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

Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 223 posts

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#211

Post by ghshephard »

samstave wrote: post #149
ghshephard wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I had a conversation with a Zynga employee last night, who is pretty happy about leaving the company. In particular, he wants to go do something he believes in, and to quote him, "and i don't hugely believe in selling virtual cows" So - to some degree, the crash and possible termination of Zynga's business model, enables these people to escape the company. If the stock had value, th…

When i worked for a company that was acquired by Lockheed Martin, immediately upon the announcement of acquisition, several employees resigned saying they could not knowing work for a war monger. Their conviction was greater than the potential wealth and very commendable. Your comment insinuates that these employees had no morals and were freed by the failure. This is actually a fucked up position. There are many fac…

Hi Sam - I sense you have a lot of anger here, and most of it is probably pretty valid. Money is a funny thing - when you've got a $600K mortgage, and a couple kids heading off to college with $45K/year tuition, and your company gets acquired by Zynga, and you discover you have $500K worth of options that will mature if you stick around for a couple years, or you can walk away from all that, and go get a job as a $120K developer somewhere - well, let's just say it's very tempting to justify selling virtual cows for a couple years.

Understand there is a difference between working for a lame company, and a morally objectionable company.

I could make an argument that what Zynga did with Tiny Towers/Dream Heights wasn't that much different than what Samsung did with it's Galaxy Tab/iPad. In both cases, these companies took another product as an example, and put their own spin on it.

Neither of them is really "morally reprehensible" - but, if you want to do original work, or make the world a better place, there are probably other places you can work - and taking money out of the equations makes it that much easier.

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#212

Post by tatsuke95 »

bduerst wrote: post #209
tatsuke95 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Ponzi scheme inolves paying returns to investors out of the investment capital of subsequent investors. That's the definition. The executives and VCs of Zynga built up a product and took their returns from the public by selling the public shares, which is a right to the future profits of the company[1]. Only, it turns out that those with the best knowledge of the inner working of the company probably knew there wer…

By your convoluted logic, the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme. Buying a share does not give you the right to future profits in a company. It gives you ownership and control over a percentage of the corporation, and does not guarantee a dividend. By selling shares to the public, the shareholders are trading control of the company for money with the public investor. Whether or not they bought a lemon is the fault…

>the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme

It isn't "my logic", it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme: early investors were paid out by later investors, with the bottom falling out for the later investors. That hasn't happened, because the story is still unwinding. It might not ever happen. It will only be obvious in hindsight.

Besides, I own many stocks, and they return income to me.

>Buying a share does not give you the right to future profits in a company. >it gives you ownership and control over a percentage of the corporation

For someone critical of "logic", those two statements contradict each other.

A company is expected to be profitable, and owning a stake in it entitles me to a share of those profits. What do you think Zynga is promising when they sell me a share of the company at IPO? Do you really think they are saying, "Here's part of this company. It might make money, or it might not, but perhaps someone will buy it from you for a higher price at a later date"?

Good luck with your portfolio if you base it on a different philosophy.

>Whether or not they bought a lemon is the fault of the public investor.

Well, I'm sure the SEC would disagree with you on that statement.

>It is _not_ a ponzi scheme, it is the exchange of assets.

One does not preclude the other. Ponzi's original fraud involved the exchange of assets. The scam is in what they tell me the asset is worth and what it is actually worth.

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#213

Post by EdiX »

w1ntermute wrote: post #176
ChuckMcM wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get mixed emotions. Yes, companies that do 'bad things' ideally are corrected out of existence by the market. I never like to see anyone lose their jobs, because at some level the rank and file of the company is the blood coursing through its veins. And as Marissa Meyer and others have re-iterated over the last few months, companies don't do thing people do things. So people who are getting things done and fighting…

> There was a guy at Sun whom I helped manage out of the organization, he landed a job at a start up that two months later got bought with a full vesting of everyone. He walked away with several million dollars. It took a lot of thinking about that series of events to let it sit in my head without pissing me off. Why did that piss you off? Sounds like it was a win-win situation for you and that guy.

I was under the impression that he had the guy fired for being incompetent/bad had the guy not been incompetent/bad the guy wouldn't have landed a job at the start up. In a way the guy got several million dollars because of his incompetence/badness like Mr. Magoo blindly walking out of a construction site.

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#214

Post by w1ntermute »

EdiX wrote: post #213
w1ntermute wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a guy at Sun whom I helped manage out of the organization, he landed a job at a start up that two months later got bought with a full vesting of everyone. He walked away with several million dollars. It took a lot of thinking about that series of events to let it sit in my head without pissing me off. Why did that piss you off? Sounds like it was a win-win situation for you and that guy.

I was under the impression that he had the guy fired for being incompetent/bad had the guy not been incompetent/bad the guy wouldn't have landed a job at the start up. In a way the guy got several million dollars because of his incompetence/badness like Mr. Magoo blindly walking out of a construction site.

I don't see how the other guy getting lucky hurts the OP. He was able to improve his team at Sun by getting rid of the guy, and that guy ultimately got rich anyway.

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#215

Post by bduerst »

tatsuke95 wrote: post #212
bduerst wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your convoluted logic, the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme. Buying a share does not give you the right to future profits in a company. It gives you ownership and control over a percentage of the corporation, and does not guarantee a dividend. By selling shares to the public, the shareholders are trading control of the company for money with the public investor. Whether or not they bought a lemon is the fault…

> the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme It isn't "my logic", it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme: early investors were paid out by later investors, with the bottom falling out for the later investors. That hasn't happened, because the story is still unwinding. It might not ever happen. It will only be obvious in hindsight. Besides, I own many stocks, and they return income to me. > Buying a share does not give…

>It isn't "my logic", it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme: early investors were paid out by later investors, with the bottom falling out for the later investors.

