61–70 of 288 posts
Grindr went public via a SPAC acquisition last November and has lost 90% of its value since. I'm gonna go ahead and say it's a bad move to make RTO demands from your staff when they already see no future at the company and have one foot out the door. The company's problems will be solved by better leadership, decision making, product vision, adaptability and faster execution...not more butts in seats at the office.
I doubt most tech execs would have the wherewithal to make this kind of decision but it's clearly the case that many big tech cos staffed up too hard during the pandemic with average salary per employee rising too much
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think I even find it a little disturbing that fees paid to Apple and Google are higher than salary paid to staff. Well it's 30% of their revenue right off the top.
Which implies that staffing is less than 30% which means .... where is the other 40% going?!?!? Edit: unless advertising spend on the platforms is being counted ...
I was surprised they are trading publicly.
How many engineers does it take to lose chats, give bots unfettered access, not back up my messages, and spam me with low quality ads? It’s worth pointing out that the fees they charge for the premium subscription are absolutely outrageous. $20-$40 PER MONTH. I guess they just added a web client, which absolutely no one needs, that probably cost a pretty penny. Scruff makes a drastically better product at similar sca…
> Staffing is the “single biggest cost” after fees paid to app distribution platforms like Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google, according to Arison. This is a hilarious quote. It's a software company! What other major costs are there besides the staff to make and manage the software? I think I even find it a little disturbing that fees paid to Apple and Google are higher than salary paid to staff.
I wonder how much money Apple and Google make per hookup. I think there is a name for this kind of business.
Not sure that it's such a great business decision to lose almost half your staff, and probably moreso the higher-performing ones with other options. I'm guessing that this was intended to reduce the headcount without paying severance, which sounds attractive to the average MBA brain with zero ability to think through long-term consequences.
> " with zero ability to think through long-term consequences" The median tenure in tech is one to two years before moving on to another team or company [1]. You need to say that what you care about is long term, but that's now how we're compensated (read: incentivised). Plus you're not there to see it anyways so there are really very little incentives to think long term. [1] some googling but couldn't find a great s…
Note that individuals who switch jobs often inherently will figure in a higher number of tenures that you’re taking the median of here. This means the majority of software engineers will actually have a longer tenure.
Not sure that it's such a great business decision to lose almost half your staff, and probably moreso the higher-performing ones with other options. I'm guessing that this was intended to reduce the headcount without paying severance, which sounds attractive to the average MBA brain with zero ability to think through long-term consequences.
> The West Hollywood, California-based company also gave a severance package to staff who were unable to relocate, in what the CWA alleged was an attempt “to silence workers from speaking out about their working conditions,” according to a statement from the organization.
Not sure that it's such a great business decision to lose almost half your staff, and probably moreso the higher-performing ones with other options. I'm guessing that this was intended to reduce the headcount without paying severance, which sounds attractive to the average MBA brain with zero ability to think through long-term consequences.
> " with zero ability to think through long-term consequences" The median tenure in tech is one to two years before moving on to another team or company [1]. You need to say that what you care about is long term, but that's now how we're compensated (read: incentivised). Plus you're not there to see it anyways so there are really very little incentives to think long term. [1] some googling but couldn't find a great s…
on-topic:
1. this move assures that all/most unionising employees quit;
2. given the 90% stock drop, will make this quarter look stellar (less salaries, more profit).
to the people resigning: power is taken, not given!