Logistically speaking, it's impossible for a towing service to cover the entire nation single-handedly. Instead, CSAA, and all AAA clubs subcontract out to towing companies already in place. Where you call from determines which tow company shows up. However, the AAA logo is still emblazoned on the truck, along with the specific tow company's name, to give an impression of cohesion. Every once in a while, one tow company is unable to service members in a timely fashion, either through manpower or equipment issues. In those cases, other companies can take those calls, and service the member outside their usual territory.
I've run quite a few of these calls, and they are the most challenging in terms of customer service. By the time I'm even aware of the call, the member has been badly treated or has been left waiting for a long time. So what is the first thing I do when I finally show up?
I apologize.
This is something that much of the computer industry has yet to learn.
Certainly, I will afterwards tell them of the unfortunate events that led up to their mistreatment, which does make it easier and lower the stress involved. I was not the one that caused the problem. I did not manufacture the car, answer the phone, show up, make the mistake, or leave the member stranded. This is through no fault of my own, and in many cases, not even the fault of anyone at the tow company I worked for.
But I do not disown the problem, and have stressed to them to contact AAA. I even gladly offer all the information so that they can better make their voice heard, despite the risk that my association to the problem call might reflect badly on me. It is because of this that I had several letters of thanks, where my actions literally convinced them to stay with AAA when they were ready to terminate their membership.
So why does this apply to the computer industry? It's because there's a myth, best demonstrated in comments like this:
I think people are frustrated with Windows and Spyware and take their frustration [out on] the manufacturers. Dell is not responsible for Microsoft's issues.
The myth part is two fold. The first part is the belief that the end customer will care about which part is failing. They bought a single device, and expect it to function as a whole. And whenever the vendor, either hardware or software, claim otherwise, it does nothing but to further infuriate the customer.
The second myth is the belief that it actually matters which part is failing. The customer is right in this one; finger pointing does nothing to fix things. Dell is responsible for Microsoft's issues, precisely because Dell made the decision to sell their hardware with that software. Can we excuse a restaurant for serving subpar food simply by stating that the farmer provided low-quality ingredients? Or do we demand the chef to know the difference, and ensure the taste of their food by choosing better?
While I am heavily biased, and will admit as such, this is one thing that Apple has gotten right, either consciously or unconsciously. They own both the hardware and software, so they are unable to use the finger-pointing excuse in many cases. They don't need to resort to shovel-ware, and thus avoid their first impressions being sullied by actions of third parties. So what chance does the other PC vendors, such as Dell, have?
The first option is unlikely, but an amusing mental experiment: to own their own software. Fork a BSD or Linux distribution, and ship computers using that. The key here is to own it, not license it. In doing so, they have a chance to maintain the tight integration that Macs have. They could build the kernel to use features that they add, and only those features, maximizing stability and minimizing bloat. That's not to say they can't license and bundle software, but they have to be picky about what does go in, and if something is lacking, to replace it or make their own. By doing this, they can test much more readily against their own machines, and ensure that updates are less likely to do things like what Vista SP1 did.
But not since the 80s were there many consumer-level computer companies that built the whole machine. It's part of a distant age of Amiga, Acorn, Atari, and other companies that started with A. Even modern high-end computer companies like Silicon Graphics and Sun are less likely to roll their own OS. And those like Dell don't have the OS experience. Furthermore, for vendors that rely on Windows, well, they rely on Windows.
So what then? Well, if Dell is serious about fixing its consumer-level tech support image, it needs to own the problem. Enterprise-level Dell doesn't have this issue, for reasons I mentioned before. But for Dell's image to return in the consumer space, it needs to care about the ingredients in their products, both software and hardware. For a company whose culture is one of commodity, this will be an uphill battle; the very word implies that quality is too similar across multiple sources to really matter. But the consumer has spoken; quality does vary enough to matter. And to survive in the future, this quality has to be ensured, from each and every part of the product.
Until then, there should be a lot of apologies.
