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

Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–439 of 439 posts

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#431

Post by Dracophoenix »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #425
Dracophoenix wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if you could use their payment processing by itself, that would put you at $485k before server costs, not $419k. So you can have very nice servers and over a third more revenue. Most companies don't do their own payment processing. They have accounts with companies that provide merchant services (e.g. WorldPay, Ayden, various investment banks) under specially negotiated contracts. These contracts would cover con…

You're ignoring my point almost entirely. I'm sorry for not adding "the equivalent of their payment processing". If Apple can do it for 3%, I'm sure other companies could do it for 4.5%, and the rest of my argument doesn't change at all. Though I do have an answer to "why"! It's because Apple claims they want to be in charge of payments to protect their users. Even if we ignore the "charge slightly more and make tons…

> Though I do have an answer to "why"! It's because Apple claims they want to be in charge of payments to protect their users. Even if we ignore the "charge slightly more and make tons of money" plan.

There's a difference between being charging payments as a service and acting as a financial fiduciary on behalf millions of developers. I don't think you understand the legal gravity of the latter.

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#432

Post by twblalock »

juve1996 wrote: post #430
kypro wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There were no consumer inflation issues for the past decade. It took a once in a life time pandemic supply shock to cause those issues. You're being unfair. Not really... Inflation began spiking in late 2020 / early 2021. It was completely foreseeable given how strong economic demand was and how quickly CPI was raising that inflation would be high in 2021. When CPI shot past 2% the Fed basically told businesses and…

It's easy to say now change policy in the throes of the COVID pandemic. But in reality this move would've created economic shock on top of a supply shock and during a public health crisis. That simply isn't sound and is extremely reactive. And it's hard to say this would've had any impact at all on inflation, which was tied to factors external to fed policy. The fed should be cautious by making any changes. I believe…

> The fed should be cautious by making any changes. I believe the fact they didn't rush to judgement has led to a much better than normal situation.

The Fed was not cautious during the pandemic. Not at all! They dropped interest rates to near zero, massively increased QE, and shot the stock market over the moon. Then they sat there watching inflation spiral out of control in the misguided hope that it was "transient" before finally clamping down harder than they would have needed to if they had done the right thing in the first place.

It was a massive overreaction, and a significant change in policy (at least in degree if not in character, especially because the lack of emphasis on inflation policy), and they did it in a hurry before they had a chance to really figure out what was happening. Now we all have to suffer for it -- and the impact of inflation on American families should not be handwaved away or minimized.

Back in 2021, people like Larry Summers were also dismissed for making "doomsday predictions" that turned out to be true. He wasn't the only one who noticed -- but he was the only left-leaning economist brave enough to challenge the new administration by saying what a lot of them already knew. This isn't hindsight -- people knew the Fed was wrong years ago.

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#433

Post by twblalock »

juve1996 wrote: post #422
paulmd wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's easy to say "oh they should've raised rates in 2017 or 2014" in 2022. It was much harder to say back then. it's funny that you brought this up unprompted because this is the obvious counterargument - the fed really really should have been doing moderate tightening of the interest rate in 2017-2018-2019 and everybody knows it, even you. Everyone said it too, I completely do not get your "it was much harder to s…

There were plenty of times to raise rates even before the Trump administration. But there were no major negative impacts until the COVID19 pandemic. The point is it's easy for us to say this now. Had the pandemic not occurred we'd maybe still be in the position we were in 2019. You can argue for resiliency but you can't time the market. You could argue rates should've been raised in 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. If…

Inflation "normalizing" is actually likely to be due to a change in the way it is measured: https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/status/1624093631929020416

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#434

Post by Andrex »

mostlysimilar wrote: post #109
etempleton wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Nintendo is a wonderfully run company. They are probably a bit too set in their ways of doing things, but they always seem to be ready to take advantage of an opportunity or minimize the damage of a bad product launch. How many companies could have survived the WiiU?

Not only survived the Wii U but followed it up with a smash hit. The Switch is now the third best selling console of all time, behind only the Nintendo DS and the PlayStation 2.

Nintendo's secret sauce is their historically-huge (way above average) R&D investment. And for all the slack they get about being too traditional, the one thing I can say about following the company for 20 years is you never know what they're going to do next.

