6 ms·

Seems like an attempt to get over some of the extremely bad press to me. While it's good for the ex-employees, it was still a really crappy thing to do in the f

by keidian 14y ago

Seems like an attempt to get over some of the extremely bad press to me. While it's good for the ex-employees, it was still a really crappy thing to do in the first place.

wmf 14y ago
Would it have been less crappy to shut the company down completely?
- keidian 14y ago
  Being able to dump in 50k after bad press and saying "I just added $50K to the bucket and will add more as needed" makes me cynical I guess. shrugs
  - wmf 14y ago
    It proves that he didn't put every last cent into the company, but that's a pretty high standard considering he's probably already lost millions.
    - astrodust 14y ago
      When you do that you won't get very far. Not everyone has Elon Musk's golden horseshoe.
    - skilesare 14y ago
      Do you have any idea how many different things Perlman is involved in? If he had put every last cent into on-live our future would be worse off. Google the work he is doing in the wireless networking space(DIDO). Your iPhone 7 is probably going to run it.
- zizee 14y ago
  Was the company valueless when it was sold? How much did it sell for? Were the proceeds distributed fairly?
ConstantineXVI 14y ago
Letting the company run dry and not telling anyone until paychecks bounce would have been even worse. It doesn't seem like anyone made a clean getaway from this at all (Perlman himself isn't even taking salary from "OnLive2").
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  That's noble, but only valuable if you have FU money to start. Otherwise, there will be a little drag in the back of your mind saying "should I be doing this?" at a point when you want the leader in and committed 100%.
ghshephard 14y ago
He seems to have done something that we very, very rarely see in corporate america, which is show genuine leadership. I'm wondering, keidian, what you believe you would have done that would have been less "really crappy." Genuinely interested.
- rhizome 14y ago
  None of us knows the terms of the deal such as would be necessary to have any sense of what is possible.
- keidian 14y ago
  Honestly? Doing a mass layoff will suck regardless, but doing it by shutting down the company and making a brand new one immediately rubs me the wrong way. While no one likes to be laid off, I think people would have been able to at least hold their head high about the work they had been doing rather than the stigma of being remembered as working at OnLive before AND being out of a job. Side note: Wonder just how low my karma will sink after this post and my original one lol. Seems like people don't agree with me, which is fine :)
  - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
    The shutting down/new company business is essentially a convoluted form of bankruptcy[0] that allowed them to keep the lights on; out of context it looks bad but it could have been much worse. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_assignment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_assignment (note this technically/legally isn't bankruptcy, but has a rather similar effect)
    - zizee 14y ago
      I don't know the full situation, but if each of those who were laid off owned part of the company it seems a little unfair for the majority shareholder to be able to sell the company to himself, leaving everyone else with nothing. What should have happened is that the company should go up for auction and the proceeds split by percentage owned.

by keidian 14y ago

Seems like an attempt to get over some of the extremely bad press to me. While it's good for the ex-employees, it was still a really crappy thing to do in the first place.

wmf 14y ago

Would it have been less crappy to shut the company down completely?

keidian 14y ago
Being able to dump in 50k after bad press and saying "I just added $50K to the bucket and will add more as needed" makes me cynical I guess. shrugs
- wmf 14y ago
  It proves that he didn't put every last cent into the company, but that's a pretty high standard considering he's probably already lost millions.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    When you do that you won't get very far. Not everyone has Elon Musk's golden horseshoe.
  - skilesare 14y ago
    Do you have any idea how many different things Perlman is involved in? If he had put every last cent into on-live our future would be worse off. Google the work he is doing in the wireless networking space(DIDO). Your iPhone 7 is probably going to run it.
zizee 14y ago
Was the company valueless when it was sold? How much did it sell for? Were the proceeds distributed fairly?

ConstantineXVI 14y ago

Letting the company run dry and not telling anyone until paychecks bounce would have been even worse. It doesn't seem like anyone made a clean getaway from this at all (Perlman himself isn't even taking salary from "OnLive2").

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
That's noble, but only valuable if you have FU money to start. Otherwise, there will be a little drag in the back of your mind saying "should I be doing this?" at a point when you want the leader in and committed 100%.

ghshephard 14y ago

He seems to have done something that we very, very rarely see in corporate america, which is show genuine leadership. I'm wondering, keidian, what you believe you would have done that would have been less "really crappy." Genuinely interested.

rhizome 14y ago
None of us knows the terms of the deal such as would be necessary to have any sense of what is possible.
keidian 14y ago
Honestly? Doing a mass layoff will suck regardless, but doing it by shutting down the company and making a brand new one immediately rubs me the wrong way. While no one likes to be laid off, I think people would have been able to at least hold their head high about the work they had been doing rather than the stigma of being remembered as working at OnLive before AND being out of a job. Side note: Wonder just how low my karma will sink after this post and my original one lol. Seems like people don't agree with me, which is fine :)
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  The shutting down/new company business is essentially a convoluted form of bankruptcy[0] that allowed them to keep the lights on; out of context it looks bad but it could have been much worse. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_assignment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_assignment (note this technically/legally isn't bankruptcy, but has a rather similar effect)
  - zizee 14y ago
    I don't know the full situation, but if each of those who were laid off owned part of the company it seems a little unfair for the majority shareholder to be able to sell the company to himself, leaving everyone else with nothing. What should have happened is that the company should go up for auction and the proceeds split by percentage owned.