Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction • Hacker News Board

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#891

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 9:43 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #645

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #466

Remember how there used to be a blog (or maybe it was a Tumblr, I forget) that documented every "Our incredible journey" post that inevitably announced the start-up's closure? I think we need another one for "An update from ", as this has seemingly become the standard subject to use when you're announcing layoffs or data breaches. I saw an identical headline earlier today from Sony announcing a studio closure: https:…

I always think it's a bit weird how people put so much effort and angst into (over)analyzing the language that execs use in layoff announcements in the first place. It's a layoff. Yeah, it sucks, and no matter what the CEO says people will be pissed. Better to just take the same good advice as when starting a new relationship: "Just ignore everything they say, and only consider what they do ." I.e. is the severance p…

>t's a bit weird how people put so much effort and angst into (over)analyzing the language that execs use in layoff announcements in the first place.

It's professional passive-aggression. That's more angering than just saying "we need more money, we are laying off people". That "language" is what you're expected to do in the office half your life and it's a tiring waste of time keeping up false pleasantries.

If you don't know, look up the Umbridge effect. Sometimes the petty evils that pretend to be civil stings harder than the pure evils. Not many of us have a Voldamort in our lives. We all have an Umbridge.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#892

Post by lazide » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 9:45 AM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #884

lazide wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait until you have to deal with child support and imputed income. Getting fired/laid off is about the only thing that can save you.

Can't relate, dating market is somehow worse than the job market.

Oh believe me, after the experience I’m talking about, the last thing you’ll want to do is date. At least, anyone who can find out where you live.

Maybe disappear into the woods, or change countries. Or self delete.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#893

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 9:45 AM UTC

elric wrote: post #90

I'm always a bit confused by profitable companies with (presumably) large reserves laying off lots of people. I get that they want to remain profitable. But sure 500ish people could be put to some use? A new product, a new market, a spinoff. Whatever? Are you telling me that no one in such a big, wealthy company of clever engineers has any use for a bunch of talented people?

We're in "safe money mode". A.K.A they want as few people working on as sure a bet as possible. Likely overworking those few people in the process.

>Are you telling me that no one in such a big, wealthy company of clever engineers has any use for a bunch of talented people?

not the shareholders. they never cared about clever engineering. Not unless [buzzword] is involved.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#894

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 9:48 AM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #555

crazygringo wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> once a piece of software became stable and profitable you would need a much smaller engineering staff than when it was being built This is not generally the case, except in monopoly situations. Your software product generally has a competitor, and they're busy trying to make theirs better than yours -- whether with more features, better integrations, whatever it is. So your staff size generally stays about the same…

> Your software product generally has a competitor, and they're busy trying to make theirs better than yours Unless you are selling a commodity. There is a good case to be made that what Dropbox sells is a commodity. > That's capitalism failing. That's government failing. 1. You can't dig the moats necessary to establish a monopoly without regulation to support it. 2. If/when the government screws up, the onus is on…

>There is a good case to be made that what Dropbox sells is a commodity.

Is there? I argue Drive and OneDrive surpassed Dropbox a while ago. Box is dirt cheap if you came in early as well (I still have some 50 GB forever deal from like, 2012). And there's a dozen others if you look into it. It's not very hard to drop any one cloud storage solution (or all of them if you invest in a NAS setup).

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#895

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 9:52 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #586

elric wrote: post #90

I'm always a bit confused by profitable companies with (presumably) large reserves laying off lots of people. I get that they want to remain profitable. But sure 500ish people could be put to some use? A new product, a new market, a spinoff. Whatever? Are you telling me that no one in such a big, wealthy company of clever engineers has any use for a bunch of talented people?

Interestingly enough, I once worked at a company that saw how huge amounts of money could be made taking the exact opposite approach. This all came about because this company had built a couple of hugely successful, and profitable, enterprise software products. So this company then decided to plow a ton of money into building out other products. The company was also pretty famous for having a high employee bar, and t…

> So this original company pivoted their business model: they went out to buy these "one hit wonder" software companies, immediately stopped any investment into other products, laid off as many people as possible and outsourced the operations and maintenance of the few successful products to low-cost locales (at the time, India and China) and then essentially just milked the subscription revenue until the product slowly petered out.

well that's just a dreadful experience. Couldn't innovate so they instead became a very alluring anglerfish with no intent to help stimulate the American economy at all. Successful and depressing business model indeed.

