Some customers are a net negative, or even deliberately abusive. "Firing customers" simply means chosing to not do business with them any more. It doesn't imply that the customer didn't get what they paid for.
That said, there seems to be this attitude among some tech companies that they can do whatever they want, and treat customers/users like crap, regardless of regulations, or just what is usual and customary. I think it's a side-effect of people who have no prior business background getting a ton of investor money (i.e. not earning it from business with customers).
> It doesn't imply that the customer didn't get what they paid for.
But in this case we are talking about bricking hardware remotely in retribution for a negative review. And we have people using the "Firing customers" rhetoric to insinuate that the needs of the corporation are more important than the needs of the human.
[I think we're basically in agreement, just expanding on my point]
In this particular case I'd say the company behaved very badly. But in general, about "firing customers" in B2C - when you work for customer service for anything mass-market-facing, you quickly learn that among all your customers, there are some that are just utter idiots, there are some who are entitled assholes, and then there are those who want to defraud you. This is a fact of life. Such "problem people" are a big drain on both the company and (implicitly) on the regular customers. Cutting business off with those people is a win for company and customers alike.
> It doesn't imply that the customer didn't get what they paid for.
Euh that's exactly what's happening here. If the company bricks the product you bought it's a net loss. So you're definitely not getting what you paid for.
The analogy would work only if you decided to do before anything was bought (impossible of course) or refund them 100%.
If you decide to make it impossible to "fire" customers, what does that translate in terms of who has what obligations?
Is that really desirable, once you think about it that way?
And do you really think this is some sort of "Late Capitalism nightmare"? You really think nobody had ever decided not to do business with a specific customer before?
This isn't a "late capitalism" issue; this is a "social media greatly amplifies previously quiet signals, and does so with a certain amount of randomness". But the reality probably hasn't changed... just your ability to detect it.
This "firing customers" terminology shows how deep in the Late Capitalism nightmare we really are.