Live data from Hacker News

On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

trashmoon.com

201–210 of 271 posts

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure that’s true some of the time. I wouldn’t say it’s true most of the time.

Perhaps your supposition should be put to the test.

Without access to a parallel universe generator, I don't see how you could. All I'm asserting is that I think that you can't reliably say that management or workers/employees are consistently in a better position to understand the best path forward for a company. Either one can be overly focused on replicating past success; either one can be wrong about opportunities for growth.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#202
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people always think it’s a good idea to unionize when a company is fighting for survival?

Because the people doing the work want a say in the overall direction of the company?

This sounds like a case for different corporate governance, yeah?

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#204
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious what you find enraging about this article. He clearly didn't want to go join another company – he joined Mapbox because he shared its early vision, and thought that original vision was worth fighting for.

He provides no ideas that would help the company succeed and find profitability. Only vague mention of returning to open source and that focusing on cars is bad because it bad for the environment. The company raised a huge amount of cash and needs to make money to survive. The mistake was probably raising too much money. So somehow, he thinks that the projects his colleagues „believe in“ are going to be more profitab…

> He provides no ideas that would help the company succeed and find profitability. Only vague mention of returning to open source and that focusing on cars is bad because it bad for the environment.

That doesn't strike me as the point of the blog post. He's not trying to tell us all the things he would have done differently, he's telling us what went wrong and why he left.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#206
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people always think it’s a good idea to unionize when a company is fighting for survival?

Maybe because the leadership is actively undermining the survival? From this case alone, it seems possible that the Mapbox leadership is chasing a hopeless strategy by focusing on the auto industry, which is dominated by other much larger companies.

A union can't fix that scenario. You need a coop with employee ownership to have any influence over the business.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#207
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having companies be employee-owned (which is commonly referred to as a worker co-op) is absolutely a political topic -- implementing policies to allow more companies to become worker-owned was part of the UK Labour Party's manifesto in 2017. Just because something is political doesn't make it bad.

What government policies are standing in the way of worker co-ops?

[deleted]

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#208
post #34

I'm saddened by what happened to Mapbox. It's such a recurring pattern of organizational transformation: from a small "mission-driven" group building cool shit that starts taking money (and pressure from investors) and slowly erodes their past core values, changing into a faceless money-making machine subservient to some huge market or industry. In that process most of the original opinionated crowd will slowly rotat…

This process reoccurs for a reason. Understanding that helps mitigate the loss, and possibly also helps new companies avoid the problem.

Basically it happens when people start needing money for life, and that need becomes more pressing than idealism.

Consider the start of your career, maybe you came from school or college, probably you had _very_ low money needs. You may have had subsidised living (living with parents, student loans etc.). You live in a world where money isn't as important, you have no obligations, you are as idealistic as you'll ever be.

At this point your world is "open source" - everything should be free, make the world a better place. It's not hard to find like-minded people, join companies with like-minded founders.

But life happens. You have expenses. Relationships, kids, obligations. If you have employees you have to make payroll. Some might call it "growth" - some might call it "growing up" - really its just discovering (and losing) some of those subsidies you took for granted.

Crucially it happens at different rates for different people. So inevitably there's friction - this isn't the company I joined - and so on.

It's hard for employees to understand the pressures that come with being an employer. Pressures that lead to decisions an employer would rather not have to make. Pressure to make payroll. Pressure to somehow make it work. Seeing the car park and realise the number of people dependant on making that work.

To an employee every decision looks like maximising profit. And in some companies that is true. In others its about maximising income, income to pay everyone, income to keep the lights on, income to build reserves to weather the storms.

Employees have the luxury of quietly looking elsewhere. Once they're set then can simply leave. Employers don't have that luxury.

Unions, especially unions belonging to one specific business, not industry wide, are not a bad thing. But a seat at the table means understanding the responsibility of that table - and the need to satisfy the needs of all, not just your own. I've seen unions be a huge asset, I've seen them destroy factories and industries.

Yes companies pivot from open source all the time, because yes they need to "capture" value - because at some point costs, and life, catch up and unfortunately "giving it away for free" doesn't really pay the bills.

Re: On leaving Mapbox after 12 years

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shinkansen is comfortable than airline, no annoying inspection, almost no wait, and utilization is high enough. So technically it should be priced higher than airline, but I also feel it's weird that high CO2 emission airline is cheaper than lower emission train.

For whatever reason (probably just inertia), JR has been highly resistant to adopt dynamic pricing, so Shinkansen tickets costs the same regardless of whether you travel at absolute peak or when the trains are rattlingly empty. This is starting to crumble at the edges a little bit, and I expect advance-purchase fares to plunge if they ever do make the leap.

If you reserve tickets online ahead of time, you can almost always get the 30% discount now. Maybe what's what you mean by crumbling at the edges.
Post reply on HN