Such a shame how little respect tech gets unless we're spamming buzzwords to rich people. really ruined the reputation of "tech will make everyone's lives easier!"

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#896

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 9:55 AM UTC

qwe----3 wrote: post #789

aylmao wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with both comments. ~500 can surely build some amazing tech, smaller teams have done more. I personally do think there's still a lot of relatively low-hanging fruit left, especially with the boom of possibilities due to AI, or simply what one can do with modern CPU/GPU performance, new browser APIs, modern tech factors, etc. I also do agree and think leadership talent and vision in a lot tech companies is pai…

Not everyone is the type of person that can build a new product from scratch…, I bet the majority of the 500 aren’t that type

I mean, you don't hire 500 people to build something from scratch. You get at best 10 core leaders/founders for a tech, establish an MVP, then hire the other 490 to expand and scale.

Tho in honesty, 500 if overkill unless you really are tapping into some multi-disciplinary project that needs experts in a dozen backgrounds.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#897

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 9:58 AM UTC

RivieraKid wrote: post #238

elric wrote: post #90

I'm always a bit confused by profitable companies with (presumably) large reserves laying off lots of people. I get that they want to remain profitable. But sure 500ish people could be put to some use? A new product, a new market, a spinoff. Whatever? Are you telling me that no one in such a big, wealthy company of clever engineers has any use for a bunch of talented people?

Those employees were costing more than the value they were creating. If the marginal product of labor is lower than the marginal cost of labor, the company should reduce headcount. If higher, the company should increase headcount.

Yes, but not in a way that blames the workers. If a product improves but margins don't (because say, interest rates), you have employees who all perfomed above expectations that can still get taken off because the current environment can't make money on anything through consumers (who are getting less buying power and cutting non-essential services).

I'd hope tech workers on a community like this could empathize with other tech workers in such an environment.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#898

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 10:01 AM UTC

RivieraKid wrote: post #793

hmmm-i-wonder wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably the value they were creating was influenced by the direction and application that labor was directed at. Redirecting that available labor at something more valuable would fix that as well wouldn't it?

Yes, if there is something more valuable to redirect the labor to and my intuition is that there is not, I mean not in the Dropbox business. 2640 employees seems like a ridiculous number for a company like Dropbox. I work at a company that's about half of that and you wouldn't believe how many different services this company runs and I still think there's a lot of inefficiency.

If companies wanted efficiency, they coould probably spend $400k to 10 engineers and get the best of all worlds. That's going to be cheaper than hiring a team of 50 @100k of varying quality.

Except when the engineer leaves for a $500k postion. Companies basically moved towards this churn market in a way not as far off from an assembly line as you'd expect. They prefer some inefficiency if the cogs are easier to replace every 1-2 years.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#899

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 10:04 AM UTC

beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #437

ramraj07 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often they target the lowest performers for such layoff. Of course they rarely succeed in doing that, but the idea is that these people should have been let go anyway but weren’t for various reasons.

> Often they target the lowest performers for such layoff. In my experience, this is often an after-the-fact rationalization by people who "survive" layoffs to explain them, and a convenient justification by leadership for layoffs. If you've ever been in the room when layoffs are planned or discussed, the actual process is way more focused on blunt cost, personality of the people involved or on the chopping block, an…

I've heard secondhand that a few layoffs of star players was as messed up as "well Suzy is pregnant, but we need to axe someone else to justifty it as being coincidental". It shouldn't be surprising at this point, but companies can and do go that far sometimes just to cover their tracks. slicing their nose off to spite the pimple.

Re: Dropbox announces 20% global workforce reduction

#900

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Oct 31, 2024, 10:06 AM UTC

Ray20 wrote: post #661

elric wrote: post #90

I'm always a bit confused by profitable companies with (presumably) large reserves laying off lots of people. I get that they want to remain profitable. But sure 500ish people could be put to some use? A new product, a new market, a spinoff. Whatever? Are you telling me that no one in such a big, wealthy company of clever engineers has any use for a bunch of talented people?

>bunch of talented people Very bold assumption

Why do people still think like this? Have we not had enough layoffs these years from nearly all companies in tech with so many configurations to realize that this isn't just targeting new or incompetent people?