Hacker News Reader

Comment by rightbyte | Hacker News Reader

The product is the stock price, not Office or Windows. From that perspective they are doing it right.

And this is the broken mindset tanking multiple large companies' products and services (Google, Apple, MS, etc). Focus on the stock. The product and our users are an afterthought.

Someone linked to a good essay on how success plus Tim Cook's focus on the stock has caused the rot that's consuming Apple's software[0]. I thought it was well reasoned and it resonated with me, though I don't believe any of the ideas were new to me. Well written, so still worth it.

0. The Fallen Apple - https://mattgemmell.scot/the-fallen-apple/

Microsoft has done the worst of any Mag 7 stock since the day before ChatGPT's release: https://totalrealreturns.com/n/AAPL,MSFT,AMZN,GOOGL,META,TSL...

Is sacrificing everything for short term gains really the right move in any situation?

That's an excellent question, but the answer would depend on goals and the evaluation system used.

It seems to me that CEOs have a different opinion than anyone who cares instead about actual people.

Dunno, hard question, but I think the payoff to executives is tied to stock performance in such a way that messes with the equation a lot.

What is on stake in the long term? Their legacy? Both in term of feel-good and getting the next job if they are not in the end of their career.

The investor being the customer rather than actual paying customers was something I noticed occurring in the late 90s in the startup and tech world. Between that shift in focus and the influx of naive money the Dot Bomb was inevitable.

Sadly the fallout from the Dotcom era wasn't a rejection of the asinine Business 2.0 mindset but instead an infection that spread across the entirety of finance.

In particular it's the short term stock price. They'll happily grift their way to overinflated stock prices today even though at some point their incestuous money shuffle game will end and the stocks will crash and a bunch of people who aren't insider trading are going to be left with massive losses.

Stock price increases that don't lead to higher dividends eventually are indistinguishable from Ponzi schemes after the fact.

Buybacks lead to stock price increases and are indistinguishable from dividends in theory, and in practice they are better than dividends because of taxation.

The problem I have with that logic is that it still doesn't really give any sensible reason for why the stock should have any economic value at all. If the point is that the company will pay for it at some point, it makes more sense for it to be a loan rather than a unit of stock. I stand by my claim that selling a non-physical item that does nothing other than hopefully get bought again later for more than you sold it for is indistinguishable from a scam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com