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

Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

farewell.bostonunitygroup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 465 posts

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#291

Post by roughly »

worldsayshi wrote: post #270
nitwit005 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, I just assume that no company can be trusted these days. It wasn't too long ago that the leadership of companies was often fairly stable. Now you see people rotating through every couple of years, rarely having to face the fallout of their bad decisions.

Is there a reason for this trend? Why does so many companies seem to have stopped caring about their long term reputation?

Because the owners are not in it for the long term. It’s an agent problem - if they can take a company with a 2% profit margin and juice that up to 10%, they’ve captured 5 years worth of profits in a single year. If it takes 5 years for the market to catch on that the company’s gone to hell, that’s 25 years worth of profits available for stock buybacks-err, new investments. The company’s dead within a decade, but the owners and investors got a bucket full of cash.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#292

Post by [deleted] »

jandrese wrote: post #284
sokoloff wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. Someone returned a drill bit (a wear item) for replacement? Crap like that is why companies have walked away from consumer-biased warranty policies. LLBean had to change theirs as well: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-ll-bean-changed-its-retu...

I’d totally bring one back if it failed because they forgot to harden it or something. Put it in some wood and the first time you use it the threads reverse because the metal is so soft.

[deleted]

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#293

Post by webworker »

aetherspawn wrote: post #178
ChicagoDave wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got food poisoning from a very well known fast food chain about 25 years ago. I haven’t eaten there since. Unity just gave every one of their developers food poisoning. I suspect similar results.

I’ve been food poisoned from KFC probably 10 times, but I still eat there once or twice a fortnight for the last IDK 20 years. Because they have the cheap crispy chicken.

You can probably get that for much cheaper and better quality from your local grocery store chain’s deli.

When I still worked in an office, the grab and go section at the grocery market really helped me cut down on food costs/expenses. I use the grocery story grab and gos on roadtrips too. Bathrooms, massive food and drink selection (with alternatives to pop), good quality and at better price than you’d get from any fast food chain. Publix, Big Y, Meijers are all favorites for me.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#294

Post by webworker »

SecretDracula wrote: post #258
aetherspawn wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been food poisoned from KFC probably 10 times, but I still eat there once or twice a fortnight for the last IDK 20 years. Because they have the cheap crispy chicken.

KFC really isn't cheap anymore. I went there the other day with some friends and was aghast at the prices. We left and went across the parking lot to the grocery store and got a big platter of fried chicken and a tub of slaw for less than half the price.

That’s what I’m talking about!

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#295

Post by MattRix »

Willish42 wrote: post #45

I wish I had a large enough Twitter following to make a public claim about this before Unity "went back" on the first version of the recently-announced pricing changes, but I was nearly certain this was an intentional move to make the "Update on our update" second version more palatable. There's probably a wiki link somewhere to the Proper Noun PR phenomenon in business school for this strategy, but the "terrible pla…

There is no way this was intentional. First you’d have to argue that only the top execs were aware of this, because a bunch of Unity employees quit due to this. Secondly, if it was a form of anchoring, they did it in the worst possible way. The problem wasn’t really the numbers, it was the base idea of using installs and having it apply retroactively. If they had just wanted to anchor they could have come out with a plan at 5% revshare or something.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#296

Post by _gabe_ »

SecretDracula wrote: post #262
015a wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could argue that Microsoft's "no game sharing" decision at the beginning of Xbox One, right off the heals of a generation that experienced both high success, but also extremely high costs (RROD recalls, estimates say it cost them over $1.1B), was a bigger one. It seems unnaturally likely to me that single decision by Mattrick's Xbox leadership is the largest component to Xbox One's relatively lower success (58M s…

The dumbest thing about Microsoft's "no game sharing" thing is that they could have just waited. Digital game sales made up 90% of game sales in 2022, which can't be shared. People don't really seem to care about not being able to share games, but they hate being told they can't do something.

You can share digital games. The PS5 allows you to share games with one other console if your account is logged in on that console. Steam allows you to share games with friends (or family I can’t remember). You and your friend just can’t play the same game at the same time, which is the same way it would be if you shared a disc anyways.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#297

Post by dragonwriter »

_gabe_ wrote: post #296
SecretDracula wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dumbest thing about Microsoft's "no game sharing" thing is that they could have just waited. Digital game sales made up 90% of game sales in 2022, which can't be shared. People don't really seem to care about not being able to share games, but they hate being told they can't do something.

You can share digital games. The PS5 allows you to share games with one other console if your account is logged in on that console. Steam allows you to share games with friends (or family I can’t remember). You and your friend just can’t play the same game at the same time, which is the same way it would be if you shared a disc anyways.

> Steam allows you to share games with friends (or family I can’t remember). You and your friend just can’t play the same game at the same time, which is the same way it would be if you shared a disc anyways.

Steam doesn’t allow you to share specific games, only your entire library (excluding any games that the seller has made unsharable.)

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#299

Post by Zuiii »

insanitybit wrote: post #191
withinboredom wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people are stupid. Never underestimate stupidity. In all seriousness, it’s just that the AGPL considers network use to be distribution and thus entitled to the source[ https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misu... ] This terrifies people for some reason. Basically because they want the freedom to modify open source projects and call it their own without giving back to the project that actual…

The stupid people are lawyers and they definitely seem to think they have a good reason.

All stupid people think they are right. Give me one concrete AGPL case that justifies their aversion.

Anyway, it's their loss.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#300

Post by plagiarist »

linkdd wrote: post #33
nottorp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even when open-source, it's only a matter of time before an Oracle or Google or Microsoft or Meta takes it over Except you can fork the last open source version and continue as before. See ... mariadb?

MariaDB, OpenTofu, etc... Those are the exceptions. Forking is easy. Maintaining a fork, keeping the quality and innovation alive, and the community involved is hard. There are many more failed forks than successful forks. So saying "you can fork" is utopist at best. Sure you can, but you'll probably be the only one maintaining it and it will slowly rot as there won't be a community to keep it bug-free and compatible…

What are some examples of open source projects that were taken over and the licensing modified where no successful fork managed to emerge?
Post reply on HN