I am a person who likes to speak with facts. If the test reports provided by Oakes in this statement are true and valid, then I will definitely stand by Oakes.
When Gree reported Oaks’ air-conditioning efficiency issues, it probably didn’t expect Oaks to be so well-prepared. In fact, when I saw the news, my first instinct was that Oaks had infringed upon it. Peers must have reported to each other. At most, it was just infringement of their own patents. But when I clicked on the news, what I saw was Gree's report on Oaks' product performance. It can only be said that Dong Mingzhu, who has always been far-sighted, made a mistake this time.
Everyone who has worked in a factory knows that not every product on the production line will be tested at the quality inspection. At most, the sampling rate will be higher. There are too many links that are prone to errors. My cousin once worked as a summer worker at Oaks. Her evaluation of Oaks is actually very good. At least in terms of product quality, the leaders there still have very high requirements for employees. High.
This time Gree reported Oaks on individual product performance issues, which was actually unconsidered. Although Gree’s product quality is very good, who can deny that other brands’ products are also as good as it? What about strict control? Otherwise, the price differences among air conditioners on the market would not be so large. Everyone understands that you get what you pay for.
I actually don’t really believe that Gree deliberately used its established status to exclude Oaks for this reporting behavior. What I am more willing to believe is that some products are indeed substandard, so Gree reported it in real name. . The starting point of this behavior is good. After all, the beneficiaries of mutual supervision in the same industry will always be the common people. I give Gree credit for this.