I see your point, and understand how Rigol is thinking.
But still believe it is very short sighted, and will affect them in the long run.
It is not surprising though. I have worked in big corporations, including Fortune 500 companies, and to the outer world the product looks very good quality, but in reality it is a different story.
I think it is really sad, that even multinationals are acting like this today.
Back in the eighties and early nineties, people were proud on the products which they engineered, and they wanted to be better than the competition, not only in terms of features, but also in terms of quality and stability. Everything was top-notch engineered.
But these days are long gone. Products look the same as their competitors, and quality is below standard. They can do this because they have a famous name, and it will still sell. People believe that the products should be good, if it comes from such a big brand. But in reality they are not.
I have always tried to be part of an internal committee to improve quality, but stumbled on internal rejection, because it basically undermined the position of some overpaid product managers, who have no clue about loyalty against customers.
Some companies today focus on the features, and they want to have all the latest bells and whistles, even when the basic features are not working as they should and are very unstable.
For me this is complete non-sense, as you should first get your basic features right. If you can't handle that, then there is no point in trying to impress the customers with fancy features.
Doing things better and in a more structured manner is always directly associated with increased cost. This seems to be burned into the people's mind.
But what if you design a product directed to the professional telecom market, and after it turns out that there are major recalls in the field, where you have to manually rework every single unit. If you calculate the price on that, you would be amazed of how high the cost can be, due to penalties in service level agreements with the customer. But of course these numbers will be hidden in reports. I have seen this in a big American Fortune 500 company. I think they have eaten margins to very low levels this way, and even went negative in the balance sheet on that specific product line. Just horrible. And what happened to the responsible product manager? Well, he got promoted. Because he probably was playing golf with management
People just don't care anymore, once they have a comfortable position, and a sky high salary. They are not there to make products that make the customer happy. They are just there to collect their monthly earnings. People without a conscience.
This is exactly the reason why big corporations taking up such practises eventually dissolve. There are plenty of examples, and I don't think that I have to mention explicit names
And it's also the reason why small companies can be very successful and actually have a fair chance to compete with the big guys. Because in big corporations processes are slow, and there is no visibility about people paid a lot for doing nothing. In a small company this is not possible.
It's not that the companies don't know that they are not doing the way they should.
What I once heard from a manager was the following answer: "we suck the least".
So basically they didn't want to improve things, because they knew the competition was also sucking in product quality, and relatively speaking they were still doing okey, compared to the competitors, even if that would mean a crappy product for the customers. They are simply not proud anymore. A good company would not care about how bad their competitors do. They should be proud on making top-notch engineered products, and care about how to make their customers happy. Because it is the customer that buys their product in the end of the day. And if they want that the customers keep on buying in the long run, they better fix their products.
Suggest you look at this movie, which summarizes what happens in big companies