Posted on 05/30/2019 6:43:24 AM PDT by reaganaut1
SAN FRANCISCO — On its website, Salesforce.com touts retailer Camping World as a leading customer of its business software, highlighting its use of products to help sales staff move product. A Camping World executive is even quoted calling Salesforce’s software “magic.”
But behind the scenes in recent weeks, the Silicon Valley tech giant has delivered a different message to gun-selling retailers such as Camping World: Stop selling military-style rifles, or stop using our software.
The pressure Salesforce is exerting on those retailers — barring them from using its technology to market products, manage customer service operations and fulfill orders — puts them in a difficult position. Camping World, for example, spends more than $1 million a year on Salesforce’s e-commerce software, according to one analyst estimate. Switching to another provider now could cost the company double that to migrate data, reconfigure systems and retrain employees.
The change in Salesforce’s acceptable-use policy shows how a technology giant that is mostly unknown to the public is trying to influence what retailers in America sell and alter the dynamics of a charged social issue. While Salesforce is hardly a household name, it is a dominant provider of software and services that help businesses manage their customers. With roughly 40,000 employees and a market value of nearly $120 billion, it has become a behemoth in San Francisco. Its branded skyscraper also towers over the city as the tallest building and a major landmark.
But its decision to force its position on guns on retailers did not sit well with some industry advocates. These types of rules are “corporate-policy virtue signaling” and discriminate against gun owners, whose rights are protected by the Second Amendment, said Mark Oliva, public affairs director of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms trade group.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Here is the relevant part of their “Acceptable Use and External-Facing Services Policy”
“Worldwide, customers may not use a Service to transact online sales of any of the following firearms and/or related accessories to private citizens. Firearms: automatic firearms; semi-automatic firearms that have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any of the following: thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, grenade launcher or flare launcher, flash or sound suppressor, forward pistol grip, pistol grip (in the case of a rifle) or second pistol grip (in the case of a pistol), barrel shroud; semi-automatic firearms with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds; ghost guns; 3D printed guns; firearms without serial numbers; .50 BMG rifles; firearms that use .50 BMG ammunition. Firearm Parts: magazines capable of accepting more than 10 rounds; flash or sound suppressors; multi-burst trigger devices; grenade or rocket launchers; 80% or unfinished lower receivers; blueprints for ghost guns; blueprints for 3D printed guns; barrel shrouds; thumbhole stocks; threaded barrels capable of accepting a flash suppressor or sound suppressor.”
I understand that installing serious software is usually expensive. Lots of training, thorough planning, and so on. It is a real investment, far beyond the cost of the package itself.
That said, there have to be competitors. Perhaps not as good at this point, but good enough to bridge some of the gaps and perhaps to fit certain categories of business. It strikes me as bad business practice to force customers to check out the competition. They might find something they can use.
How fascist of them.
Did Camping World ever sell firearms or ammunition?
Camping World’s owner came out hard against Trump. Screw them.
Agreed.
“Marcus Lemonis (CEO camping world) has no problem with some customers taking their RV and outdoor needs elsewhere … Amid the flood of CEOs rushing to distance themselves from Trump’s business councils after the U.S. president’s wishy-washy denunciation of white supremacy last weekend, Lemonis on Wednesday appeared on CNBC’s “Power Lunch,” where he seemed to suggest he wouldn’t be shattered if people who supported Trump’s comments decided to shop elsewhere.”
They’re nowhere near being a monopoly. People need to get over this idea that any big company they don’t like should be whacked by antitrust laws. Big != to monopoly, you don’t like em != monopoly.
Stuff like this always comes with support contracts. You don’t run mission critical software naked.
This is like McDonald’s sending you an email saying that if you ever want a Big Mac again you have to get a Ronald McDonald tattoo.
“And it also depends on whether the customers own or lease the software (or license). If it’s considered a purchase and one party wants to come back and attach additional terms, they can eff off.”
Salesforce.com is a cloud/SaaS product so your data is on their servers so you can’t tell them to eff off without giving up using the software completely.
My cousin’s daughter works for them. She started as a Journalist in NY then went to work for them in SF. She is a total rabid Democrat. Her parents are Republicans.
So, this software publisher wants to dictate how their products are used? Well, even if someone wants to use it illicitly, it is well outside the purview of the seller/maker of a product- and if they want it to be within their purview, then they cn share in any liability. See how that works? If you want strings, then those strings may pull back.
Hey, have they not heard that it is unlawful to violate any laws, but who does that stop and the myriad of products from clothing to dental work are involved when a crook acts like a crook. What planet again?
Salesforce sucks if you ever want to switch, you cannot get all of your data... they do it on purpose. You have been warned...
I wonder where the fed’s (most states have similar anti-trust laws) are on this kind of extortion?
It might not be a tying arrangement, but since anti-trust cases typically carry triple damage awards, it might get the software companies attention.
“People need to get over this idea that any big company they don’t like should be whacked by antitrust laws.”
People need to get over the idea that CEOs and corporate board members should be able to neglect their fiduciary responsibilities and use the working capital of a publicly traded corporation as a personal piggy bank to advance their own political agenda.
Such corporate thieves should go to prison.
Large, multi-national corporations with government-sanctioned access to public capital (including the retirement savings of most Americans) should not be confused with mom-and-pop stores, which are the personal property of their owners who can do with them as they wish.
Granted. But, if the vendor wants to attach new and unacceptable terms, the customer should sue for the transition costs to a product from a supplier with integrity.
Oh, I see, so the gist here is that stupid people are paying the price for their poor judgment. In that case, meh, I could care less.
There will be many lawsuits against this company. They are trying to financially wreck a business because the ceo wants to control want they can sell just because.
On a whim. Does not like what you sell.
What next will this dictator want you to do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.