I like how the verb in the headline evolves every time I see this story. First he was surprised. Then he was shocked. Now he's alarmed. Maybe I'll check back tomorrow and learn he's horrified!
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
573 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
60016 readers
3015 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
slammed
This just means "to insult". Not exactly interchangeable with "overcome with a negative emotion".
But yes, I fucking hate this kind of hyperbole in news headlines. The other one I see is blasts like somebody legit fired a Kamehameha wave at somebody else.
CEO slammed with negative emotions after realizing layoffs have consequences
This is one of the most absurd examples I’ve ever seen. This shit drives me crazy.
They knew what they were doing... They had to. Lol
Flabbergasted!
Flummoxed!
Gobsmacked!
Bewildered, even!
Gutted
Especially when these whole articles revolve around couple sentences in an earnings call which were basically "it had a bigger effect than we expected, but we're doing okay now." I'm sure as an excuse for lower than expected profits in that period.
This guy needs to slam somebody.
Fuck I hate that word now
It's just another example of news orgs running interference for a twenty-something dbag "entrepreneur"who has no idea how his business works.
one can only dream!
Layoffs are a leadership failure so should always be accompanied by firing them too
Not to his paycheck, it didn't.
They only do this for end of year bonuses for shareholders and the C level folks. They don't give a single shit about who it affects. People's lives were ruined over this.
It's just insane to me that it even takes 1500 people to run Spotify to begin with
Techwise it probably doesn't, but then there's marketeers, sales, accountants, legal, etc...
It's the music industry. Probably 50% lawyers.
People think that because you can build a Spotify clone with two sticks and a heroku subscription it must not need a lot of people to work on. It's what Elon said about Twitter prior to buying it and gutting all the features.
These apps are first and foremost businesses with legal, HR, and all sorts of other roles before you get to product. And the products are so mature, so complex, that you need dozens of teams to cover the entire thing
Why not? Some companies do have a fraction of Spotify users and have around 100 software engineers. Things do not run by themselves. Also they are in many countries so you need to keep up with legal changes...
I can see the need for those engineers but more importantly, Spotify needs sales people.
Spotify is also a record label now. They probably need an entire division devoted just to the marketing and strategy needed to make that successful
ACAB.
Eat Billionaires.
Capitalism Sucks.
The three tenants of modern life.
Tenets*
But don't sack your tenants. They need a place to live.
I think a fourth tenet may be that the people who have tenants are the scum of the earth.
Burning landlords and the properties they use to kludge the poor is basically seizing the means of production.
Except David; he keeps leaving a big blue box in the lounge room.
He and the shareholders still made a ton of money. They will do it again so they can make a ton more money.
He doesn't care and never will.
Firing him would have a negligible effect. Bet.
i tought this was the onion for a second
God damn, capitalists can be so fucking stupid.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In December, music streaming giant Spotify fired 1,500 workers, a cohort amounting to a staggering 17 percent of its total workforce at the time.
On an investor call this week following Spotify's Q1 report, the streaming CEO admitted that while the layoffs were the "right strategic decision," firing 1,500 employees "did disrupt our day-to-day operations more than we anticipated."
"It took us some time to find our footing," Ek continued, according to Fortune, "but more than four months into this transition, think we're back on track."
And sometimes, it's true that companies do over-hire — a reality exemplified by the tech industry, which saw record layoffs last year after a decade of fairly steady workforce increases furthered by the industry's pandemic hiring boom.
Because copyright exists, access to an endless music library isn't cheap.
"On the surface," Spotify's business model "looks great," Simon Dyson, senior principal analyst at the consultancy firm Omdia, told Wired last year following Ek's layoff announcement.
The original article contains 403 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Only 1499 next time please!
xmanager