| GoOnKid said: In regards to the argument about companies going to where the deal is better I want to throw my two cents in. Somebody said that Sony offered a better deal so Square just took the chance and went there. I work in a company that offers products which are quite more expensive than our comepetition. Yet we still sell our stuff. If the argument is made that the customer only goes where the deal is better I'd lose my job, obviously. The logic that only the best deal is considered is something we all learn in business 101 as the model of demand and offer but in reality it is just that, a model. Long term relationships are often more valuable than simple price and cost factors. How does my company still sell stuff? Because our customers know us and rely on our expertise, and they even know that we are more expensive yet still want to work with us. So ultimately the argument that Square just took the better deal should be doubted, especially in the light of how uch of a partner Nintendo and Square used to be. |
Well it's not a better deal, but at least in the end Square sacrifice are pay off . In Business there is no rule of thumb or general theory like scientific fact. It's a matter of chance and possibility. It's like gambling. The problem is not whether it's wrong or right, the problem is the attitude of Nintendo and Square. Both were childish.
