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

Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 481 posts

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#301

Post by KerrAvon »

dvt wrote: post #206
adam_arthur wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They obviously did that because the API is not benefiting them at all from a revenue perspective. If it were, they wouldn't have gotten rid of it. Twitter was run as a charity prior to the acquisition. Just as many VC fat tech companies were

> They obviously did that because the API is not benefiting them at all from a revenue perspective. If it were, they wouldn't have gotten rid of it. Everyone hates on Dorsey because he essentially turned Twitter into a walled garden (killed third-party clients + RSS support), but really, how else are you supposed to make a startup that got millions in funding profitable? Just by giving your stuff away?

Nobody begrudges Twitter the right to (the opportunity to) make money. It's not clear why they decided not to work with the clients. They could have put ads into the API feeds and required that clients not filter them out, or some such thing.

And it's fine that they didn't. It's even fine that they shut down the API. But the lack of communication is ridiculous. Just tell people what the fuck is happening. They don't have to like it, but complete ghosting is the way you burn bridges completely down.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#302

Post by ghaff »

morelisp wrote: post #154
adam_arthur wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertisers dropped spending because they don't like Elon/his behavior. Not because sales staff were laid off. It's quite obvious to anybody looking at the situation objectively. Twitter has functioned fine after massive layoffs, and feature velocity has only accelerated. Too many developers have an inflated sense of self importance

> Advertisers dropped spending because they don't like Elon/his behavior. I mean, yeah? If someone fired all my contacts at a company and didn’t return my emails as my revenue dropped as a result of their changes I would also stop paying them?

And Twitter needs advertisers more than advertisers need Twitter. Maybe there are exceptions but I can't imagine Twitter is this uniquely wonderful channel for the vast bulk of advertisers.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#303

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

dcolkitt wrote: post #246
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wanted 11,000 extra heads when the market was rewarding growth. Now that the market is rewarding bottom lines - they don't want 11,000 extra heads anymore. It's easy to "blame the Fed" for the market rewarding the bottom line. But we forget that the reason the market was so crazily rewarding growth 2 years ago was also... because of the Fed.

MSFT stock is barely moved on the announcement. Doesn't necessarily seem like the market is rewarding them.

Hard to say if the market was expecting layoffs.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#304

Post by tootie »

98codes wrote: post #62
mgkimsal wrote: post #34

11,000 people - let's say an average loaded cost of $250k/yr. That's... ~$3b/yr these folks cost MSFT. Granted, it's per year, but ... keeping these people on for another 3 years would cost ~$10b. MSFT currently have $100b cash on hand. It's gotta be a little... frustrating to get be part of a 5% cut when there's so much free cash sitting around. I know, it's a narrow view of corporate finance, and I don't have the '…

The linked article gives no more information than "Sky news reported this, citing sources." Microsoft employs a wide variety of people, not just developers, and a lot of those jobs aren't making nearly as much as $250k/yr, nor are they so easily rehired into a job somewhere else.

And not just in the US.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#305

Post by redleggedfrog »

So one 1 out of 20 are getting let go. Looking around near 50 employee company I work for I easily see 2.5 employees I would let go just because they're near useless. Hell, I'd say it's at least 5.

I'd say unless you've got a good manager, really good hiring, and are keeping close tabs on the technical people (just to make clear, I'm one of them those technical people) I figure you've at least got 1 our of 20 you should just be sacking on principle.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#306

Post by patrickmay »

dvt wrote: post #206
adam_arthur wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They obviously did that because the API is not benefiting them at all from a revenue perspective. If it were, they wouldn't have gotten rid of it. Twitter was run as a charity prior to the acquisition. Just as many VC fat tech companies were

> They obviously did that because the API is not benefiting them at all from a revenue perspective. If it were, they wouldn't have gotten rid of it. Everyone hates on Dorsey because he essentially turned Twitter into a walled garden (killed third-party clients + RSS support), but really, how else are you supposed to make a startup that got millions in funding profitable? Just by giving your stuff away?

Charge for API access. Learn what features users want from the third party tools. Implement those. Profit.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#307

Post by jayd16 »

bink wrote: post #53
qeternity wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they spend any amount much less $3b or $10b to keep people they don’t need/want?

Normally, hiring 11,000 people you "didn't need" would be a warning sign that management was incompetent and require much more than just laying off the unneeded workers. It would suggest that large reforms are needed in planning and hiring. But these days it's just dismissed as an "oops!".

"Management should plan ahead."

*Microsoft lays off 11k in lead up to recession

"No, not like that."

I don't think there's any grand scheme to screw anyone over here. Growth was important and now the balance sheet is more important.

We could always start talking about tech unions and guaranteed severance packages and other employee protections but it seems silly to just brood about 'the management.'

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#308

Post by HillRat »

KallDrexx wrote: post #88
mgkimsal wrote: post #34

11,000 people - let's say an average loaded cost of $250k/yr. That's... ~$3b/yr these folks cost MSFT. Granted, it's per year, but ... keeping these people on for another 3 years would cost ~$10b. MSFT currently have $100b cash on hand. It's gotta be a little... frustrating to get be part of a 5% cut when there's so much free cash sitting around. I know, it's a narrow view of corporate finance, and I don't have the '…

> MSFT currently have $100b cash on hand. Fwiw, unless cash on hand already accounts for it (I don't think it does), then $70B of that is tied up in the Activision acquisition. Thus we really only have $30B cash on hand, which in a higher than previous interest rate environment is probably not great (though afaict Apple has $48B). Likewise, our cash on hand has been drastically dwindling the last few years, making th…

They haven't said so yet -- perhaps they'll clarify on the call tomorrow -- but they'll probably take down new debt to make this happen; it's a good time to go to the markets, and a lot of their cash is parked overseas. Fitch recently announced they're withdrawing their ratings for MSFT debt, so that's probably an indication they expect a significant amount of the purchase price to come from new issuances.

Re: Microsoft to lay off 11k employees

#310

Post by bdotdub »

bmitc wrote: post #277
pyrrhotech wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's silly to mention the cash on the balance sheet without also mentioning the debt of $77B. In reality, the net cash position is on the order of magnitude of $30B which puts a much tighter perspective on the impact of this cut. 40% of all public companies created since market inception in 1871 have gone bankrupt including many of the bluest of the blue chips. Complacent thinking like this is often the reason. Addit…

A lot of the bloat is at the top. How many executives, VPs, directors, high level managers, etc. are part of this?

classic IC answer

source: I'm an IC

Post reply on HN