5 ms·

All of this makes me ask the question of, "How does a company go public without losing themselves? Is that even possible?" This type of going public and chasin

All of this makes me ask the question of, "How does a company go public without losing themselves? Is that even possible?" This type of going public and chasing shareholder, share selling, cash infusion (sorry for the word salad, I couldn't think of a better way to put it) - which is often needed for growth past a certain point - how does a company not compromise their vision and bow to the shareholders once they go public, when their directive then becomes "Maximize stock value for the shareholders"? NOTE: I'm an engineer who graduated with an art degree, so this is way out of my wheel house. I've always built things, and have not been privy to the business side of the show. It's a bit foreign to me.

nitwit005 4y ago
If you don't want other people to have a voice in decisions, don't sell them the right to have a that voice.
georgeecollins 4y ago
Answer: Ethical leadership, which many public companies have. Sometimes you hear people say that public companies have to value shareholder returns above all else. It's usually opinion columnists or maybe popular economists, but not lawyers. That's because it's not really true. Public corporations have always made choice that favor customers or employees over shareholders and always will. Example: Ben and Jerry's. Public corporations can be as ethical as any other type of business. But any business can be ethical or not. CEOs use the excuse of "shareholders" because it sounds better than "I wanted to maximize my bonus." That isn't all bad-- seriously everyone wants to maximize their bonus, including me! As as an aside, I really doubt Unity is planning on installing malware even if they could through the Steam or Apple stores (which they probably can't). They probably just want to do better ad tracking. Is this ethical? I don't know enough to say. But a mom and pop or private company could do the same thing.
- 202206241203 4y ago
  Isn't effectively punishing customers unwilling to pay for premium games highly ethical though?
  - saxonww 4y ago
    Can you clarify what you're asking here? When I read your comment it looks like you're suggesting it's highly ethical to punish people for not wanting to give you money.
    - georgeecollins 4y ago
      I don't think it is unethical to offer a free game that contains advertising or "pay to win" content if the person downloading the game knows it is there and the app / program is honest about it's permissions and it's tracking. People choose to download apps like this all the time, knowing exactly what they are getting. Games cost money to make. If people don't want to pay money up front for them, well then as they say: the user can be the product.
      - noobermin 4y ago
        The point isn't that people don't want to pay money up front, it's a decision being made by developers to churn out endless f2p games over games that gamers would glady pay up front for, and since everyone else is doing it and one or two people make a lot of money in it, a bunch of people who chase shiny try to chase shiny, just like others chased after crypto and other gimmicks. All the while, the already paying customer base is frustrated.
    - 202206241203 4y ago
      It's ethical to punish the "something for nothing" attitude. It has to be legal of course.
      - lmm 4y ago
        Offering free food that turns out to be poisoned is not ethical. I'm all for charging an honest price for honest work, but I don't think there's anything morally wrong with taking something offered as a free gift.
- emptysongglass 4y ago
  How about when companies like Red Hat, VMWare and Twitter receive offers? I understand that in almost all cases the board feels legally compelled to accept a high enough offer. So any company's "soul" will be lost through time by mergers and acquisitions. The company that played the game of make-the-most will end up with a treasury large enough to buy those companies who tried the path of ethics.
  - throwawaycuriou 4y ago
    A merger can eat that soul in the same fashion. Such as Boeing effectively becoming McDonnell Douglas.
- anotheracctfo 4y ago
  This is a complete fantasy. I'm glad you paid attention in your ethics class, but Ben & Jerry's is now owned by Unilever. Take a look at beloved Costco. Blackstone took over the board and has been putting the screws on their staff, and hard selling customers on Executive Memberships. Their hot dog is on the ropes and we'll see if it remains a loss leader. As profit growth declines due to market saturation, drastic measures will be taken to keep profit growth high. Workers and customers will be squeezed for next quarter growth. If you think I'm wrong then please take a look at your favourite fortune 500 company and tell me who is going to pay for this quarter's inflation, the shareholders or the customers?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nitwit005 4y ago

If you don't want other people to have a voice in decisions, don't sell them the right to have a that voice.

georgeecollins 4y ago

Answer: Ethical leadership, which many public companies have. Sometimes you hear people say that public companies have to value shareholder returns above all else. It's usually opinion columnists or maybe popular economists, but not lawyers. That's because it's not really true. Public corporations have always made choice that favor customers or employees over shareholders and always will. Example: Ben and Jerry's. Public corporations can be as ethical as any other type of business. But any business can be ethical or not. CEOs use the excuse of "shareholders" because it sounds better than "I wanted to maximize my bonus." That isn't all bad-- seriously everyone wants to maximize their bonus, including me! As as an aside, I really doubt Unity is planning on installing malware even if they could through the Steam or Apple stores (which they probably can't). They probably just want to do better ad tracking. Is this ethical? I don't know enough to say. But a mom and pop or private company could do the same thing.

202206241203 4y ago
Isn't effectively punishing customers unwilling to pay for premium games highly ethical though?
- saxonww 4y ago
  Can you clarify what you're asking here? When I read your comment it looks like you're suggesting it's highly ethical to punish people for not wanting to give you money.
  - georgeecollins 4y ago
    I don't think it is unethical to offer a free game that contains advertising or "pay to win" content if the person downloading the game knows it is there and the app / program is honest about it's permissions and it's tracking. People choose to download apps like this all the time, knowing exactly what they are getting. Games cost money to make. If people don't want to pay money up front for them, well then as they say: the user can be the product.
    - noobermin 4y ago
      The point isn't that people don't want to pay money up front, it's a decision being made by developers to churn out endless f2p games over games that gamers would glady pay up front for, and since everyone else is doing it and one or two people make a lot of money in it, a bunch of people who chase shiny try to chase shiny, just like others chased after crypto and other gimmicks. All the while, the already paying customer base is frustrated.
  - 202206241203 4y ago
    It's ethical to punish the "something for nothing" attitude. It has to be legal of course.
    - lmm 4y ago
      Offering free food that turns out to be poisoned is not ethical. I'm all for charging an honest price for honest work, but I don't think there's anything morally wrong with taking something offered as a free gift.
emptysongglass 4y ago
How about when companies like Red Hat, VMWare and Twitter receive offers? I understand that in almost all cases the board feels legally compelled to accept a high enough offer. So any company's "soul" will be lost through time by mergers and acquisitions. The company that played the game of make-the-most will end up with a treasury large enough to buy those companies who tried the path of ethics.
- throwawaycuriou 4y ago
  A merger can eat that soul in the same fashion. Such as Boeing effectively becoming McDonnell Douglas.
anotheracctfo 4y ago
This is a complete fantasy. I'm glad you paid attention in your ethics class, but Ben & Jerry's is now owned by Unilever. Take a look at beloved Costco. Blackstone took over the board and has been putting the screws on their staff, and hard selling customers on Executive Memberships. Their hot dog is on the ropes and we'll see if it remains a loss leader. As profit growth declines due to market saturation, drastic measures will be taken to keep profit growth high. Workers and customers will be squeezed for next quarter growth. If you think I'm wrong then please take a look at your favourite fortune 500 company and tell me who is going to pay for this quarter's inflation, the shareholders or the customers?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]