31–40 of 215 posts
This pairs well with: 1 - Microsoft investing 3bn USD in India-based developers: https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-invest-3-bln-ex... 2 - Microsoft having 4700 H1B filings for fiscal 2025: https://www.myvisajobs.com/employer/microsoft/ Utterly predictable behavior by Satya Nadella.
Layoffs are planned in India too.
Xbox has really become a sore point in the MS portfolio. Their pivot to a marketplace model where their games run everywhere is an admission that they lost the race to Sony. Block buster acquisition like Activision further have exacerbated their conundrum. What Xbox is now can be done by a much smaller number of people.
>Their pivot to a marketplace model where their games run everywhere is an admission that they lost the race to Sony. Don Mattrick has a lot to answer for. Microsoft was killing it during the seventh generation and he was able to burn everything down over a period of two days. Xbox never recovered after that.
For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them g…
I know, I know, "union bad." I guess people will say that until all that is left is a person to watch the Machine, and a dog to bite the person if they touch the Machine. Or all the jobs are offshored to the cheapest labor on the globe.
I suspect it’s related to the stock buyback safe harbor rule (Rule 10b-18.) Layoff announcements used to be a sign of a company in crisis, now the stock price often immediately rises, perhaps because shareholders are anticipating a short-term windfall.
- Revenue was $69.6 billion and increased 12%
- Operating income was $31.7 billion and increased 17% (up 16% in constant currency)
- Net income was $24.1 billion and increased 10%
For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them g…
Talking about stock price is in fact indication of layoffs being working not other way round. I don't think people are arguing against "job is just a paycheck" in last 5 years. In the same vein for company "employee is just a cost". Union may save job for few who have job but people who don't (and they are lot more and increasing) are not gonna get helped by any union.
Note that in some countries, unions extend to cover workers who are not even part of the union. Heard about this from some french friends:
> Collective bargaining agreements (conventions collectives) may be negotiated between employers and labour unions covering a company or group of companies (accords d’entreprise), or between employers’ associations and labour unions covering an industry as a whole; in the latter case, the government may decide that the collective agreement covers even those employers who are not members of the employers’ association and is therefore mandatory throughout the industry.
https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publication...
Not saying it's the right solution for $COUNTRY, but I was certainly surprised when I heard of this
For the most part, I'm indifferent to layoffs. Companies over hire and then course correct. It's part of the game. But for MSFT, it rubs me the wrong way. In the past 5 years, their stock has soared (150% on stock and doubled in valuation). They are insanely profitable ($82B profit). They are diverse (no existential business risk). The fact that they are unceremoniously laying off 30K of the people that helped them g…
Didn't Satya or somebody state in recent months that it was a tactic to get rid of low performers? I believe Meta is doing something similar. Edit: Allegedly not. https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-microsoft-c... "Nadella addressed the recent layoffs, clarifying that the decision was not based on individual job performance. “This is a structural change, not a reflection of how people were performing,” N…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't Satya or somebody state in recent months that it was a tactic to get rid of low performers? I believe Meta is doing something similar. Edit: Allegedly not. https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-microsoft-c... "Nadella addressed the recent layoffs, clarifying that the decision was not based on individual job performance. “This is a structural change, not a reflection of how people were performing,” N…
Also, if it were actually about "low performers", this wouldn't be in the news. They'd just be terminated during/before perf review.
Unfortunately, I have never seen a layoff only remove weak people. Plenty of good gets thrown out with the bad every single time. The only signal I take from someone being laid off is that they were unlucky and probably not a total sycophant.