4 ms·

If the alternative is to close shop and let it die entirely, I don't have an issue with it It's not like they were extremely profitable and fired people to squ

If the alternative is to close shop and let it die entirely, I don't have an issue with it It's not like they were extremely profitable and fired people to squeeze an extra buck Laying off people isn't inherently evil

thayne 6y ago
I have more of a problem with who they laid off than the fact that they laid people off. I'm probably biased as an engineer, but IMO the people who actually create your products should be the last ones to be laid off, not the first. And if the company is struggling, highly paid execs should take a pay cut before you start laying off lower-paid engineers.
- ruined 6y ago
  hey, firing people is hard work.
weego 6y ago
It's more the clear mismanagement of their finances on ill-considered products outside of their core offering that never go anywhere. Some of them appear to be nothing more than vanity projects that subsequently disappear having got no traction at all.
- airstrike 6y ago
  Managing is inherently risky –– we shouldn't expect managers to make no mistakes while at the same time expecting them to keep workers around in an unprofitable business would only serve to further harm the business Sure, one can rant all one wants about management's lack of business acumen, but that's completely separate from the issue of the layoffs
- tracker1 6y ago
  I still think they are/were in a great position to offer what is now office365 and google docs earlier on, with a position to offer both dedicated and cloud software options. They had electron effectively a decade before electron with XULrunner and let it die on the vine. There were opportunities for developer mindshare and for services adjacent to those tools they were already building... that they didn't do more for getting Thunderbird more competitive to Outlook to offering a better breed of messenger platform. No, their management sat on fat cash, with fat paychecks and ill-conceived projects that lead to little in terms of mindshare or income longevity.

thayne 6y ago

I have more of a problem with who they laid off than the fact that they laid people off. I'm probably biased as an engineer, but IMO the people who actually create your products should be the last ones to be laid off, not the first. And if the company is struggling, highly paid execs should take a pay cut before you start laying off lower-paid engineers.

ruined 6y ago
hey, firing people is hard work.

weego 6y ago

It's more the clear mismanagement of their finances on ill-considered products outside of their core offering that never go anywhere. Some of them appear to be nothing more than vanity projects that subsequently disappear having got no traction at all.

airstrike 6y ago
Managing is inherently risky –– we shouldn't expect managers to make no mistakes while at the same time expecting them to keep workers around in an unprofitable business would only serve to further harm the business Sure, one can rant all one wants about management's lack of business acumen, but that's completely separate from the issue of the layoffs
tracker1 6y ago
I still think they are/were in a great position to offer what is now office365 and google docs earlier on, with a position to offer both dedicated and cloud software options. They had electron effectively a decade before electron with XULrunner and let it die on the vine. There were opportunities for developer mindshare and for services adjacent to those tools they were already building... that they didn't do more for getting Thunderbird more competitive to Outlook to offering a better breed of messenger platform. No, their management sat on fat cash, with fat paychecks and ill-conceived projects that lead to little in terms of mindshare or income longevity.