The irony of this just kills me. The two do kinda go together though. They both kind of invoke a religious experience. Makes you wonder…could you smuggle in a bunch of cocaine behind the Mona Lisa? Maybe some heroin inside a Van Gogh?
Back in 2001, like so many other folks in the tech industry, I got laid off and had a hard time finding another job. I ended up working as a computer technician at the tech desk of a local Best Buy. So when I read about the shenanigans Best Buy puts customers through with computer optimizations at The Consumerist[1] I was not at all surprised by what I read.
Back when I worked at Best Buy, we were encouraged to offer customers computer optimizations. By encouraged I mean we were forced shove computer optimizations down the throats of all customers buying computers. We were told to tell the customer just about anything to get them to buy them: “Your computer will get a virus if you don’t!” or “Your computer won’t run as fast without the optimization!” or even better “The latest updates will take you hours to download and install! We can do it in just minutes!” All of these are a bit of a stretch. Most customers would respond with, “So, you’re telling me that this brand new computer I’m buying isn’t nearly as fast as it should be and won’t work right out of the box?” Yes, Mr. Customer, that’s exactly what Best Buy is trying to tell you.
For a brief time, that was actually true…but that was when a nasty virus was running rampant and caused some Windows XP to get it without doing anything other than get online. For a while we were able to apply the security patches and run a computer optimization on just about every computer in the store prior to purchase and then charge the customer for the optimization. Just like Betty in The Consumerist story, we were selling computers with the optimization already done. Customers didn’t have a choice. The reality was that the customer was getting a pretty good deal. The Windows XP service pack that fixed the issue was over 200 megabytes which, for most people, would take about an hour or more to download. Since we already downloaded it, all we had to do was install it and optimize the computer a bit. Instant $30 for just a bit of work. Problem is that this only lasted for a few weeks. We couldn’t use that as an excuse once most computers were being shipped with the appropriate security patches already pre-installed.
So, if security issues and large patches aren’t an issue then why would a computer optimization be a good deal? And why should any customer be forced to pay for one if they didn’t ask for it? My take is that value is in the eye of the beholder. If your going to pay $40 for something it should have some kind of value attached to it.
When I was doing computer optimizations, I would make sure that the customer got their money’s worth. I built an automated routine that would install not only the latest patches onto the computer but also a few other bits that would help keep the computer clean. I would also optimize the computer so that certain pre-installed programs don’t run automatically. This varied from model to model. Some models had a lot of crap starting up when you fired up the computer which really slowed things down. Some didn’t have much at all. So if it’s just patches then you’re not really getting your money’s worth. It’s stuff that you can do yourself by just getting online and autoupdating the computer. There were other little optimizations here and there that we did but nothing earth shattering that would boost a computer’s performance by 200%. That would be ridiculous. That alone is what makes computer optimizations a complete rip-off.
As for antivirus software installs, I honestly believe we ripped off customers. I mean, why would you pay an extra $30 just to have someone install software that you can install yourself? I understand that there are people who don’t know much about computers and would rather pay someone to do all that stuff for them. If you’re one of those people then, to be honest, you’re a sucker. Seriously, instead of paying someone, learn to do this stuff yourself. It’s not that hard. Otherwise, you’ll continue throwing money away for no other reason other than you’re lazy.
Is up-to-date antivirus software a good thing to consider when you get a new computer? Absolutely. In fact, I believe every computer salesman should let customers know about their options and educate customers when they buy a new computer. If you’re buying a Mac then antivirus software is less of a problem. But on a new Windows machine? Yes, you might want to consider some antivirus software. While the software pre-installed on the computer might work, usually it’s on a trial basis of about three months or so. Rather than forget to update your software three months later, you might want to consider just buying a good antivirus program that gives you a full year of updates. Otherwise, you put yourself at risk of getting virus or malware infections, which is never fun to contend with.
Bottom line is that laziness is why Best Buy is able to extort so many people into getting optimizations. The average computer buyer really doesn’t know much about computers, so when a Best Buy staff member tells them all the nasty things that can happen if they don’t get the optimization then they feel stupid and end up giving in simply because they don’t know enough to say no!
So, what can you do to protect yourself? Simple. Learn something about the computer you’re using and/or buying! Learn to do stuff yourself rather than relying on other people to do it for you! I don’t care how you do it: read a book, go to a class, get someone to teach you. Whatever method you need to learn how to use and maintain a computer, do it!
