Hacker News Reader

Comment by HenryBemis | Hacker News Reader

Company that does things for profit does not operate in Good Faith. Especially if it facilitates the exit of clients.

If it wasn't for GDPR in Europe, they would fight this tooth and nail. I would not be surprised if they enable this ONLY for Europe, because they absolutely-have-to and ignore in other locations.

I am in EU, so I cannot test, I would like to ask someone from Africa, America(s), Asia, Oceania to let us know if this is also enabled/available in their country/regions.

View on HN

> If it wasn't for GDPR in Europe, they would fight this tooth and nail. I would not be surprised if they enable this ONLY for Europe, because they absolutely-have-to and ignore in other locations.

They have to follow GDPR everywhere in the universe except possibly the United States, because they are in an EU country.

GDPR applies if either the user is in the EU or the processor or controller is in the EU.

According to their site, Spotify service in the USA is supplied by Spotify USA, Inc. and Spotify service everywhere else is provided by Spotify AB, so I can’t tell if GDPR applies to US users of their service.

The CCPA in California is similar in thrust.

Google has had takeout for many, many years.

Takeout doesn't allow you to take your email directly from one service to the other.

Run a loop on all the takeout e-mail and send them to your new e-mail address, spoofing the headers for each e-mail?

If you do it yourself it's not service to service. You could have done that with the Spotify json takeout.

All companies do things for profit, that's their primary raison d'être.

In this case, "profit" being an accurate euphemism for "avoid GDPR fines".

Keeping customers satisfied leads to a good name. A good name leads to more customers, and both that and satisfied customers leads to long term profit. It appears some companies focus too much on short term profit.

In this case shareholders and investors are the main customers, with short term profits keeping them happy, execs get good bonuses, more money is poured in from market/vc to keep the gravy flowing. No incentive for the deicision makers to keep the product users(sometimes called just the products) happy, for the giants atleast.

An accurate description of the toxicity of publicly owned companies, accelerated by VC and startup culture.

In this case, users are both product and paying customer. Ads is one thing, but GDPR request showed they log every action related to the account.

>Ads is one thing, but GDPR request showed they log every action related to the account.

People praise Spotify for how good their recommendations are, where do you think they get data for things like that?

Execs might get good bonuses in the short term, but may be left in the lurch over time. Global wealth and population has been rapidly increasing for a long time which has propped up a lot of terrible decisions.

Some people eat to live and some people live to eat.

And it is the same with companies. Some companies carry out their business in order to profit from it, and some companies generate profits in order to sustain their business.

Maybe for private companies, but public companies sole purpose is to generate profit. If they are not doing it to the best of their ability shareholders will replace the executive team.

And this is why I think public companies are a terrible model.

This is a myth. Stop perpetuating it.

https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...

>Usually maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors.

Your link agrees with me. If shareholders believe decisions are being made which lead to less profits leadership will be removed.

Your conclusion that the "sole purpose" is profit is erroneous. See sibling comment regarding Ben & Jerry's, for example.

Why then does Ben and Jerry's get involved in advocating for any number of political positions? (https://www.benjerry.com/values) They're a division of Unilever, a public company... an international conglomerate no less...

Certainly it can't be profit motive. Some of their positions would reduce profitability and alienating a substantial number of your potential customers can't be helpful for business either.

Maybe Unilever management or it's board are asleep at the wheel. Who knows, but there are plenty of counter-examples that demonstrate that no company is necessarily about financial profits alone. I'm pretty sure that investors know this, and invest for some of these non-financial motives as well... again, may not be the norm, but probably not rare for these companies either.

Ben and Jerrys is a luxury product. Being politically conscious is part of their brand and a reason they are able to charge high margins. They believe that differentiating themselves leads to long term profits. Critically, it's not just short term profits that are being maximizing. Creating a strong brand is the only way to ensure your product won't be undercut which is why firms are willing to engage in activities which build goodwill among their customers even if there are no immediately obvious profit motives. Political donations are part of Ben and Jerrys marketing budget.

What evidence do you have that such political activity is not intrinsically motivated?

The fact that every decision public companies make is done to maximize profits. If Ben and Jerrys didn't cultivate this image they'd just be another company selling overpriced ice cream. Instead I think it's fair to say they're an institution. That's not to say the people running B+J don't believe in the cause they're donating to, I'm sure they do, they just also believe it's good for business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com