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

Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#691

Post by shimman »

stego-tech wrote: post #118
louiereederson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think as someone pointed out earlier, this is more likely about margin preservation as their gross margins are deteriorating really quickly.

Yeah, I wrote this before I dove into their balance sheets for another comment. Cloudflare’s cuts are more defensible than most, but the timing and explanation are shady given that they’ve had the same problems for years.

Turns out running a profitable business is really hard when all you've known was ZIRP.

Honestly think the business lessons from big tech over the last 20 years are hogwash, mostly due to them abusing their monopolies allowing them to subsidize failing BUs indefinitely.

37signals has a better approach to starting software companies, and many of their peers/near peers indicate that it's a better way to sustain lifestyle companies too.

Doesn't turn you into a billionaire tho, maybe that's a plus.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#693

Post by Snoozle »

lijok wrote: post #415
Snoozle wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentence is not confusing, the sentence doesn't mean anything. There's nothing confusing about it, but there's no information either. "We're making great strides in AI" and "We need to cut 20% of people" are simply two statements without any connection aside from the fact that they are next to each other in the sentence.

Or maybe you don’t understand what it means because you’re not the target audience?

Enlighten me then as to the secret meaning behind the words used to communicate in the language we call English. Saying that AI is really transforming the company is fine. Saying that 20% of staff need to be laid off is fine. Those are understood terms. How do they relate? There's no explanation. Did cost need to be reduced? Did those people no longer add value? Was there certain projects that weren't profitable? Nothing is explained because meaning is avoided.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#694

Post by shimman »

punkbit wrote: post #656
pm90 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost 99% sure that They hired a consultant firm (MBB) that told them who to cut; this is pretty standard practice now at public tech corps. Especially if EMs weren’t in the loop. This looks like purely a margin improvement exercise thats hiding weaknesses in the company’s financial performance.

Wow! Is there any good read on that, like even if a "YouTube" show or something? This is quite interesting.

Yeah, honestly this is where LLMs shine since they were trained on so many MBA/HBS materials. Just remember to ask your questions in a way that praises neoliberalism and you'll unlock even more secrets about how they fuck over and alienate workers.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#695

Post by throwaway2037 »

NewJazz wrote: post #342
throwaway2037 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will reply here assuming that you posted with good intent. I think that their PR statement is reasonable from an investor perspective. Try to detach yourself from the personal effects of layoffs. In short, they are saying: Thanks to AI, we don't need as many people to run our business. It is pretty clear to me. Sure, you can be angry about the layoffs, but the economics are clear: AI is increasing profitability fas…

As an investor, it sounds fucking stupid. They aren't dogfooding, they're eating all the dogs' food. They fired some talented folks. Folks who could be retrained. Folks whose experience snd expertise is valuable. Don't kid yourself.

    > They fired some talented folks. Folks who could be retrained.
I see this sentiment a lot on HN. To be clear, I am responding from the perspective of US labor law and general business practices. Employment is not a sacred right in the US. The US system is (larely) hire and fire easily. As a result, the US economy is mildly unstable for the middle class normies (much, much less stable that most other highly developed nations with strong labor laws -- most of G7/G20), but overall wildly dynamic for a large economy.

"They fired some talented folks."

Sure. That is guaranteed with large layoffs. I work in an insanely competitive industry, and there are annual culls each autumn of the bottom 5%. Few are surprised by who gets cut. What is harder to forsee is a business downturn and they need to layoff X% of staff. You see good people let go. That's just life in that kind of system.

"Folks who could be retrained."

Again, in the US, for white-collar office workers, this almost never happens, and surely not for very highly skilled software developers (probably most of the layoffs at Cloudflare). It is not required by law, and it is not a common business practice in the US.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#697

Post by throwaway2037 »

weakfish wrote: post #660
simianwords wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a low quality comment that doesn't address the simple explanation: more productivity means fewer people are required.

Disagreement != low quality, and that explanation is incredibly naive and simplistic

I would say the GP's phrase: "more productivity means fewer people are required" is perfect summary of my opinion (and post). Sure, you can flesh if out, but that is crux of my argument.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#698

Post by xp84 »

sokoloff wrote: post #599
echelon wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How exactly would you ask this in an interview setting? You now know which companies do this. Every company laying off now has to wear a Scarlett Letter: "we're a layoffs company".

Good luck working in tech for a company that's never done a layoff. Just Apple (and even there only "mostly") among big tech?

I thought it was hilarious when they did their layoff a couple years ago just because everyone else was. It was portrayed by their announcement as though it was a business need that they tighten their belts, as though Apple, the company that makes twelve figures of profit every fiscal year were in some kind of tight cash flow situation. Really made it obvious that they saw the atmosphere as “good layoff weather.”

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#699

Post by jameshart »

echelon wrote: post #565
StilesCrisis wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly would you ask this in an interview setting? I'm baffled by the idea.

> How exactly would you ask this in an interview setting? You now know which companies do this. Every company laying off now has to wear a Scarlett Letter: "we're a layoffs company".

There are two kinds of tech company.

Companies which have done a layoff

And companies which haven’t done a layoff yet.

Re: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce

#700

Post by throwaway2037 »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #434
brailsafe wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a somewhat traditional suggestion with a potentially massive financial and time commitment. Not that it's not something to do, but why do you think that's the move right now , especially since they're clearly established in their career and nobody cares about it after a few years?

Not the GP, but I think the reason is, that right now it's super hard to get a new job, because of so many things, but mostly, because of AI craze and tanking economies. Bridging that time with a degree is not the worst idea, if you can afford it.

Exactly right. Also, since this person works in the United States, it will make it easier to get re-employed because you will have the university degree. I know HN really dislikes the economic/skill signalling around university degrees in the United States, but it hard to avoid/ignore.
Post reply on HN