UPDATE:
Here a video from Consumer Reports about Best Buy computer optimizations:
Last week, I talked about my frustration with Best Buy’s price discrepancies between their online and in-store prices for DVD’s. To further prove my point, I took a peek at Best Buy’s latest Sunday ad. I took a look at the various products in their ad but didn’t see any discrepancies for larger items like TV’s, appliances, and such. It would seem that the discrepancies center mainly around digital media like CD’s and movies. Haven’t spotted any discrepancies with console and PC games but it’s probably just a matter of time before I spot some.
So, what did I find this week? Let’s look at CD’s first:
This is the really odd ones that don’t make any sense. You’d think that the new releases would be subject to some discrepancies, right? Nope! In fact, the discrepancies center around the Holiday Music Favorites. Want that new Josh Groban Christmas album? You might wanna buy it online and save yourself $2:
And here’s an even odder one. See that album just above the Josh Groban one? A Very Special Christmas Vol.7 for just $7.99? For once I found an item that is actually cheaper to buy in the store than online. How messed up is that?
Now let’s move to the first of the movie discrepancies. There’s a couple here that stick out:
Again, same as last week…err…why is the Inglorious Basterds Blu-ray version being sold for $5 less online? Is this a special “online only” deal? If so, why don’t they say so?
And, yes, while the above pick says “pre-order” I just checked the site again and it’s still listed at the same price. Oddly enough, the two-disc DVD isn’t in the ad but I bet you money that it’s still gonna be a $1 cheaper on the site ($21.99 online versus $22.99 in-store).
Is there something going on with the Blu-ray new releases? Why is The Hangover listed for $4 cheaper?
On this last movie page, none of these really stick out…except one. Can you guess which one is gonna be a $1 less?
Yep…Robot Chicken! The one damn DVD I would buy this week and I still have to price check it online! Damn you Best Buy!
Is it me or does it seem like all these price discrepancies revolve around new release movies that they know they can move fast and make a few extra bucks on without many people noticing? I think there’s a pattern forming. Guess we’ll know when I look at next week’s ads. 
I don’t buy a whole lot of movies and music but when I do I usually check Amazon, Best Buy, and a few other sites to see who has the better deal. If Amazon or another competitor is offering a wildly better deal with free shipping I’ll go into Best Buy and hit them up for a price match. If the difference is only a few bucks I’ll sometimes just buy from Best Buy and call it a day. However, lately I’ve been noticing that it isn’t always the competitor I have to price match…it’s also Best Buy themselves!
If there’s one thing about Best Buy that has annoyed me the most lately it’s the fact that their in-store pricing doesn’t always match their website. Why?! It doesn’t make any sense to me at all. The way I see it, Best Buy is essentially taking money from customers due to a technicality. It’s almost the same way that cell phone companies rob you of $2 every month due to your own stupidity[1].
For instance, just yesterday I stopped at Best Buy to pick up a copy of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The price listed on Best Buy’s site was $21.99. However, when the clerk scanned it the price came up as $22.99. The clerk price matched it on the spot but still it shouldn’t even happen in the first place. Want proof? Here’s the page from Best Buy’s own ad from last Sunday’s paper:
Notice the price of the 2-Disc Special Edition? $22.99, right? Now, here’s what was listed on their website the week of the sale:
Kind of odd, isn’t it. Same DVD from the same company and yet there’s a $1 price difference. What’s worse is that the Blu-ray version is listed for $2 cheaper as well:
Since when is Blu-ray cheaper than DVD? I mean, WTF?! There is no logical reason why the same product should be sold at two different prices from the same company.
This isn’t the only time this has happened either. It happened when I bought Pixar’s Up DVD ($2 difference in price). I’m almost certain that the same applied when I bought Watchmen, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. That’s an extra $5 to $10 Best Buy could have gotten out of me had I not paid attention.
This got me wondering: How many customers buy stuff from Best Buy without noticing the price difference between their in-store and website? Granted, we’re talking about a price difference of only a dollar or two, but add that up over thousands of sales and you’ll likely end up with a nice amount to pad the bottom-line. I’m starting to wonder if Best Buy does this on purpose.
Now, I can understand if Best Buy was offering an online only deal but this isn’t one of those kind of deals. It’s your typical everyday new DVD release. Like me, I would imagine that a lot of people check online to see what the price is before driving to the store to buy it. If the price difference was more than a few bucks most people would notice. But make it just a buck or two and you’ll find that a lot of people end up buying stuff and not noticing. This is the behavior that I think Best Buy is anticipating. They’re anticipating that you won’t notice an extra buck being added to the cost. And since a lot of people would much rather drive to the store rather than having it shipped to them this behavior works to their advantage.
