Well one small step would be to stop selling or dealing with subcontractors, will not fix it but does add an extra hurdle to things.
Technical issues? Go on-site to where the machine is supposed to be … have your own technicians look at the machines on site and report back.
But I guess those costs put pressure on the profits of the company.
Cancelation fees (and steep ones at that) on digital goods/“services” … shows how far things sunk towards the lower hells.
Years ago I happily used some Razer mice and keyboards, even a headset, so in the not too far past I told people around me that Razer was fairly good, quality wise, but alas, I think each and every one I recommended Razer products to had them break and or die well within warranty, and they always had to start a stupid discussion to get the warranty/RMA accepted, a few times even replacements denied outright by Razer.
For me this stands in sharp contrast with Logitech whom has never denied me a warranty, even for products a few weeks beyond the date, and they generally just send out a new item. That is, for me it is rare for a Logitech product to actually require replacement to begin with, I have a few mice, keyboards and headsets far older than 5 years and they work fine plus are still supported in the drivers.
Speaking of drivers, Razer at one point also made the decision to have their drivers require an account login to function properly (multi-button mice would only have 2 functional buttons if not logged in etc). But after some flak from its users it slightly changed that to the login being optional, but profiles would still be hampered without a continuous online presence.
Coming back to Asus, for a few years now I hear of people having quality issues and grumpy asus service desks, but for me their videocards ways ran fine (even without coil whine, unlike some MSI cards). I am quite hesitant to buy an Asus monitor or motherboard though.
If this is true it will be devastating for Qualcomm … they hyped the new chips big time, and some huge manufacturers happily announced products with the new chip. So if this falls flat, a few influential players will not be happy at all…
Not to mention the rest of the tech media… they will happily sell the pitchforks and torches.
Yes this sounds like a very convoluted way to go about things, but I am not sure if it was the actual verdict that is so badly constructed that it demands this or that Google gives itself and everyone else a lot of unnecessary pain.
Samsung also does auto updates etc and co-exists with the play store on samsung phones (granted, it lives within their android skin), even updates some Google play store (installed) apps, so I am not sure what or where the issue is/lies.
But now Google wants app stores within app stores within app stores as a solution?