6 ms·

This is one of the more bizarre layoff announcements I’ve read. Vague title, spends most of the intro celebrating the success of different franchises and overal

This is one of the more bizarre layoff announcements I’ve read. Vague title, spends most of the intro celebrating the success of different franchises and overall strength of the business, buries the lede in the third paragraph… if you skimmed it you could miss the layoff news entirely. I understand there’s no great way to deliver a message like this but it strikes me as so tone deaf for the CEO to not even acknowledge that it sucks. The last paragraph mentions love, appreciation, joy — where’s the apology for the leadership decisions that led to these peoples’ unemployment?

Xunjin 4y ago
I'm sorry but does EA take in account their own mistakes or even hear their costumer base about franchises or the famous loot boxes? This is EA.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
This author has nailed it: https://twitter.com/h1ghju1ce/status/1640819647590305793?t=A_-UhRMEgj-IoSxWsQCUhw&s=19 https://twitter.com/h1ghju1ce/status/1640819647590305793?t=A...
lbotos 4y ago
There is often this line "apology for the leadership decisions that led to these peoples’ unemployment?" and the options are as such: - In an env with cheap money, business chooses not to take advantage, growing slower, and in turn, possibly losing to competitors who did choose to take advantage - In an env with cheap money, business choose to take advantage, growing on pace with competitors and either keeping or building a competitive advantage When the environment shifts: - Businesses that chose not to take advantage of money are less likely to have layoffs, but are they on par, behind or ahead of those that did? Some will be ahead for sure, but it's not guaranteed. - Businesses that choose the money strategically cut and double down on winning bets The ultimate key take away for readers reading this: Understand what kind of business you work for, and decide for yourself if you are happy with leaderships risk profile. If you aren't, adjust accordingly... EDIT: To be clear, I'm not pro-EA and I think they have milked their products for a long while, I'm talking about the meta here.
- bombolo 4y ago
  Companies might have used the cheap money to do something worthwhile rather than hire people to look growing and then fire them and cancel their projects?
  - colinmorelli 4y ago
    …the “something worthwhile” WAS the projects that the spun up and hired people for, which they are now shutting down since it’s no longer economically viable to continue. Every single time a layoff is done, there’s a conversation about what initiatives are on the chopping block as a result. Investments that are now lower priority are cut. It’s really quite disappointing that the prevailing sentiment on HN seems to be that all corporate leadership are a bunch of bumbling fools. Just like technology is more complex than it looks on the surface, so too are large enterprises.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    Companies do strange things for accounting reasons. For example, going all in on cloud, especially if you're a huge company who can afford the upfront costs of on-prem infrastructure and can reap the savings. It turns out that buying equipment for on-prem is capex and only tax-deductible once, whereas a cloud subscription is opex and tax-deductible year over year. So it makes financial sense to go with cloud, even if it seems counterintuitive at first because on-prem is cheaper before you apply these accounting concerns. I think something similar applies with hiring when interest rates are low.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Exactly. Q: “How can a company avoid ever having to layoff 100 people?” A: “Don’t hire 250 of those 100 in the first place.”
- Retric 4y ago
  That’s hardly the only option, you can rapidly shrink your workforce through attrition. Large scale layoffs require companies to be caught completely by surprise which is a huge management failure. The point of upper management is to steer the boat not run into an iceberg.

Xunjin 4y ago

I'm sorry but does EA take in account their own mistakes or even hear their costumer base about franchises or the famous loot boxes? This is EA.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

This author has nailed it: https://twitter.com/h1ghju1ce/status/1640819647590305793?t=A_-UhRMEgj-IoSxWsQCUhw&s=19 https://twitter.com/h1ghju1ce/status/1640819647590305793?t=A...

lbotos 4y ago

There is often this line "apology for the leadership decisions that led to these peoples’ unemployment?" and the options are as such: - In an env with cheap money, business chooses not to take advantage, growing slower, and in turn, possibly losing to competitors who did choose to take advantage - In an env with cheap money, business choose to take advantage, growing on pace with competitors and either keeping or building a competitive advantage When the environment shifts: - Businesses that chose not to take advantage of money are less likely to have layoffs, but are they on par, behind or ahead of those that did? Some will be ahead for sure, but it's not guaranteed. - Businesses that choose the money strategically cut and double down on winning bets The ultimate key take away for readers reading this: Understand what kind of business you work for, and decide for yourself if you are happy with leaderships risk profile. If you aren't, adjust accordingly... EDIT: To be clear, I'm not pro-EA and I think they have milked their products for a long while, I'm talking about the meta here.

bombolo 4y ago
Companies might have used the cheap money to do something worthwhile rather than hire people to look growing and then fire them and cancel their projects?
- colinmorelli 4y ago
  …the “something worthwhile” WAS the projects that the spun up and hired people for, which they are now shutting down since it’s no longer economically viable to continue. Every single time a layoff is done, there’s a conversation about what initiatives are on the chopping block as a result. Investments that are now lower priority are cut. It’s really quite disappointing that the prevailing sentiment on HN seems to be that all corporate leadership are a bunch of bumbling fools. Just like technology is more complex than it looks on the surface, so too are large enterprises.
- bitwize 4y ago
  Companies do strange things for accounting reasons. For example, going all in on cloud, especially if you're a huge company who can afford the upfront costs of on-prem infrastructure and can reap the savings. It turns out that buying equipment for on-prem is capex and only tax-deductible once, whereas a cloud subscription is opex and tax-deductible year over year. So it makes financial sense to go with cloud, even if it seems counterintuitive at first because on-prem is cheaper before you apply these accounting concerns. I think something similar applies with hiring when interest rates are low.
sokoloff 4y ago
Exactly. Q: “How can a company avoid ever having to layoff 100 people?” A: “Don’t hire 250 of those 100 in the first place.”
Retric 4y ago
That’s hardly the only option, you can rapidly shrink your workforce through attrition. Large scale layoffs require companies to be caught completely by surprise which is a huge management failure. The point of upper management is to steer the boat not run into an iceberg.