121–130 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we please keep gender warfare off HN? (or at least when it has nothing to do with the story/discussion)
Isn't "mansplaining" nowadays so far gone that, as a word, it has become gender-neutral and is used instead of "condescending".
Tldw: the machine throws obscure error codes (too viscous, failure to heat to proper temps, etc) and can “lock out” the operator, who has to then call an authorized service technician that bills hundreds of dollars for repair. Any attempt to self repair or hire someone else will void the warranty and is disallowed by McDonald’s corporate. The ice cream maker company, Taylor, reports 25% of their revenue is service an…
The real question is why McDonalds would go along with this. Presumably they have the leverage, why would they be incentivised to let even a cent of franchisee money going to another company if they can help it? They want their franchisees to have as much money as possible, that's what benefits them.
The only thing I disagreed with the journalist with is the story lens, or the moral of the story, that this is about big corporations helping each other. That's the easy anti-capitalist narrative that finds a wide audience, but it's not accurate.
McDonalds' actions are against the interests of the capitalists in this case, which are the shareholders. It's in the latter's best interest to partner with an ice cream maker that proves cost-effective for franchisees.
So this is really just a case of rent-seeking by an insider; maybe someone in the McDonalds corporate hierarchy with personal relationships or investments linking them with the ice cream maker Taylor, in which case it would be a worker acting against the best interests of McDonalds workers at large, the capitalists (McDonalds shareholders), and consumers. This doesn't provide the story with a sexy moral that fits in with some neat and tidy grand narrative, but it's more likely to be true.
Is this "the ice cream machine is always broken" meme has always puzzled me. I don't go often to mcdonalds but with my ex-gf we would stop by if we're on a trip somewhere and she'd usually get an ice cream. I don't think we ever encountered the ice cream machine being out of service. Is it more of an issue in the US or did we just have extremely good luck?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real question is why McDonalds would go along with this. Presumably they have the leverage, why would they be incentivised to let even a cent of franchisee money going to another company if they can help it? They want their franchisees to have as much money as possible, that's what benefits them.
Because losing 14% of ice cream sales beats getting sued for poisoning people and losing their reputation for good food safety. If you can't trust McDonalds to be a safe choice, why would you go there at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no fixing operator error.
It’s not operator error. As the video repeatedly points out, the same machines, by the same vendor, installed in other fast food restaurants (Wendy’s, etc), do not face similar breakdowns. It’s clearly a McDonald’s Corporate sanctioned plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real question is why McDonalds would go along with this. Presumably they have the leverage, why would they be incentivised to let even a cent of franchisee money going to another company if they can help it? They want their franchisees to have as much money as possible, that's what benefits them.
Mcdonalds don't make their money from food, they make it from real estate. A broken ice cream machine meme probably does next to nothing to their revenue.
His argument is that "big businesses protect each other", but that obviously doesn't make sense unless McDonalds owns Taylors.
Tldw: the machine throws obscure error codes (too viscous, failure to heat to proper temps, etc) and can “lock out” the operator, who has to then call an authorized service technician that bills hundreds of dollars for repair. Any attempt to self repair or hire someone else will void the warranty and is disallowed by McDonald’s corporate. The ice cream maker company, Taylor, reports 25% of their revenue is service an…
As someone who worked in stores for years, this isn’t entirely accurate. The machine isn’t just being an asshole to drive up service calls. The machines are filled with a dairy product which makes the “ice cream”. This is boiled nightly to keep the mixture free of bacteria. If the nightly heat cycle fails to complete for one of a dozen reasons the machine locks out. Those unaware of the process usually end up calling…
You have pointed out that when the machine locks out, there is an actual reason behind it. I don't think anyone claimed that it's simply triggered by an RNG or a timer.
However, why are the machines this opaque and difficult to keep running? I think the point has been clearly made, that an incentive structure optimises for low reliability. Nothing you said contradicts this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are they using such a complicated ice cream machine? I worked in food service in the 2010s and ours was pretty simple. One switch at the back for on and off and that was it. It took one person like 10 minutes to break it down and have it cleaned at the end of the night. The hardest part was wiping the exterior down. You basically just put a bucket underneath, ran the ice cream out, then ran hot water through it (…
It sounds like the idea is to only have to spend time manually cleaning it every fortnight instead of daily, and perhaps to limit waste of the product? But perhaps that gets offset by the fact that the increased complexity seems to make it so difficult to operate that it leads to constant interruptions and expensive service calls.
I guess it's a typical big company nonsense. Someone probably had an idea that daily cleaning is too time-consuming and expensive, and the task to solve that problem was introduced. Some lab made tests, and defined The Only True Way of keeping the product edible. (Side note: re-boiling a mix of fats and sugars each day for two weeks? Who would eat the result of that? Who thought it was a reliable idea?) The cleaning period could only be stretched to the maximum, for obvious business reasons. That resulted in tiny error margins (which maker can't voluntary change without spending money on new research). So presentations on clear financial gains were made, and the new option was proudly implemented. Some employee has probably been keeping eye on changes in cream composition, regulations, and related research, and issuing new checks for the machines. However, in reality this doesn't work that well (even indifferent part-time workers who don't give a damn after a shift are part of reality you can't simply rule out). But the goal of reverting or altering the process is not really important to McDonalds, as making it work is now pain in the store owner's ass.
You have probably noticed similar cases in computing, when some high-tech solution are introduced, and their gains are shared with lots of pathos, but the resulting system looks way too complex and unstable even from a distance.
I would worry more if the failure rate was going down.