Bloomberg IS a tech company. But the journalists obviously don't mingle with that part.
I'm reminded of how often I had to read about "tech companies vs. telcos", "tech companies vs. ISPs" during the net neutrality discussion, or "tech company vs. car company" for AVs, or "tech company vs. broadcaster" for streaming/advertising...
This is like saying Microsoft is a charity - worst joke I heard in Sept 2022.
" Bloomberg developed and built his own computerized system to provide real-time market data, financial calculations and other financial analytics to Wall Street firms. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P.
Microsoft's original thing was NOT philanthropy.
To me it seems this is what happened to Larry & Sergey, too.
I fixed a redundancy for you.
Otherwise, spot on, and if I had one of those vinyl printers my wife uses to put things like “Home is where your heart is” on the wall, I’d print this, and hang it secretly on the bathroom walls at work.
I’m experiencing this right now sadly. Came to work at a company a decade ago with a lot of equality and flat/low management. Engineers of various disciplines were predominantly middle/older, so there was a sense of “we’re all adults here” and it’s worked pretty well for a long time. But as staff is retiring and the business is growing because it forking worked well, the cry for more middle management to “scale” has been heard. Need point people. Points of responsibility. Because we can’t spare real engineers, these are often people with “some engineering in their background” or just know how to play the good buddy network really well and evoke a sense of “trust.” The relationship that’s emerging now with middle management layers is more the family structure. Instead of being a group of collaborative light management adults, the middle manager assumes the parent role, and the workers become the kids. They get to take less risk, be less responsible and avoid the “adulting” stuff that is (endless) meetings and the like. The management/parents obsess about the way their group/family is seen elsewhere in the company. Protecting them name and reputation takes an increased precedence. The “adult kids”, the experiences engineers who want to be treated like adults and not over managed, start looking for a new home to move to.
It’s sad really.
They have stagnated product wise but it seems that their employees are happy and they make enough money to be profitable.
I think this is also a function of their competitors being jerks (Epic) or not really caring (Apple App Store). So a true competitor could likely eat their lunch if they really wanted to.
Why do you think our startup heroes were failed from below, rather than simply "having been promoted to the level of their incompetence"?
Dilbert, et al, rewrote the principle as, you promote the incompetent so they don't interfere with the real work. Or maybe that brown-nosers get promoted until they get fired. Or that the more incompetent you are the more you get promoted. But it's always been about how smart people who do good work end up in over their heads.
The reward for a job well done is another job, a harder or different job. Eventually you run up against a harder, bigger, different job you just can't hack. It doesn't matter if you're being promoted by your manager, yourself, or the invisible hand of the market.
Surely that's the responsibility of the CEO/chairman/board who recruit and direct the staff?
> "There is what I call the creepy line," he said, according to The Hill. "The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."
Whether he put 100% of his time into Twitter or 1%, that doesn't change the fact that he had very limited influence over his own company. Twitter's board is what has caused all their problems, often by explicitly rejecting Dorsey's advice.
As Bloomberg said yesterday: "Twitter Is in This Mess Because Jack Dorsey Was Too Busy Being a Bitcoin Influencer"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-29/twitter-t...
https://archive.ph/7ugqn