This is a practice that I believe Best Buy needs to stop. The fact of the matter is that Best Buy is still a brick-and-mortar operation regardless of whether they sell stuff online. The two part of their business can’t be treated as separate entities with different pricing models. If a product listed on their site isn’t a special online-only deal then the price listed should be reflective of how much it is in their stores and vice-versa. That’s what customers expect and how it should be.
So the next time you shop at Best Buy, be sure and check the price online before you get to the checkout. The price listed in their stores may not always be the same price as shown on their website. If Best Buy continues this practice I may have to up the ante and expose this. I’m sure there are plenty of news organizations that would love to hear about this. ;)
I know, I know…I’m so damn far behind on this series of posts. Better late than never I suppose. I think I’ll make it a goal to have this series done before Thanksgiving.
In case you missed it[1], this is an ongoing series based on an ongoing series by Ann Coulter. Ann begins part four of her series with some words about your health coverage should you have to move or lose your job:
(12) Only national health care can provide “coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job” — as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.
This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama’s economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year’s end.
Or you simply lose your job because no one wants to read any more of your cynical opinions. Hmm…there’s a thought. We can wish, can’t we? I know, I know…enough with the “Us vs. Them” mentality, but I can’t help it. With Ann, you kind of have to be a little sarcastic.
The only reason you can’t keep — or often obtain — health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of … government intrusion into the free market.
That statement is partially true. Our current health insurance system is largely employer-based. If you lose your job, you more or less lose your insurance too…that is, unless you pay for your own insurance. And that is where the rub is. Companies receive group discount rates, whereas many people simply can’t afford to pay the high premiums as individuals. More on the government intrusion part in a sec.
Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don’t get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.
Actually, according to the IRS[2] you can deduct the amount you paid for health insurance premiums for you and your family so long as the following requirements are met:
The only rub about this is that it doesn’t include people whose employer doesn’t offer a health insurance plan and aren’t technically self-employed. I’m very curious to know how many people this issue actually effects. So, while Ann is correct on her assertion, she is only partly correct.
If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as “allowing the free market to operate.”
While I agree that the interstate commerce restrictions should be lifted, it is only a small part of the solution. No doubt that a lift in restrictions will allow people to move more freely with their health insurance. However, simply “allowing the free market to operate” isn’t going to promote the sort of standards necessary to help drive down rising health care costs. Lots more to think about other than “how can we make it so that the insurance companies get more money”.
(13) The “public option” trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.
Why does the government get to decide when the “trigger” has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is — and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking “triggers”?
Why not have a “trigger” allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers — but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?
What I think Ann is trying to say is that the so-called “trigger” option is just another way for the government to control what your health care options are. Problem is that most of the so-called “trigger” options being talked about are just that: they’re just talk. I don’t think any of these “trigger” options will make it into a bill. I hear “trigger” and I think “mandates”. In other words, the moment certain conditions are met certain options then become mandatory. This doesn’t sit too well for many states because you can never really anticipate when certain “triggers” will occur that will have an effect on state budgets. So, no, don’t think “triggers” will be a part of the equation.
Ann did offer a good question: Why not have a “trigger” allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? My question to Ann is: Isn’t that what the “public option” is all about?
Some of the bills, like the Baucus bill[3], focus on simplifying the access to programs like Medicare for people who are within 150% of the poverty line. This is a good step in the right direction in getting poor people access to health care but it still doesn’t address the availability of affordable health care for those above the poverty line. That’s what the “public option” is supposed to be all about.
Now, I’m a believer that a free market should exist. However, a free market can’t be maintained without fairness. I do not believe that the government is going to be put in a position to decide what good and services the public is able to purchase as far as health care is concerned. If anything, I think the “public option” should be a baseline policy that all health insurance companies have to offer to all Americans. This is very similar to what the Netherlands have setup for their health care system[4]. For those who want a free market, this is probably the only way to do it. A free market can’t really exist unless certain standards are set in place. Having a baseline policy that is affordable to all Americans would be a good place to start.
(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.
On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.
