41–43 of 43 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> more importantly, insiders have been selling a ton Hired execs always do that because they are paid in stock. They couldn’t even afford to pay their taxes without doing that.
silver lake is a private equity firm, pretty famous on hacker news
Also Sequoia lent Unity 1 billion (using convertible notes which will be exchanged for stock at maturity) to finance the IronSource deal. Why would they do that?
So they rolled back the most abusive aspects of the new fees but are still going forward with some fees... Seems like they win on the end. Looks to me like the good old strategy of we'll start with a very high proposal then come back with a more watered down version thst people will accept as being more reasonnable than the initial terms. But they still get to charge more and seem reasonnable doing so.
I just don't see how anyone can trust them after that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Downvotes notwithstanding, the reality is that Unity is not profitable . They desperately need a revenue stream. And sure, they should have gone with plain old revenue sharing from the get go ("we get X% of your sales, so if you sell nothing, we get nothing, and if you move 2 million units, we get an amount you can quite easily part with"), instead they came up with a batshit insane plan, and their CEO should have be…
Unity having financial trouble is like a shovel-factory going bankrupt during a gold rush. It means they screwed up /pretty/ bad on the business side... You likely don't need 7000 people to build a top-notch game engine, and likely invested way too much in side-bets which haven't panned out.