3 ms·

Shame he couldn't do anything about that when he was either CEO, chairman or on the board of Twitter (for most of its existence). As Bloomberg said yesterday:

Shame he couldn't do anything about that when he was either CEO, chairman or on the board of Twitter (for most of its existence). As Bloomberg said yesterday: "Twitter Is in This Mess Because Jack Dorsey Was Too Busy Being a Bitcoin Influencer" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-29/twitter-twtr-s-elon-musk-mess-exposes-jack-dorsey-s-flaws https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-29/twitter-t... https://archive.ph/7ugqn https://archive.ph/7ugqn

ekianjo 4y ago
Bloomberg are idiots talking out of their asses. They have never worked in tech companies
- planb 4y ago
  This is funny, because that's exactly the thing "The Old Industries" said before being disrupted by tech companies.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    Bloomberg itself is "the old industries", in several domains including supposed-journalism. In the parlance of starry-eyed overglorified bloggers, they're the "legacy media".
- currenciessfe 4y ago
  You are both right and wrong. Bloomberg IS a tech company. But the journalists obviously don't mingle with that part.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    More like, "tech company" has nothing to do with whether a company's product or competitive advantage lies in technology and just means "popular company" or today more like "SHR-funded company". I'm reminded of how often I had to read about "tech companies vs. telcos", "tech companies vs. ISPs" during the net neutrality discussion, or "tech company vs. car company" for AVs, or "tech company vs. broadcaster" for streaming/advertising...
  - dis-sys 4y ago
    > Bloomberg IS a tech company. This is like saying Microsoft is a charity - worst joke I heard in Sept 2022.
    - cochne 4y ago
      I think it’s a tech company. They employ lots of software engineers who develop a software product which is their central business. Why do you think it is not a tech company?
      - monkpit 4y ago
        It’s sort of like saying Amazon is a delivery company. It’s part of a division of their company, and a main component at that. But it’s not like SREs working at AWS know or care about logistics.
        cochne 4y ago
        I don't really understand the parallel. It's not like software engineers at Bloomberg really know or care all that much about finance. The vast majority just work on the software product that moves financial information.
        monkpit 4y ago
        The parallel is to say Bloomberg journalists are tech experts because “it’s a tech company”. The journalists are just journalists
        colinmhayes 4y ago
        Amazon is a logistics company though. Solving logistics is pretty much the entire value add of the retail arm.
    - MrMan 4y ago
      there is no such thing as a tech company except maybe biotech or other R&d based businesses.
- rchaud 4y ago
  Hard to call Twitter a "tech company" considering how difficult it was for them to switch to 280 chars. What tech milestones did they hit in the past 7-8 years? Muted words?
- whatgoodisaroad 4y ago
  Bloomberg also still hasn't printed a redaction of "The Big Hack" which is extremely damning to their journalistic credibility.
tazjin 4y ago
It seems to me that once your middle management is infested with the wrong kind of non-tech people (because you couldn't resist "growing" forever), you don't stand a chance anymore. To me it seems this is what happened to Larry & Sergey, too.
- helsinkiandrew 4y ago
  > that once your middle management is infested with the wrong kind of non-tech people Surely that's the responsibility of the CEO/chairman/board who recruit and direct the staff?
  - tazjin 4y ago
    Yes, but it's easy to get overwhelmed during that explosive growth phase and, well, see the Steve Jobs anecdote about "A players". Once the damage is done it's hard/impossible to undo.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Over a long enough time, everything is. The question is whether they had a better alternative along the path. If many/most companies are infested, the wrong kind of middle management must be quite common. If it’s quite common, avoiding hiring from it (or avoiding the effects when you do) could be very difficult. It’s still a problem that lands on their desks, but might be less “how could they be so stupid?!” than portrayed above.
- doctor_eval 4y ago
  Yeah I reckon at Google, that came from above. That was Schmidt. > "There is what I call the creepy line," he said, according to The Hill. "The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."
  - bushbaba 4y ago
    Schmidt ran the company relatively well. Googles issue is the lack of focus and rewarding technically complex 10x ideas. Meaning long term recurring compound gains is not rewarded.
TT-392 4y ago
Pretty sure twitter was a mess before bitcoin became relevant
LAMike 4y ago
> Bloomberg said Irrelevant East Coast media company comments on Bitcoin lol
SmokeyHamster 4y ago
In Dorsey's own words, he was only one vote on the board, and only had 3% share in the company. Whether he put 100% of his time into Twitter or 1%, that doesn't change the fact that he had very limited influence over his own company. Twitter's board is what has caused all their problems, often by explicitly rejecting Dorsey's advice.

