Sadly, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The vm has “tools” preloaded and helps students experiment with configurations that don’t end up causing the host computer to be badly configured. The host PCs are pretty restrictive and have no admin privileges. The VM is fully capable of being “free to mess with” in a sense. The idea behind it is to prevent unauthorized bad actions on the host pc. Creating a separation of students’ abilities behind a vm. You can use your own PC, but that is cumbersome and unnecessary. The “forced to” is a bit loose, but it helps students start from a state where the teacher can help guide the students to what to do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
It’s good on paper, so long as a critical number of them aren’t bad actors. You kinda got the same problem with US politics at the moment. It works until it doesn’t, like everything else.
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.
Sadly, 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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m forced to use VMware for cisco classes.
Removed by mod
If I teach a class that needs a vm, I’m making damned sure everyone uses the same type.
The vm has “tools” preloaded and helps students experiment with configurations that don’t end up causing the host computer to be badly configured. The host PCs are pretty restrictive and have no admin privileges. The VM is fully capable of being “free to mess with” in a sense. The idea behind it is to prevent unauthorized bad actions on the host pc. Creating a separation of students’ abilities behind a vm. You can use your own PC, but that is cumbersome and unnecessary. The “forced to” is a bit loose, but it helps students start from a state where the teacher can help guide the students to what to do.
Removed by mod
Assuming this is college, requiring students to pay for software is part of the norm.
AdvancedAlgorithmicLigmaBalls201
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
Kicked me right in the Reddit.
That’s what everyone is saying but this policy will only cost them from lawsuits, so it can’t just be about money.
Removed by mod
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.
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)
What’s the point to do this ?
To destroy the competition.
How does one insulate a company from corrupted CEOs?
Technically that’s what a board of directors is for. They are the ones who can axe a CEO and hire another.
Yet they’re not capable of sussing out bad actors before hiring them, so how is a board a good system?
It’s good on paper, so long as a critical number of them aren’t bad actors. You kinda got the same problem with US politics at the moment. It works until it doesn’t, like everything else.
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.