Definition [1]: A form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.

This is not what selling stock in an IPO is because stock is not non-existent. A share of equity is a very real asset. You are committing a No True Scotsman fallacy by trying to redefine the term to fit your needs.

>Besides, I own many stocks, and they return income to me.

Just because you own equity does not mean you are an expert. Case in point: You don't know the difference between company net income, returned earnings, and dividends.

>A company is expected to be profitable, and owning a stake in it entitles me to a share of those profits.

No it does not entitle you to a share of any net income.

All it entitles you to is vote of power. This is how corporations work. It's basic business, for christ's sake. [2]

>Well, I'm sure the SEC would disagree with you on that statement.

Why? Did Zynga falsify an annual filing or their 10-k? No? Then the SEC doesn't give a shit.

>One does not preclude the other.

Yes, it very much does, because in a ponzi scheme you give up your money to an investor for their service. In an IPO, you give up your money for shares of equity, which you sell later.

I'm not going to go in circles with you on this any longer. You've either have a case of confirmation bias or you're trolling. It's a shame because you're another example of a rational but unintelligent investor.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?oq=define%3Aponzi+scheme&s...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(finance)

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#217

Post by tatsuke95 »

bduerst wrote: post #215
tatsuke95 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the entire stock market is a ponzi scheme It isn't "my logic", it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme: early investors were paid out by later investors, with the bottom falling out for the later investors. That hasn't happened, because the story is still unwinding. It might not ever happen. It will only be obvious in hindsight. Besides, I own many stocks, and they return income to me. > Buying a share does not give…

>It isn't "my logic", it's the definition of a Ponzi scheme: early investors were paid out by later investors, with the bottom falling out for the later investors. Definition [1]: A form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors. This is not what selling stock in an IPO is because stock…

>This is not what selling stock in an IPO is because stock is not non-existent. You are committing a No True Scotsman fallacy by trying to redefine the term to fit your needs.

Wait a minute, you looked up a definition that used the specific term non-existent to bolster your argument, then accuse me of warping the definition?

In fact, there have been a variety of "Ponzi Scheme's" over the years, some of which have used stock, bank deposits and land.

>Case in point: You don't know the difference between company net income, returned earnings, and dividends.

Huh? Okay.

>Why? Did Zynga falsify an annual filing or their 10-k? No? Then the SEC doesn't give a shit.

I was talking about your statement, which is that:

"Whether or not they bought a lemon is the fault of the public investor."

Completely false, mainly because the public information is provided by the company. By the way, the SEC has looked into Zynga.

>I'm not going to go in circles with you on this any longer.

Good. I'm sure it's been exhausting for you, looking up all these finance terms on Google. Between the arrogance and personal attacks, you're not adding much here.

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#218

Post by Supreme »

tatsuke95 wrote: post #190
Supreme wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to read up on the tax avoidance and political lobbying which the Gates foundation is involved in. See: http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critiq...

> "tax avoidance and political lobbying" So with his vast fortune Gates ensures that he pays the minimum required in taxes (which may support policies he disagrees with), and instead spends money on policies he supports. That sounds perfectly rational.

It depends on your perspective, no?

If the perspective is that everything is disconnected and that you are more important than everyone else then yes, it does.

If one can see that all is connected and everything affects everything else then it makes very little sense. Those taxes pay for poor people's sustenance when they cannot work. They pay for people who can't afford private healthcare. It's rational to help them because more national unrest means more stress, less productivity and, in the end, less likelyhood of people buying your products.

The problem with being perfectly rational is that one may not consider the flaws in one's assumptions. Rationality is only as good as the information it's acting on and is not a silver bullet for making the right decisions. A blind man might conclude that while the sun may be hot at times, it's also extremely dark.

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#219

Post by tsotha »

StavrosK wrote: post #112
w1ntermute wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't it say in Valve's handbook (the one released earlier this year) that it doesn't actually consider itself to be a gaming company?

That doesn't make it true.

I wonder. They don't release a lot of titles. But Steam is a gold mine. I wouldn't be surprised if that's where most of the money comes from these days. If true they're really not a game company but rather a distribution company.

Re: Zynga May Have Just Laid Off 100+ Employees From Its Austin Office

#220

Post by tsotha »

001sky wrote: post #141
alaskamiller wrote: post #82

The irony of all this is that just less than 3 years ago Mark Pincus and Zynga was riding high. Pincus was voted as the CEO of the Year at the Crunchies. He was chosen to be the closer to Startup School, he projected Zynga as a place for people to want to go to there: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1041758 This is a story parallel to Lance Armstrong's own rise and fall. About how if you were to drill down, reall…

This is a story parallel to Lance Armstrong's own rise and fall. About how if you were to drill down, really drill down, to find the next ethical, justifiable company that used Facebook to great benefit for humanity you're going to be looking for the 27th, 28th, 29th place organizations. -- Interesting. If you look at the data, from 1996-2005 (10 Years) > source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/l…

>Top 3 x 10 years = 30 places Only 5 of these "places" were awarded to "clean riders", of which there were only 3.

I'm skeptical there were any clean riders. Those three may just be the ones that didn't get caught. Hell, Armstrong was under the microscope for a decade and it took a long time for the truth to come out.

Post reply on HN