Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

stackoverflow.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 193 posts

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#111

Post by sytelus »

wiradikusuma wrote: post #46

I understand they had to do it (I'm sure we—their users—understand), but I can't understand the need for bullshit business-speak. Just say, "Due to circumstances you all familiar with, business is slow, so I have to let go of some people from X department." Putting up bullshit like this is like adding insult to injury. Especially, since their user demographics are mostly people who don't like bullshit.

When Spolesky brought on this guy, I was shocked. He had no profile or activity on Stackoverflow. He wasn’t even a developer and his resume indicated he was just generic management talking head. Given how much Spolesky emphasis “product person” to be in charge as opposed to white label MBAs, none of that made any sense. I’d to only imagine he was cashing out and part of the deal from investors was to place this guy who they trusted to grow “enterprise” business. Just why every beautiful startup must make their owners billionaires while getting ruined?

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#113

Post by teddyuk »

crummy wrote: post #106
teddyuk wrote: post #105

I think any company that lays off people at this time are scum, they should be embarrassed and rescind this. There are loans available in the us and uk to keep people employed. I won’t use stack overflow for the rest of may, it isn’t much but fuck them. They know the people they let go can’t get another job at the moment.

How easy is it to get those loans? I know in the US the PPP seems easy to get the bigger you are, otherwise if you don't have a tight relationship with a bank you probably missed out.

If they missed out then the ceo should resign, it is basic business sense

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#114

Post by teddyuk »

maltelandwehr wrote: post #91
sdepablos wrote: post #74

In this time of uncertainty, wouldn't be more humane to just reduce the salary 15% to everyone?

From a business perspective it would be a bad idea. If you have three revenue streams (Advertising, Enterprise communication product, hiring product/marketplace), of which two are doing very well and one is not doing well (hiring) you need to continue investing in what is working and stop burning money on what is not working. Otherwise you will lose your competitive edge in the areas that are working well. In the end…

This is a one off shock, they don’t need to do this

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#115

Post by GordonS »

wiradikusuma wrote: post #46

I understand they had to do it (I'm sure we—their users—understand), but I can't understand the need for bullshit business-speak. Just say, "Due to circumstances you all familiar with, business is slow, so I have to let go of some people from X department." Putting up bullshit like this is like adding insult to injury. Especially, since their user demographics are mostly people who don't like bullshit.

Fully agree.

I've been using SO since it's inception, several years ago. But with the whole moderator thing, the switch to a ridiculous buzzword homepage, and all the damn bullshit corporate speak, my trust in SO is at an all time low.

How did it get here from the straight-talking, community-orientated feel it used to have under Spoelsy and friends?

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#116

Post by adventured »

villgax wrote: post #57

SO is gonna be gobbled up by Github Issues altogether.

The only certainty with Stack Exchange, is that it's going to end up in the belly of one of just a few possible tech companies: Microsoft, Oracle, Google, Salesforce, etc.

They'll slash most of the communities away (even if they initially lie about their intentions and pretend they won't do that) and keep the focus on the tech part of the network.

Knowledge services are not great businesses, they're almost entirely incompatible with the venture capital model. Those that take VC all eventually get force-liquidated, without exception. Stack Exchange is still pretending to be a knowledge service. As they took on more venture capital they pivoted to being primarily HotJobs 3.0. The only way they were going to avoid that outcome, is to 1) never take major venture capital 2) stay super thin operationally; they did neither, so they get liquidated, it's only a question of time now.

The Internet will need to replace Stack Exchange with a new platform in the near future, as it'll combo rot and most of the communities will be killed off after SE is sold. I'd advise someone/s out there to get started on replacing SE right now, as by the time you get a new platform up to speed (assume a few years), SE as it has been thought of over the prior decade will be on its last legs and the new platform will be in prime position to step in. And please, do it right, do not take venture capital, which is a devil's bargain for knowledge services: they will kill you in the end, guaranteed, every single time. I've been closely watching this stupid story repeat in the knowledge space for over two decades now. Go the non-profit route ideally, or alternatively go with the wikiHow approach and stay thin (it's the sole viable option to survive long-term as an independent knowledge service business).

Re: Stack Overflow reduces global workforce by approximately 15%

#118

Post by lordgrenville »

krzyk wrote: post #100

I don't get it. It is as if Zoom would announcing job cuts "because COVID-19". Stackoverflow is an internet service providing answers to questions, why would they get lower counts of traffic?

People pay for Zoom, StackOverflow is free.
Post reply on HN