heavily when they try to get away with abusive practices to trim down the ammount of users that get abused and also to be fair to the corporations who really do make an effort in being fair.
      ???

      If you don't like their customer service, don't buy their products. The market will decide whether good customer service is worth the extra cost.
    2. Re:Leveling the field by RsG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And when all or most of the competing companies offer equally cruddy customer service? What then? Just "don't buy from any of them", and do without any support at all?

      The market isn't some mystical force. It isn't sentient, and it doesn't make decisions, no matter how we sometimes anthropomorphasize it. It's a semi-rational human construct that behaves predictably - and it cannot magically "correct" itself if the circumstances don't allow it.

      For market correction to occur spontainiously, there have to be a least two different choices facing a customer, and he has to have access to accurate information about what advantages and drawbacks each choice offers. If either the customer has no source of accurate information before making a purchasing decision, or if he doesn't have two different choices (two identical choices or only one choice are both possible reasons), then the market doesn't correct.

      If you're getting bad support, you've already made a purchase, and the company has gotten your cash. You can avoid them in the future, and tell others to do so as well, but it is entirely possible for a company to get by on one time customers alone. You'd have to know that the company had crappy tech support before you bought their product - and where are you going to get that information? Maybe the only people you know who bought from them never used their tech support. Going online doesn't help either - too much whining one the one hand and too much astroturfing on the other.

      And if you do know that company X has crappy support, then you still need a company Y to turn to that is better in this regard. If no such alternative exists (or is feasble for your circumstances), then there is nothing you can do.

      Free market capitalism is not a panacea. It's better than the alternatives, granted, but it does have drawbacks - and one of those drawbacks is the damage lack of accurate information and choice can do to customers.

      Also, the person you replied to said that misbehaving corporations need to be "punished", right? Isn't that exactly what the free market correcting itself is supposed to be about? Ie, people voting with their wallets, and leaving bad companies in favour of better ones.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    3. Re:Leveling the field by Changa_MC · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The US laws are supposed to be about allowing freedom for everyone, not protecting business, but they are becoming increasingly against businesses. Microsoft was persecuted by the EU, which apparently doesn't trust people to choose to associate with businesses on their own, and the fines were wrong.

      You need to substantiate some of this. What specific laws are you thinking of? In my opinion, US laws increasingly support business interests over individual rights, ala DMCA and other restrictive anti-consumer legislation.

      While computer geeks and big spenders have options like linux and OS/X, typical consumers have a choice of MS Windows or no computer. That means 90% of the consumer market is locked into using Microsoft, so the EU correctly recognized them as a monopoly. When they illegally leveraged that monopoly to expand their business in other markets, the EU fined them. In what way do you see their attempt to protect free market fair trade as wrong?

      --
      Changa hates change.
  2. Wayback machine? by fabu10u$ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After they change the online copies, of course, won't you be able to diff them with the Wayback Machine?

    --
    They say the mind is the first thing to ... uh, what's that saying again?
  3. Another non-story by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing important, nothing final, nothing being made public. Pure speculation ensues.