While I agree with that, I meant it more in the sense that I dont see a company looking for its own interests as "shitty", cause thats the only way companies thrive, so to me thats amoral in itself. Speaking generally, without talking about specific practices, the idea that a company has to put itself first is the way it should be.
I guess the "shitty" part is relative, but I personally link it more to "dishonest practices" like misleading marketing, "pay to win" models and such.
Yes the bad practices like mistreating employees, false advertisement, etc shall not be rewarded, but when a company is looking for its best interest in a moral way the result is a better product and smaller prices for customers since scale is really something that reduces costs and that is translated to us (unless of course you chose premium products that the value isn`t that much related to price and cost).
So if the best interests of a company matches your needs, most likely you`ll be satisfied with whatever you buy. But also agree that whenever you can try to buy local to support small business that will be much more affected by your personal decision (and you can reach out to say your opinion) than a multinational.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."