In the software side of IT, this is usually when you start seeing layoffs and a mass replacement of talented developers with bottom-of-the-barrel offshore contractors. Beware the following fail cascade.
Comment on Unity deleted these terms, don't let them get out
jj4211@lemmy.world 1 year agoSadly, there often comes a time when a critical mass of the business leaders decide “you know what, I want to cash out and no matter how disastrous this will be long term, I think short term this will milk some revenue out of some captive audience”.
In the IT industry, that time is usually when Broadcom buys you.
jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 1 year ago
Mossheart@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Kicked me right in the Reddit.
pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
That’s what everyone is saying but this policy will only cost them money from lawsuits, so it can’t just be about money.
Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 year ago
It will cost them in future earnings… Companies won’t want to work on their platform if these policies are still in place… and many will never want to work with them again since they’ve shown their hand.
pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
That is what makes me think there’s something more to this.
I think rival companies might groom CEOs that get hired by their competitors but whom, secretly, are paid by the rivals to destroy the companies from within.
Perhaps I’m wrong but that’s the only explanation I’ve been able to come up with that makes any sense to me.
jarfil@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The CEOs don’t need to be paid by other companies. All a competing company needs to do, is to convince some company’s board members to hire a CEO with a track record that they know will tank the company… maybe through indirect lobbying, maybe by hinting they want to hire them because it’s “such a valuable CEO”… and bam!
CEO ruins company, then bails on a golden parachute, and you only had to spend whatever it took to mislead the competing board.
(I’ve seen it done to tiny companies with as few as 20 workers, it’s surprisingly easy to convince a board to hire someone who will destroy everything)
jj4211@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Oh, plenty of business “geniuses” make some pretty boneheaded moves, especially when they feel a need to try to produce huge growth after saturating a market, or if their business results somehow fall short of some need (either actually losing money, or some arbitrary self-imposed “goal” not being hit).
Currently there’s an epidemic of businesses making some pretty dubious long term decisions for the sake of trying to prop up numbers amidst a receding market reality. Recessions are, in part, a self-fulfilling prophecy, where whatever impetus exists, it’s exacerbated by every participant screwing things up further.
Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 year ago
You’re hurt me right in the vSphere.
What a lot of people at these companies don’t understand is that other options existing means people will find a way to continue without you… The more that happens, the larger the community… the faster you fail.
When Broadcom announced buying VMWare, literally all the IT subreddits in unison looked for other alternatives. We’re on Proxmox now, it’s been a better product that VMWare in literally every way.
SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
It’s also called the trust thermocline. Once a certain level of exploitation is reached, customers leaving suddenly goes very quickly and usually unrecoverable. The straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Or in the case of unity, you smash the poor camel with a baseball bat and are very surprised it tries to bite you.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And this is why we shouldn’t have monopolies. People shouldn’t be held hostage by one or two companies. When they go full stupid like Unity is, the customers grumble, shrug, and get to work with a different system.
MataVatnik@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Or not just monopolies, but companies in general have a dictatorship authoritarian structure where the c-suite has all the decision making power and employees or customers can go fuck themselves. Corporations should be made for the people by the people.
Intralexical@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Aligning power over systems with stackholders impacted by those systems is usually good for avoiding hostile incentives which result in hurting people, yes. Plus to some it might axiomatically be morally good.
Acters@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m forced to use VMware for cisco classes.
Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 year ago
Sounds a bit odd… What networking class requires VM platform usage?
TrumpetX@programming.dev 1 year ago
If I teach a class that needs a vm, I’m making damned sure everyone uses the same type.
TheGreenGolem@lemm.ee 1 year ago
AdvancedAlgorithmicLigmaBalls201
jj4211@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I remember at the time that a presentation circulated on a previous Broadcom acquisition, as a preview of what was in store for vmware. I never saw analagous material for vmware exactly, and I can’t remember what Broadcom acquisition it was.
Their analysis was that they predicted their changes would kill off any new business, and kill off 80% of the existing customer base. However, this was fine as the other 20% was so stuck that they could charge more than 5x to make up for it, and all without spending any money on R&D and reducing customer support load.
Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 year ago
While I know nothing of the numbers… This was my understanding of it as well. That they’d make probably just as much if not more money because of the captive groups.
However, while they might be captive now… Doesn’t mean they’ll be captive forever. VMWare is going to lose the entire market over this very rapidly, then the rest slowly after.
jj4211@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Indeed. However all the key people making this call will have made a few million off the husk on the way down, and will have moved on to drain the next company.