this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
998 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

69207 readers
2961 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

John Riccitiello, CEO of Unity, the company whose 3D game engine had recently seen backlash from developers over proposed fee structures, will retire as CEO, president, and board chairman at the company, according to a press release issued late on a Monday afternoon, one many observe as a holiday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ringwraithfish@kbin.social 218 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Pisses me off that CEOs never get fired for their bullshit and get to "retire" or "resign" like they didn't just make the most boneheaded decision that severely hurt the company.

There really needs to be some organizational structure where the CEOs have the power to make the decisions they make, but the employees have the power to punish and fire them when they do shit like this. No golden parachutes for them!

[–] lung@lemmy.world 122 points 2 years ago (6 children)

This is actually wrong. There's a near 100% chance that the decision was made by the board, and also the decision to remove the CEO. So we're talking about the fall guy, but being an insider, the fall guy will get a tidy sum for the dive

Then the CEO can be recycled to some other project, and a new CEO instated at Unity, so they can pivot or double down with no moral dilemma. In reality, the board was there all along and it's all a big PR game

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

CEO may have even wanted to leave anyway before the announcement and agreed to make this unpopular announcement knowing that he'd take the bad blood with him when he left.

[–] rastilin@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Maybe, but I'm betting that the CEO who floated the idea that FPS players would be willing to pay per-reload didn't push back too hard against the board's ideas.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Unity is a public company. Look at their share price:

https://yhoo.it/3ZNqeJJ

The company IPO'd 3 years ago at $52 a share, it tanked in late 2021, and since then has been way below the IPO price. Non-investors only started paying attention in September when they came up with their ludicrous licensing fees. But, for investors what mattered was the way their investment cratered in late 2021 / early 2022.

The investors want returns. This isn't going to be a matter of finding a good CEO who can treat gamers and the gaming industry right. That kind of CEO isn't going to get the investors back to $175 a share. The board is going to demand someone who finds a new way to tap new revenue streams, even if it makes people miserable. This one particular gambit failed, but the board isn't just going to sit back and accept that the IPO price is too high. The chairman of the board is a partner at Sequoia Capital, one of the main pre-IPO investors. My guess is that the VC / Private Equity people didn't manage to cash out completely before the stock price crashed. So, they're going to figure out a way to juice the share price so they can sell, even if it means killing the company in the long term.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Except that guy was CEO and board

[–] Benchamoneh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Most CEOs are shareholders, this is nothing new or unusual

[–] ringwraithfish@kbin.social -5 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] lung@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Hey bro I mean no offense but there's a typo

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 75 points 2 years ago

You're saying the workers should own the means of production. Sounds fair to me.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Pisses me off that CEOs never get fired for their bullshit and get to "retire" or "resign" like they didn't just make the most boneheaded decision that severely hurt the company.

They're rich people and it's not considered acceptable to hold rich people accountable in even the most trivial way.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 4 points 2 years ago

Well, it's only unacceptable to rich people who have the power to avoid consequences.

[–] Fraylor@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

The Rich only suffer under the boots of the evolved form ultra rich

[–] Currens_felis@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 years ago (4 children)

CEOs are beholden to the shareholders, not the employees

[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 58 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Employees should be automatic shareholders. Ought to be a workers right by default to receive some portion of the equity they're producing.

Edit: And to be clear, shareholders win too. More companies should voluntarily structure themselves to grant shareholder rights to employees. Dumbass company ending mistakes are usually seen a long way off by line and rank employees.

But it should also be legally mandated structure, much like 401k rules exist now. I propose that all players involved are better off with such a rule, other than the (not currently rare) asshole CEOs who only want to pump and dump their stock.

[–] shrodes@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago

Whoa get those perverted thoughts out of here commie scum!

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's actually pretty common to provide employees with stock options. But depending on the situation, it can be a better deal for the company than the employees. For the company, equity is a relatively cheap way to "motivate" employees. For the employees, it goes against the principle of portfolio diversification: if the company does badly, not only is their regular income threatened, but so are their assets.

[–] SwallowsDick@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah, most employees would much rather be paid the cash equivalent of whatever their stock option may have been

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

I’ve gotten options at the last three companies I’ve worked for and they’ve never been worth more than $5,000.

[–] zib@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

Unity employees are shareholders, but greatly in the minority compared to the executives. The C-suite is routinely granted thousands of shares while the lowly employees are given a few hundred RSUs every year, which vest over a period of 4 years. It's kinda bullshit how little equity employees by comparison, but definitely by design.

[–] locuester@lemmy.zip -5 points 2 years ago

They receive money which can be used to buy equity, no? It’s their choice not to. At least in a publicly traded company.

That point aside, I usually do receive stock in the company at jobs I’ve worked. Financial firms.

[–] Sordid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

I don't see why the shareholders wouldn't want his head on a pike as well.

[–] ringwraithfish@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, I understand that's the current structure. I'm saying there needs to be a new structure where CEOs can't make greedy decisions with impunity. Clearly the idea that the board is supposed to prevent that doesn't work because this story is all too common.

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

In a co-operative the shareholders are employees and associated members, and they elect the board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27_co-operative

Not that Unity is a co-operative, but there is another way.

[–] people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago

That's not just CEOs. All employees after a certain point up the ladder have to "put in their resignation" if they are to be fired. It's a convention that saves face for both parties.

[–] iByteABit@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The only way this can be done in a capitalist way, is by distributing exactly one company share for every employee that's not tradeable at all, flattening the hierarchy completely, and making every decision in a direct democratic way.

[–] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

wouldn't an untradeable share just be worthless? give employees stock options

[–] iByteABit@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

It represents your partial ownership of the company and property

[–] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Or being a cooperative business.

[–] iByteABit@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Profit maximization and personal gain over the many is where cooperation goes to die.

Some small companies can do a good job, and sometimes bigger ones too, but they'll be crushed by other companies that exploit their employees forcing them to do the same if they want to stay in the business.

[–] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Being fired as CEO essentially black lists you from working. So they get nudged out instead

[–] Silvus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Yeah good, being fired from anything above an entry level job gets you blacklisted from similar level positions. It's the world telling you, you belong at a lower level position.

I mean, some people need to get blacklisted.