Ann is referring to the Baucus bill and the fact that, although it denies illegal immigrants from receiving health care, it doesn’t outline the process on how to screen people for this[5]. This is a bit of a touchy topic because if you put in place a method for which hospitals are allowed to screen people on whether they are illegal immigrants or not, what’s to stop hospitals from denying medical care simply on the basis of a person’s immigration status? At least that’s the fear, I think. If I were a Representative in the House I probably would have voted against it if this question was not addressed in the amendment. I don’t like the idea of anyone being turned away for treatment regardless of immigration status.
On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman — a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one — originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did — as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.
If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?
Republican Joe Pitt’s talk about an abortion mandate[6] as well as the amendment he proposed[7] is a good example of why religious views do not belong in public policy. While Rep. Pitts doesn’t outright claim it to be a religious view, words like “the destruction of human life” and “health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life” clearly are the words of someone with certain beliefs.
The problem I have with the whole abortion debate is the fact that no one is talking about how changes in policy regarding abortion will effect real women with real problems. It’s almost as if it’s being painted as a black and white issue; either you’re for abortion or against it. There is no grey area; no instances where an abortion might actually be necessary to save lives.
Earlier this week, I posted a story I saw on HDNet[8] about Dr. Lee Carhart, one of the few remaining doctors performing late-term abortions. Anyone who wants to understand the real debate about abortion should watch this story. I would love to hear what Ann’s take is on this story. Would she admit that there are circumstances where an abortion is necessary? If so, why shouldn’t one’s health plan cover it?
More to come soon…
Just read an interesting post on TheAppleBlog[1] about two different experiences when it comes to getting support for either a Dell PC or Apple computer. The writer illustrates two scenarios of how a typical support call works, both entailing a failed hard drive. The end result? According to the writer, Apple provides much better support than Dell.
I’ve worked within the IT industry for quite a few years. I worked as a computer technician at Best Buy for about a year and as an IT supervisor at an architectural firm for the better part of four years. I’ve dealt with a lot of issues with a lot of different computers. In my experience, the stories told by the writer at TheAppleBlog mirror my own, not just on a consumer level but even on an enterprise level.
One particular incident involved getting support for a Dell laptop that a co-worker owned. It was exhibiting a lot of issues: it ran extremely slow, the video was getting scrambled, and it sometimes wouldn’t boot. My diagnosis was that the video card on the motherboard was fried and had to be replaced. I told my co-worker to call Dell and tell them everything we did to diagnose the problem.
What proceeded was nothing short of typical for many PC companies: the blame game! Dell told him it was an operating system problem and that he had to call Microsoft. Microsoft told him it was an issue with the video card and that he had to call Nvidia. I then had to call Dell and explain to them in great detail that the issue is a hardware problem and that the motherboard needed to be replaced. It took over three phone calls and many wasted hours just to get Dell to acknowledge that there was a problem with their hardware.
Granted, no company is perfect nor does every PC company provide bad support. I’ve definitely had plenty of times when support from a computer company other than Apple was really good. However, I can say with most certainty that on average, Apple provides better support for their products. I have yet to have what I would call a really bad support experience that would make me think twice about buying another Apple product. Maybe that explains why Apple is ranked so high when it comes to customer satisfaction[2].
It amazes me how little some people think about the support for a product. I have wasted a ton of time on support calls in my years as an IT supervisor. In fact, on many occasions the time and energy spent on support calls made a huge difference in the decision making of whether to buy from this company or that company. Even as a consumer, I find myself thinking about that because, when it comes right down to it, I want the knowledge of knowing that the company I buy stuff from is going to back their products. If they don’t then I’m wasting my time buying their products. If they do then I can save myself a ton of time, frustration, and even money by going with a product that is of great quality and well supported. Think about that the next time you go to buy a computer.
Whew! Man, do I have a whole lot of catching up to do! It’s been nearly a month since I’ve written anything politically oriented. Definitely need to get back on the ball and get some thoughts out.
First, let me start off by mentioning something that a recent commentator of my blog made. His comment was that while I do a pretty good job with my blog posts, I should consider citing my sources more. After all, nothing looks more professional than when you cite where you’re getting your facts, right? As he put it:
Clear and concisely referenced resource material is what sets the expert apart from the fear monger.
It’s funny because many of the political commentators I poke at (Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, just to name a few) don’t do this. It’s as if they’re saying, “Don’t worry. You can trust us. You know we’re right anyways.” Well, maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong. Either way, it doesn’t hurt to cite where you’re getting your facts. You can’t just say “I read this article in the New York Times the other day” and leave it at that. Which article? Got a link? What’s the title? Who wrote it and when?