ekianjo 4y ago

Bloomberg are idiots talking out of their asses. They have never worked in tech companies

planb 4y ago
This is funny, because that's exactly the thing "The Old Industries" said before being disrupted by tech companies.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  Bloomberg itself is "the old industries", in several domains including supposed-journalism. In the parlance of starry-eyed overglorified bloggers, they're the "legacy media".
currenciessfe 4y ago
You are both right and wrong. Bloomberg IS a tech company. But the journalists obviously don't mingle with that part.
- morelisp 4y ago
  More like, "tech company" has nothing to do with whether a company's product or competitive advantage lies in technology and just means "popular company" or today more like "SHR-funded company". I'm reminded of how often I had to read about "tech companies vs. telcos", "tech companies vs. ISPs" during the net neutrality discussion, or "tech company vs. car company" for AVs, or "tech company vs. broadcaster" for streaming/advertising...
- dis-sys 4y ago
  > Bloomberg IS a tech company. This is like saying Microsoft is a charity - worst joke I heard in Sept 2022.
  - cochne 4y ago
    I think it’s a tech company. They employ lots of software engineers who develop a software product which is their central business. Why do you think it is not a tech company?
    - monkpit 4y ago
      It’s sort of like saying Amazon is a delivery company. It’s part of a division of their company, and a main component at that. But it’s not like SREs working at AWS know or care about logistics.
      - cochne 4y ago
        I don't really understand the parallel. It's not like software engineers at Bloomberg really know or care all that much about finance. The vast majority just work on the software product that moves financial information.
        monkpit 4y ago
        The parallel is to say Bloomberg journalists are tech experts because “it’s a tech company”. The journalists are just journalists
      - colinmhayes 4y ago
        Amazon is a logistics company though. Solving logistics is pretty much the entire value add of the retail arm.
  - MrMan 4y ago
    there is no such thing as a tech company except maybe biotech or other R&d based businesses.
rchaud 4y ago
Hard to call Twitter a "tech company" considering how difficult it was for them to switch to 280 chars. What tech milestones did they hit in the past 7-8 years? Muted words?
whatgoodisaroad 4y ago
Bloomberg also still hasn't printed a redaction of "The Big Hack" which is extremely damning to their journalistic credibility.

tazjin 4y ago

It seems to me that once your middle management is infested with the wrong kind of non-tech people (because you couldn't resist "growing" forever), you don't stand a chance anymore. To me it seems this is what happened to Larry & Sergey, too.

helsinkiandrew 4y ago
> that once your middle management is infested with the wrong kind of non-tech people Surely that's the responsibility of the CEO/chairman/board who recruit and direct the staff?
- tazjin 4y ago
  Yes, but it's easy to get overwhelmed during that explosive growth phase and, well, see the Steve Jobs anecdote about "A players". Once the damage is done it's hard/impossible to undo.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Over a long enough time, everything is. The question is whether they had a better alternative along the path. If many/most companies are infested, the wrong kind of middle management must be quite common. If it’s quite common, avoiding hiring from it (or avoiding the effects when you do) could be very difficult. It’s still a problem that lands on their desks, but might be less “how could they be so stupid?!” than portrayed above.
doctor_eval 4y ago
Yeah I reckon at Google, that came from above. That was Schmidt. > "There is what I call the creepy line," he said, according to The Hill. "The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."
- bushbaba 4y ago
  Schmidt ran the company relatively well. Googles issue is the lack of focus and rewarding technically complex 10x ideas. Meaning long term recurring compound gains is not rewarded.

TT-392 4y ago

Pretty sure twitter was a mess before bitcoin became relevant

LAMike 4y ago

> Bloomberg said Irrelevant East Coast media company comments on Bitcoin lol

SmokeyHamster 4y ago

In Dorsey's own words, he was only one vote on the board, and only had 3% share in the company. Whether he put 100% of his time into Twitter or 1%, that doesn't change the fact that he had very limited influence over his own company. Twitter's board is what has caused all their problems, often by explicitly rejecting Dorsey's advice.