5 ms·
That only matters if you can prove there was fraud.
by antsar 6y ago
That only matters if you can prove there was fraud.
- motohagiography 6y agoIf LI were still a public company, this behaviour would destroy their stock price. There is something to be said for public markets and accountability.
- XMPPwocky 6y agoIs there? To me, it seems like either this behavior would hurt their profits, in which case it doesn't really matter that much whether they're public or not (they get hurt either way), or it wouldn't but a public company would have more backlash, in which case it seems like an efficient market would have actors that look for companies getting backlash, buy the cheap stock, and then enjoy the (unaffected, by assumption) profits.
- caymanjim 6y agoBeing that LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft, they are a public company.
- motohagiography 6y agoExcept as a product, the company (MSFT) is insulated from their crappy behavior, where if it were a stand alone company, there would be more accountability. Maybe that's a new platform company strategy: build a bunch of low-volatility/low-margin enterprise products for long term revenue generation, then fund a bunch of shadey operations as products to be pools for off-the-books bonuses and incentives.
- caymanjim 6y agoWhen a company like Microsoft buys a company like LinkedIn, they aren't after direct profits. They're buying eyeballs and personal information for ad targeting. Microsoft already got what they wanted out of the purchase. It's the same reason Facebook buys tons of companies that will never directly turn a profit. I agree with your larger point, that LinkedIn isn't really accountable to anyone; the Microsoft shareholders don't care what LinkedIn does.
- mmhsieh 6y agothis could very well be the case. in which case, using oculus as a model -- the company's promises to you as the user are only as good as the last company who acquired them.