4 ms·
The problem is not really the CEO, though he's the one getting the attention here. It's the new board that got 3 new heads from IronSource and Sequoia VC (who
by VHRanger 3y ago
The problem is not really the CEO, though he's the one getting the attention here.
It's the new board that got 3 new heads from IronSource and Sequoia VC (who pushed for the IronSource merger).
- ilamont 3y agoSequoia, the same geniuses that backed SBF: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33571734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33571734
- keypusher 3y agoSequoia also backed Apple, Cisco, Google, Youtube, Instagram, LinkedIn, PayPal, Reddit, Zoom and many more. They are just one of the largest VCs out there.
- ilamont 3y agoSequoia invested in Apple 46 years ago. Many of those other investments date from the 90s and 2000s. The firm has since lost its mojo. The transcript of the discussions behind the SBF investment are embarrassing.
- kyleee 3y agoFun, do you have the link handy?
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y agoThere is a difference from backing a fraud vs backing a failure. No one is pointing fingers for the latter. SBF would have never done anything with a simple BoD requirement: independent auditor. That was not done by BoD. This is a very standard requirement for most companies beyond A. SBF got special treatment. Why is the question
- glimshe 3y agoNo. The problem is the CEO. The buck stops with him. When you are at the top making millions, a major strategic failure is always your responsibility.
- VHRanger 3y agoThe CEO does what the board tells him to do or gets fired ultimately
- pschuegr 3y agoor if they have any integrity they raise a stink and quit. but that's maybe a 1/100 CEO if you're lucky.
- glimshe 3y ago"I was just following orders"? In the very specific case of the CEO, considering their position of power and control, they are still responsible - civically and criminally. Also, a good CEO knows how to manage the board and provide sensible strategic alternatives; even if the board liked this dumb move, it's the CEO's fault for not having leveraged the company's resources (business directors, other C-level executives, etc) to produce a better strategy. The board was certainly pushing for more profits, but the CEO is the one to say how the company will get these increased profits.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoLess "I was following orders" and more "my job is the make the company money". And sure, if I had to make the company money in the next quarter or two there's no initiative I can make on the technical end to launch a new product and run up buzz. Unity tried doing that all throughout the pandemic with a bunch of expansion to other industries (automotive, sports, construction, etc.). So in comes the fees. But then those pesky LTS means nothing I charge to 2024 Unity will stick next quarter, nor all of 2024. The only question at this point is why I chose to do install based fees instead of the Rev share model standard in every other industry. It might have worked if they undercut Unreal and said "we'll only charge 2% of revenue after $1m". I wonder what the CTO was thinking because everywhere I've read suggests that there is simply no effective and ethical way to track installs as a Middleware.
- ncr100 3y agoIn a public company like Unity we still don't know the truth of who said what, in the board room, to decide this horrific path. I agree the board is responsible, it's too dramatic an f-up for just one.