this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
133 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

38500 readers
1 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 133 points 10 months ago (3 children)

is this the 'jumped the shark' moment for companies? as soon as they go 'public' you can no longer assume their product is their priority.

[–] [email protected] 86 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes

You can expect them to drop at maybe one more good product, as going public is what companies do when they want to raise a lot of funds for some project

But after THAT, when it turns out that the new product is just... Making money instead of making ALL the money, the investors will take over and from then on it's fucked.

But yeah RPi has alternatives now. No need to tie yourself to them when they DO sink.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago

Ad soon as they go public, their product is their share price. And even before then, since most growing private companies seek out private investment long before going public.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Legally the product is no longer their priority, maximising shareholder profits is their priority.

Not many companies manage to not get twisted to a worse product for the customers, though their ads get really good

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

really sounds like the stock market is just human greed distilled and removed from all direct responsibility.

i cant understand how anyone can defend it. it is a cancer

[–] [email protected] 90 points 10 months ago

God damn it. It was nice while it lasted

[–] [email protected] 40 points 10 months ago (1 children)

INB4 trust fund babies and gormless capitalists go and ream every last fucking cent from the brand destroying it in the process before moving on to the next thing.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

as is tradition

[–] [email protected] 35 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The enshittification begins.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 10 months ago (3 children)

How much stock ownership remains with the nonprofit Raspberry Pi Foundation? And will that be enough to hold off shareholder complaints that they aren’t being evil enough?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 10 months ago

I assume OpenAI sort of demonstrates the fragility of that arrangement...

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

The article said that they are the major shareholder.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

No, being a public company the CEO is legally obligated to chase profits

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, shareholder interest, which - in the absence of the clear desire of the majority shareholder(s) - is assumed to be profit. So I think the question above is quite important actually

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

That is a fair point

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is a common misconception based on an argument put forward my Milton Friedman. It’s based on legal cases where CEOs were taken to court for knowingly defrauding shareholders for their own personal gain (say, selling all of a companies assets of the company to a different company the ceo owns privately for a single dollar).

Friedman argued that these cases set precedent that meant all CEO were legally obligated to maximize shareholder value and could be held legally accountable for not doing so. Friedman was wrong about this, like many other things he said, as he was not a lawyer, nor a particularly good economist. No CEO has even been successfully sued for “failing to maximize shareholder value” despite some people taking Friedman’s work to heart and trying to do so.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It comes from the case against Henry Ford after he saw his company was making gobs of cash and decided to give some of that to his employees. Shareholders successfully sued him to stop this on the grounds that he has a fiduciary duty to shareholders.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

As with anything legal, there is nuance, but the basic assertion that there is fiduciary duty to shareholders is not wrong.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

He was sued for miss use of company profits, not for failing to maximize profits.

He took profits and was reinvesting in new plants and cutting car prices, while also ending dividend payments to do so. That was the crux of the case, ending dividend payments despite having money to continue paying them. This case is routinely held up as an example of shareholder primacy but has been dismissed as an example of such by most modern thinkers In the field, in large part because the court also ruled that he had final say on how to proceed with company operation. Increasing worker pay was not the issue, ending dividends to make capital investment was.

Edit: also, I should clarify, he was the majority share holder, and the minority shareholders could thus not replace him with someone willing to pay dividends. He was not being sued for failing to seek profits, he was being sued for holding those profits hostage from other shareholders.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I guess it depends on what jurisdiction you're in huh

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

For fucks sake.

I just wanted a cm4

:neocat_cry:

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm surprised it lasted this long. It was always kinda just a marketing gimmick for broadcom that got out of hand.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Huh! I didn't realize that. It was a cool product.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago