4 ms·

This “a company is great until it goes public, then it is guaranteed to be crappy” mentality only displays a lack of understanding of how ownership structures w

This “a company is great until it goes public, then it is guaranteed to be crappy” mentality only displays a lack of understanding of how ownership structures work. It is more nuanced than what you are making out. An incredibly over-simplified view bred by the knowitall “fuck MBAs” attitude on HN lately.

piva00 2y ago
Do you have examples of companies that improved on their mission and values after going public?
gjsman-1000 2y ago
> knowitall “fuck MBAs” attitude I love HN, but this is insufferable behavior. I also believe it’s why, despite our screeching, we accomplish absolutely nothing. You can’t accomplish anything when you’ve burned all bridges and then yelled “screw you.”
- Hizonner 2y ago
  Sorry, what was this goal that was supposed to be getting "accomplished"?
quickslowdown 2y ago
It may seem dramatic to worry about the future of Raspberry Pi now that it's public, but I personally have seen enough mission driven companies go public, and have observed what happens when profit becomes the primary goal. You'll have to forgive me for seeing this as the beginning of the end of a beloved hobbyist SBC company. I expect the next few generations to be just fine, but eventually shareholders will start to squeeze, and the "profit above all else" mentality infecting public companies will set in, and then the enshittification begins. I'll be looking around at other SBCs, but I'm hapoy enough with my current RPi boards, just no longer confident I'll be happy with then in the future.
jovial_cavalier 2y ago
An IPO is a cashout. It's almost always certain that there are many key players in the company who had stake that no longer do. This is not a "fuck MBAs" thing. It is much harder to keep a business aligned with its initial purpose (and even customer interests) when it is public.
haunter 2y ago
[flagged]
- wrycoder 2y ago
  Tech itself has become more negative lately, for a number of reasons. HN remains a marvelous place - I was just last night enjoying the variety of posts and discussion. I’ve not found anything like it elsewhere.
  - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
    In many cases this sorts itself out in a few hours as downvotes rank the page. Luckily here I suspect the flamewar detector has kicked in and the page is being downranked. FWIW I don't find this in other tech spaces though they usually have a lot more young people. The media coverage of tech has certainly become focused on negatives, but if you hang out in Discord channels or talk with random Bluesky/X builders (keyword is builders here) there's definitely a culture of just talking about building or the more "financial" market analysis aspect. I agree with GP that HN has hit a pretty strong downward trajectory at this point that probably disincentivizes more rational commentary on topics that HN gets a lot of hate on.
bloqs 2y ago
Could you help me change my mindset with some good examples to the contrary?
rc_mob 2y ago
google "enshitification"
avsteele 2y ago
Do they not have a fiduciary responsibility to their public shareholders now that they did not before? If a random company with a very different mission (say, Intel) comes along and offers to purchase the company at a decent share price premium they pretty much have to take it, right?
- p_l 2y ago
  Doesn't necessarily work that way (shareholders can sell their shares still)... ... but it's how it's marketed to people so they believe it and follow Friedman's doctrine like gospel.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Who does this marketing?
    - p_l 2y ago
      Everyone repeating the mantra about how caring for shareholder profits is the fiduciary duty of the corporation leadership, and how it's "a law". At this point it's a self-propagating meme. I frequently encounter people, learned people, who act like it is a law or moral principle (in fact, corporations aren't even required to be for profit even when operating commercially, they are just an organizational structure). When questioned, nobody can cleanly point where they learnt it, but actual check shows that Friedman Doctrine[1] was never written into law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Ah - I see. I don't think that's marketing; just a common misconception. But yes, I've seen that too. No idea if it's true or not. Presumably it changes depending on the country.
        p_l 2y ago
sensanaty 2y ago
I can't think of a single company that went public that has improved rather than massively regressed. Could you name one of these unicorns?

piva00 2y ago

Do you have examples of companies that improved on their mission and values after going public?

gjsman-1000 2y ago

> knowitall “fuck MBAs” attitude I love HN, but this is insufferable behavior. I also believe it’s why, despite our screeching, we accomplish absolutely nothing. You can’t accomplish anything when you’ve burned all bridges and then yelled “screw you.”

Hizonner 2y ago
Sorry, what was this goal that was supposed to be getting "accomplished"?

quickslowdown 2y ago

It may seem dramatic to worry about the future of Raspberry Pi now that it's public, but I personally have seen enough mission driven companies go public, and have observed what happens when profit becomes the primary goal. You'll have to forgive me for seeing this as the beginning of the end of a beloved hobbyist SBC company. I expect the next few generations to be just fine, but eventually shareholders will start to squeeze, and the "profit above all else" mentality infecting public companies will set in, and then the enshittification begins. I'll be looking around at other SBCs, but I'm hapoy enough with my current RPi boards, just no longer confident I'll be happy with then in the future.

jovial_cavalier 2y ago

An IPO is a cashout. It's almost always certain that there are many key players in the company who had stake that no longer do. This is not a "fuck MBAs" thing. It is much harder to keep a business aligned with its initial purpose (and even customer interests) when it is public.

haunter 2y ago

[flagged]

wrycoder 2y ago
Tech itself has become more negative lately, for a number of reasons. HN remains a marvelous place - I was just last night enjoying the variety of posts and discussion. I’ve not found anything like it elsewhere.
- Karrot_Kream 2y ago
  In many cases this sorts itself out in a few hours as downvotes rank the page. Luckily here I suspect the flamewar detector has kicked in and the page is being downranked. FWIW I don't find this in other tech spaces though they usually have a lot more young people. The media coverage of tech has certainly become focused on negatives, but if you hang out in Discord channels or talk with random Bluesky/X builders (keyword is builders here) there's definitely a culture of just talking about building or the more "financial" market analysis aspect. I agree with GP that HN has hit a pretty strong downward trajectory at this point that probably disincentivizes more rational commentary on topics that HN gets a lot of hate on.

bloqs 2y ago

Could you help me change my mindset with some good examples to the contrary?

rc_mob 2y ago

google "enshitification"

avsteele 2y ago

Do they not have a fiduciary responsibility to their public shareholders now that they did not before? If a random company with a very different mission (say, Intel) comes along and offers to purchase the company at a decent share price premium they pretty much have to take it, right?

p_l 2y ago
Doesn't necessarily work that way (shareholders can sell their shares still)... ... but it's how it's marketed to people so they believe it and follow Friedman's doctrine like gospel.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Who does this marketing?
  - p_l 2y ago
    Everyone repeating the mantra about how caring for shareholder profits is the fiduciary duty of the corporation leadership, and how it's "a law". At this point it's a self-propagating meme. I frequently encounter people, learned people, who act like it is a law or moral principle (in fact, corporations aren't even required to be for profit even when operating commercially, they are just an organizational structure). When questioned, nobody can cleanly point where they learnt it, but actual check shows that Friedman Doctrine[1] was never written into law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Ah - I see. I don't think that's marketing; just a common misconception. But yes, I've seen that too. No idea if it's true or not. Presumably it changes depending on the country.
      - p_l 2y ago

sensanaty 2y ago

I can't think of a single company that went public that has improved rather than massively regressed. Could you name one of these unicorns?