Yup, they've done enough. They've made their bed and now it's time for them to lay in it. (Why does "lie" seem like a better word to use here?)
So be it. This sort of thing has happened before and it will happen again. I once worked for a technology company that did something grossly similar, in that a unilateral decision, completely contrary to what had made the company great, was made on the assumption that everyone would either agree or go with the flow. One day we did "x", and were acknowledged as the best in the biz, and the next day we opened our doors and were told we were henceforth not going to do "x", but "y" (or, if you appreciate the metaphor, maybe it should have been referred to as "1/x"). Questions were not tolerated--either quashed or ignored--and the campaign began. It was all the more poetic because one little component of "x" remained--solely as a means of funding the conversion to "y". It seems that "y" couldn't, you know, make money.
The decision was made and executed in such a way as to quite effectively burn any relevant bridges even as people tried to cross them, and burn they did. In this case, the calculation that everyone would just go along was very, very wrong. Most of us disassociated and bailed out as soon as we could (dang principle freaks), and the outfit (surprise!) didn't last long.*
Who knows if this sort of fate will befall HS, but they have certainly cast their lot to thumb their noses directly (and very publicly) at an entire market segment. And, though they may truly not get it yet, they at the same time have brazenly rubbed salt in the wounds of every citizen who has ever felt the intrusion of his or her own government (though some of those latter may truly not get it yet either). Perhaps this is a training exercise out of the Only One 101 course from their new masters? (Sorry. I get all insulty when I feel stabbed in the back.)
At this point, the one thing I am sure of is that HS has completely forfeited their right to act surprised.
____________________ *Postscript to that story: Some time after this company's, er, "defunctification", I learned that a large infusion of cash had found its way to the primary party responsible for the about-face, from the general vicinity of the world HQ of "x"'s competitor "y". It appears that he came out of the suicide just fine.
What could they possibly do now that wouldn't look like a transparent attempt to salvage their reputation? As far as I'm concerned, the damage is done and there's nothing that can reverse it.
This was the doing of the very top management. It shows that they support the shooting of unarmed citizens who have never had a trial or been charged with any crimes. How can they just walk away from this goon demeanor. The folks who run HS are the kind of folks that I would never allow into my home. In fact if someone I knew tried to introduce me to one of these people from HS at some event. I would be outright upset with them because I have known standards and these people fall far below the line.
Yup, they've done enough. They've made their bed and now it's time for them to lay in it. (Why does "lie" seem like a better word to use here?)
ReplyDeleteSo be it. This sort of thing has happened before and it will happen again. I once worked for a technology company that did something grossly similar, in that a unilateral decision, completely contrary to what had made the company great, was made on the assumption that everyone would either agree or go with the flow. One day we did "x", and were acknowledged as the best in the biz, and the next day we opened our doors and were told we were henceforth not going to do "x", but "y" (or, if you appreciate the metaphor, maybe it should have been referred to as "1/x"). Questions were not tolerated--either quashed or ignored--and the campaign began. It was all the more poetic because one little component of "x" remained--solely as a means of funding the conversion to "y". It seems that "y" couldn't, you know, make money.
The decision was made and executed in such a way as to quite effectively burn any relevant bridges even as people tried to cross them, and burn they did. In this case, the calculation that everyone would just go along was very, very wrong. Most of us disassociated and bailed out as soon as we could (dang principle freaks), and the outfit (surprise!) didn't last long.*
Who knows if this sort of fate will befall HS, but they have certainly cast their lot to thumb their noses directly (and very publicly) at an entire market segment. And, though they may truly not get it yet, they at the same time have brazenly rubbed salt in the wounds of every citizen who has ever felt the intrusion of his or her own government (though some of those latter may truly not get it yet either). Perhaps this is a training exercise out of the Only One 101 course from their new masters? (Sorry. I get all insulty when I feel stabbed in the back.)
At this point, the one thing I am sure of is that HS has completely forfeited their right to act surprised.
____________________
*Postscript to that story: Some time after this company's, er, "defunctification", I learned that a large infusion of cash had found its way to the primary party responsible for the about-face, from the general vicinity of the world HQ of "x"'s competitor "y". It appears that he came out of the suicide just fine.
What could they possibly do now that wouldn't look like a transparent attempt to salvage their reputation? As far as I'm concerned, the damage is done and there's nothing that can reverse it.
ReplyDeleteThis was the doing of the very top management. It shows that they support the shooting of unarmed citizens who have never had a trial or been charged with any crimes. How can they just walk away from this goon demeanor. The folks who run HS are the kind of folks that I would never allow into my home. In fact if someone I knew tried to introduce me to one of these people from HS at some event. I would be outright upset with them because I have known standards and these people fall far below the line.
ReplyDelete