Meanwhile, PlayStation 6, Pixel 9, and iPhone 16 are foregone conclusions.

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#435

Post by Dylan16807 »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #431
Dylan16807 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring my point almost entirely. I'm sorry for not adding "the equivalent of their payment processing". If Apple can do it for 3%, I'm sure other companies could do it for 4.5%, and the rest of my argument doesn't change at all. Though I do have an answer to "why"! It's because Apple claims they want to be in charge of payments to protect their users. Even if we ignore the "charge slightly more and make tons…

> Though I do have an answer to "why"! It's because Apple claims they want to be in charge of payments to protect their users. Even if we ignore the "charge slightly more and make tons of money" plan. There's a difference between being charging payments as a service and acting as a financial fiduciary on behalf millions of developers. I don't think you understand the legal gravity of the latter.

I'm merely suggesting they do the same thing they already do with payments, but skip the "downloadable in the app store" part.

Since the app store is apparently nine tenths of their fee.

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#436

Post by Kamq »

mbesto wrote: post #427
Kamq wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can have run a company for zero profit and it can still be a benefit to society, so no the "purpose of a company is to make profit" is not necessarily true. On one hand, fair. Technically correct. On the other hand basically all laymen use the word "company" to mean for-profit corporation, and pretty much everyone who wants to talk about corporations that are designed not to make a profit use the term "non-prof…

> I think you've ignored the context in which the comment was made. I would argue you did. The parent was being pedantic about the saying "revenue solves everything" and tried to make seem as if profit is the be-end-all. My overall point is still consistent with Drucker's "the purpose of a company is to create customers". If you're in a bull market and you hire like crazy to achieve the creation of customers, then hi…

> and tried to make seem as if profit is the be-end-all

That statement was paired with a teleological statement about the purpose of a company. When paired with the common usage of the word "company", the statement becomes tautological. Admittedly, this isn't the most insightful realization ever, but the point from the comment was that people forget that a profit needs to be extracted.

> My overall point is still consistent with Drucker's "the purpose of a company is to create customers".

And, pray-tell, why do you think companies want customers, if not for eventual profit?

> Amazon ran without profit for 10 years. Did we magically call them a non-profit for 10 years and then a company thereafter?

Amazon made an intentional decision to re-invest profits, as a gamble that it would lead to greater profits later. That's not refraining from profit, but just operating on a time-scale that isn't quarter to quarter.

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#437

Post by hnfong »

1sembiyan wrote: post #290
neom wrote: post #111

Apple went public in 1980, Google went public in 2004. Apple has seen many more cycles than Google and Amazon. I'd suggest they're a little more gelled out?

This doesn’t explain Microsoft, which is just as old and laid off as much people.

Apple had a near death experience in the 1990s.

Microsoft was profitable all along (I think).

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#438

Post by sam0x17 »

azinman2 wrote: post #177
sam0x17 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No no they should have never had it above 10% to begin with. The case with Epic never should have needed to happen. They've been over-extended all along.

I think you lack a lot of historic perspective of how software was sold and distributed, and the cuts involved.

As a solo developer at the time, I was astounded by the 30% cut when it first came out in the early 2000s and I'm still just as astounded now.

Re: Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon

#439

Post by smm11 »

bgm1975 wrote: post #208
smm11 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a very dark era for Apple, but the Power Computing years were the best time to be an Apple fanboy IMO. You had commodity firebreathing PC hardware running OS 8 better than Macs did, more ports and connectivity, the software was best-in-class, and this was the era with no spyware, telemetry and all the BS we face now. And yes, I was still buying legit Macs and software, and a lot of stock when it was at $11. It…

Uhh, speak for yourself. As a fanboy myself back then, it was kinda terrifying. Sure Power Computing was able to bump the bus speed beyond what Apple seemed to to able to do, but they also cannibalized Apple’s hardware market which they needed to stay alive. Also it became clear that the wheels were falling off the “new” OS rewrite (Rhapsody) project with no real plan for remedying. It was scary times when Microsoft…

Rhapsody came about after Jobs came back, and after he ended the OS license debacle. The wayward OS was Copland.
Post reply on HN