71–80 of 288 posts
And why did they resign and not wait to get fired? Is that a us thing?
> 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.
[1] https://help.grindr.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500008656241-Grin...
[2] https://help.grindr.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500008656741-Grin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm guessing that this was intended to reduce the headcount without paying severance The employees were planning to unionize, and the RTO plan "conveniently" came up right at that time. These are pretty classic union-busting techniques. I'm actually pretty nervous for users from a security perspective. The Grindr data is essentially a blackmail gold mine - combine a ton of disgruntled employees with the loss of exp…
I'm not sure if unionization plans came before or after the RTO plans. If it was before, I'd actually consider it a new union-busting technique.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a software company! But it's not actually a software company.
What are they? Edit: as the saying goes, people don't want a drill, they want a hole. So if Grindr isn't a software company but a matchmaker that happens to write software (or CaaS/PaaS), then I don't know who truly is a software company. Microsoft is a productivity company, Amazon is a retailer & B2B services company, Google is an advertiser, and so on.
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 ...
Looks like the stock is up 11% on this news. Does this and the the staff cuts at X demonstrate you can take out significant numbers of engineer without drastically impairing the user experience? 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
Whether it's because they believe correctly that Grindr is overstaffed, believe incorrectly that Grindr is overstaffed, or just intend to sell again before the consequences become clear is something that will only become clear in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a software company! But it's not actually a software company.
What are they? Edit: as the saying goes, people don't want a drill, they want a hole. So if Grindr isn't a software company but a matchmaker that happens to write software (or CaaS/PaaS), then I don't know who truly is a software company. Microsoft is a productivity company, Amazon is a retailer & B2B services company, Google is an advertiser, and so on.
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.
Being that the job market is currently favoring employers over employees, I'd say they'll likely have no trouble finding new staff that has no problem with working in the office. They still have enough staff to get the new folks trained up. This would have hurt them a few years ago, but not now.
The reason you hire software engineers on salary instead of just hiring contractors is because you need vessels to store knowledge in. That knowledge can be passed down and maintained with a relatively low rate of turnover, which is the opposite of "in 2 days we're replacing half our workforce".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> " 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…
> The median tenure in tech is one to two years before moving on to another team or company [1]. 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.
> 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.
That phrasing is obnoxious. Say it like it is - it's the "second biggest cost."