121–130 of 679 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've realized that at my current workplace it's a recurring theme that I suggest a solution, it gets rejected, we circle around for a year, finally we go back to my solution. It is indeed extremely demotivating, because it gives me an impression that I'm working with stupid people. I don't want to leave the company, but I'll try to switch teams next year.
Sounds like you don't argue hard enough
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've realized that at my current workplace it's a recurring theme that I suggest a solution, it gets rejected, we circle around for a year, finally we go back to my solution. It is indeed extremely demotivating, because it gives me an impression that I'm working with stupid people. I don't want to leave the company, but I'll try to switch teams next year.
Sounds like you don't argue hard enough
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have inside info about this? I'm just wondering why the internal support people would fight a decision like only allowing supported drives, wouldn't that make their job easier?
I don't know about Synology, don't know anyone there, but in my case I do this kind of thing out of principle. Often I'll just voice my opinion and try to convince management even if it doesn't directly affect me (I don't work support). I think that, generally, we all benefit when things are done well and relations are not adversarial. In the specific case of NAS support, I doubt that would make a lot of difference.…
Blow the dust out of the connector
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20040303-00/?p=40...
Don't get confused here: they didn't decide that their policy change was wrong — they just didn't expect quite as much backlash. Make your purchasing decisions accordingly.
[flagged]
They can only make a profit if people are willing to buy what they're selling
> Their business is selling hard drives.
Then either they or you are confused. They make the NAS, not the drives. The drives are interchangeable and upgradable, that's the whole point of a hot-swap NAS system.
> I bet a large portion of profits come from that
I think they wanted a large portion of profits to come from that, but most NAS purchasers know that hard drives are a commodity/standardized and won't pay a premium for ... no benefit.
But their hardware is also terrible. Their disk stations for consumers had 1G NICs until recently, and still underpowered CPUs. The sales had to decline for them to be convinced to upgrade to 2.5G in 2025. But then they removed an optional slot for 10G in 923+ model (they still would have made money from it, as it costs +$150), so when the industry moves to 10G, you can’t upgrade the component and should buy the whol…
Min/Max pricing theory? Selling 10 units at $10 profit is far far better than 100 units at $1.50 profit. Maybe even $2 per. Why? Because the more you sell, the more support, sales, and marketing staff you need. More warehouses, shipping logistics, office space, with everything from cleaners to workststions. Min/Max theory is exceptionally old, but still valid. So making a crappier product, with more profit per unit,…
And part of the magic of a NAS is not necessarily having to have matching hardware. In addition to other design basics like using drives from different batches to minimise the likelihood of multiple failures within data-fatally small time frames.
Monoculture is inherently more fragile; it's antithetical to good storage design.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I see where you're coming from, in my experience ESPECIALLY Customer-Support is usually happy to have a clear-cut criteria to reject support-requests as "officially out-of-scope". I wouldn't be surprised if the decision was made BECAUSE Customer Support highlighted the support-effort to debug all these unique customer-setups within warranty, and then someone stepped in and proposed to kill two birds with one st…
They could also oppose the change simply out of a belief in what's best for the customers, and an ethos of hardware compatibility. It would represent no change to their burden to continue the company's long-standing policy.
But it actually is: because sales must keep growing, so the support burden typically increases linearly - while hiring does not, more often than not.
I've seen this at a few companies now:
* CS teams get built, delivers great support
* sales increase (partially thanks to that support, but there is no way to show it with metrics)
* hiring in CS does not keep pace (because it's largely seen as a cost centre)
* CS teams get overwhelmed and look for ways to downscale per-customer effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had a couple of Synology drives for many years (DS1520+, DS918+). They've always worked fine (still chugging away). I have had terrible luck with Drobo.
They have way underpowered cpus compared to what you can get for the same money elsewhere. They're just a bad deal.
I would love to know what a "good deal" is. Seriously. It's about time for me to consider replacing them. Suggestions for a generic surveillance DVR would also be appreciated.
Thanks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've realized that at my current workplace it's a recurring theme that I suggest a solution, it gets rejected, we circle around for a year, finally we go back to my solution. It is indeed extremely demotivating, because it gives me an impression that I'm working with stupid people. I don't want to leave the company, but I'll try to switch teams next year.
Sounds like you don't argue hard enough