The irony is that many of the folks who write highly opinionated stories don’t cite their sources. If they did and if those sources were legitimate and fact-based then they would be a whole lot more credible. But the fact that they don’t creates a situation where you’re not quite sure what to believe. People make stuff up all the time and, while some of it might have a ring of truthiness to it, it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s based on a lie. As such, I have gotten in the habit of vetting many of the stories I read and hear and posting a reply on what I find…especially if it’s something quite controversial or political in nature. It may take a little time but it’s better than just allowing people to believe in something that isn’t true.
From now on, I’ll do my best to cite sources when I claim anything to be a fact. This is a good thing because, let’s face it, writers can claim facts all day long but unless they cite their sources how do we even know they’re putting the facts in the right context? Let me give you a good example.
Last week I received an email about sending the ACLU a Christmas card this year:
What a clever idea!
Yes, Christmas cards. This is coming early so that you can get ready to include an important address to your list.
Want to have some fun this CHRISTMAS? Send the ACLU a CHRISTMAS CARD this year.
As they are working so very hard to get rid of the CHRISTMAS part of this holiday, we should all send them a nice,
CHRISTIAN card to brighten up their dark, sad, little world..
Make sure it says “Merry Christmas” on it.
Here’s the address, just don’t be rude or crude. (It’s not the
Christian way, you know.)ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York , NY 10004Two tons of Christmas cards would freeze their operations because they wouldn’t know if any were regular mail containing contributions. So spend 44 cents and tell the ACLU to leave Christmas alone. Also tell them that there is no such thing as a ” Holiday Tree”. . . It’s always been called a CHRISTMAS TREE!
And pass this on to your email lists. We really want to communicate with the ACLU! They really DESERVE us!!
This is pretty typical of the usual fear mongering drivel I receive now and then. The problem is that none of it is true, nor is it anything new. In fact, this particular email has been recycled just about every year for the past four years[1].
Funny thing is that I reference snopes.com about this very email in a reply and I’ll be damned if I didn’t get another email back that talked about how the people who run snopes.com are left-wing Liberals! However, a simple search on Google for ‘snopes Mikkelson‘ immediately revealed at least three different legitimate sources, including one on FactCheck.org[2], that tell a much different story. Took just 5 minutes and I found out all I need to know. Next thing you know someone will write a bit about how the organization running FactCheck.org is a bunch of tree-hunging hippies. ”Damn hippies!” LOL!
Interesting thing to think about though…both Snopes.com and FactCheck.org cite their sources at the bottom of the page.
On the Snopes page about the ACLU Christmas Cards (see link in footnotes), they cite sources from The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and also provide links to articles on the BBC[3] and a post on the ACLU website written by the Executive Director[4]. All of these are good sources and provide facts about the whole ACLU Christmas card debate. To claim it to be anything else is foolish because there are no facts to support it.
While reading an article in Wired magazine, I read the following sentence that put it all in perspective for me:
Being rational takes work, education, and a sober determination to avoid making hasty inferences, even when they appear to make sense.
Nothing could be closer to the truth. Whether it’s the bit about the ACLU Christmas cards, Barack Obama’s birth certificate[5], or some other story that has been fabricated on pre-conceived ideas, the bottom-line is that there are a lot of people who react in highly emotional and visceral ways that defy logic and rationality.
The next time you receive something of questionable content that doesn’t cite any sources, don’t take it at face value. Take just a little time out and look up the facts. Look it up on Google, Yahoo, Bing, or wherever. Get the facts from a reputable source. Educate yourself and be in the know. It doesn’t take much time and you’ll be glad you did.
Last week I watched a story on HDNet World Report about Dr. Lee Carhart, one of the few remaining doctors performing late-term abortions. This story really hit home for me because it illustrates what I believe to be the true face of the whole abortion issue. When you set aside any ideology or beliefs about abortion, what you’re left with are women who truly need help. Any woman who has been raped and got pregnant as a result or has faced a pregnancy that could result in the loss of life knows exactly what is at stake. Watching this story may help others to fully grasp why choice is important when it comes to abortion rights.
Here’s an excerpt:
Don’t you wish you could do this to the CEO’s of AIG, Goldman Sachs, and other banks? If only it were that easy…
The other day, a conservative friend of mine sent me an email with this pic:
I couldn’t help myself. I just had to respond. So I responded with this pic:
You have to admit, that’s damn funny!
Twitter: jeffwhitfield