Slashdot Mirror


MySpace Lays Off 47% of Employees

tgtanman writes "CNN reports that MySpace has announced that it has laid off 500 employees, 47% of its total staff. From the article: 'MySpace's management kept most of the site's developers but gutted nearly every other job role, according to a staffer who survived the cuts ... "Today's tough but necessary changes were taken in order to provide the company with a clear path for sustained growth and profitability," CEO Mike Jones said in a written statement. "These changes were purely driven by issues related to our legacy business, and in no way reflect the performance of the new product."'"

206 comments

  1. and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    it will be facebook soon enough

    first true post

    1. Re:and by sortadan · · Score: 4, Funny

      one can only hope the next iteration empowers the individual and gives them ownership and true control of their information.

    2. Re:and by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I'm fairly sure that a rabble of serfs having their every detail picked over and monetized is way better for shareholder value...

    3. Re:and by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      that sounds like murdoch's style!

  2. Wait by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MySpace still had 500 employees?

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    1. Re:Wait by Sensei+Eggwoah · · Score: 2

      That's a shock to me too. If you take all of Myspace's active users and subtract bands, self-promoters, and whores, I'd be surprised if you had 500 people left.

    2. Re:Wait by jbacon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Even better! They had 1063.8297872340425531914893617021 employees, according to the summary.

    3. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a shock to me too. If you take all of Myspace's active users and subtract bands, self-promoters, and whores, I'd be surprised if you had 500 people left.

      Same can be said about Facebook, too...

    4. Re:Wait by msauve · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You never learned about significant digits, eh?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You never learned about the sound a joke makes when you miss it entirely?

    6. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, most places tend to empty out after you kick out the whores.

    7. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather such inanities be filtered, myself.

      Down with memes! Up with miniskirts! Askew with dramatic irony!

    8. Re:Wait by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Who was the .829787 of an employee?

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    9. Re:Wait by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      Me, you insensitve clod!

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    10. Re:Wait by cinderellamanson · · Score: 0

      couldn't have been you, i'm .029787

      --
      Hey buddy, can i bum a karma? ~}CinderellaManson{~
    11. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up with miniskirts!

      I dunno if that's possible, any higher and they would be belts.....wait a minute.....

      Up with miniskirts!

    12. Re:Wait by FreonTrip · · Score: 2

      Becky, down in accounting. She's only 4' 11" and 95 pounds.

    13. Re:Wait by sorak · · Score: 1

      MySpace still had 500 employees?

      One for each user. Now THAT'S customer service!

    14. Re:Wait by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I never learned about that sound, what is it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooooosh

    16. Re:Wait by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great, now I can't be sure if I trolled the trolls or if I've been trolled while metatrolling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Wait by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

      That they still had 500 employees was surprising enough, but this part of the statement is downright unbelievable: "[...]the performance of the new product." [emphasis added]

      "MySpace" and "new product" just plain don't seem like they go together...

    18. Re:Wait by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Who was the .829787 of an employee?

      I suppose next you'll say it was the one-armed man...

    19. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to hear about the MySpace layoff. Roommate Finders at www.roommatefinders.net or call us at 1-800-364-4144

  3. Two words: by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

    American On-Line.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Two words: by Meshach · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Maybe Time-Warner should buy them and make them even more irrelevant.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    2. Re:Two words: by cusco · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually Ah-Oh-heLL bought Time-Warner in one of those amusing quirks of speculators driving share price far beyond anything reasonable. AOL management, in their one and only lucid moment, realized that they had best take the money and buy some actual assets with it or their stock options were going to be utterly worthless after the impending crash (a crash that was obvious to everyone who didn't work on Wall Street).

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    3. Re:Two words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or "LOL" for short.

    4. Re:Two words: by methano · · Score: 0

      How come when I said the same thing yesterday (here), I didn't get modded up to 5?

    5. Re:Two words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably because you're the kind of person to whom that sort of thing matters.

    6. Re:Two words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOL management, in their one and only lucid moment, realized that they had best take the money and buy some actual assets with it or their stock options were going to be utterly worthless after the impending crash (a crash that was obvious to everyone who didn't work on Wall Street).

      Oh, Wall Street knew about it all right. They were just pumping and dumping.

      Today, DJI is back where it was 3 years ago, before the 2007 crash happened. After the republicans repeal Dodd-Frank, it will be like nothing ever happened.

      Who's the loser here?

    7. Re:Two words: by kiddygrinder · · Score: 2

      because your post was 15 times harder to read to the end

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    8. Re:Two words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you used a comma where you should have used a colon. It ruined the whole post for me.

    9. Re:Two words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America On-Line

      Formerly QuantumLink and PeopleServe

  4. Developers by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Funny

    MySpace has developers? What do they do?!

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they run sites like Awesome-MySpace-Templates.com

    2. Re:Developers by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MySpace has developers? What do they do?!

      Same as they did before they went there from Yahoo.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    3. Re:Developers by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Insensitive clod. Do you know how many patches we send upstream to the browser vendors to help them build rendering engines that can handle 25,000+ animated .gifs and 100+ flash embeds in a single page?

      Never mind the time that we had to spend three weeks groveling through the dark underbelly of the Windows driver model, trying to figure out why users of certain realtek audio chipsets would suffer bluescreens when more than 14 streams of generic crunk rap were being fed to the software audio mixer simultaneously...

    4. Re:Developers by jamesh · · Score: 5, Funny

      MySpace has developers? What do they do?!

      Spend all day keeping their facebook statuses up to date.

    5. Re:Developers by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Apply for jobs at Facebook.

    6. Re:Developers by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You just posted what's probably the best /. comment in the last 5 years.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    7. Re:Developers by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

      MySpace has developers? What do they do?!

      Spend all day keeping their facebook statuses up to date.

      Spend all day keeping their linkedin profiles up to date.

      FTFY

    8. Re:Developers by Kvasio · · Score: 2

      seek jobs

    9. Re:Developers by Edward+Teach · · Score: 1

      Evidently, their job is to make the site so unusable as to give the upper management the reasons they need to fire 500 employees. Seriously, does any one really use Myspace anymore? The only time I go over there is to play Mobsters. I've even de-friended everyone except the four people, two of which I can't get on Facebook.

      --

      Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

    10. Re:Developers by Edward+Teach · · Score: 2

      Ah, so that's how the new Facebook profile got so screwed up!

      --

      Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

    11. Re:Developers by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      How about what does the CEO do, Mike Jones has 47% less people to manage, I wonder if they cut his salary by 47% for obviously being a failure.

      This is not the only internet site that Newscorp bought and screwed up by strangling the chicken. Greed, desire to control users, need to force feed Newscorp propaganda and their attitude to truth versus lies 'meh' which is more profitable, means when it comes to the internet Newscorp will continue to fuck up (the truth always comes out and bites them on the arse).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Developers by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Ow. My stomach hurts from laughing. :(

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    13. Re:Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "25,000+ animated .gifs "

      There were 25,000+ animated .gifs on Geocities home pages long before Myspace ever existed

  5. MySpace? by bradgoodman · · Score: 4, Funny

    They're still around?! I thought I recognised "Tom" squeegying my windows at a red light the other day...

    1. Re:MySpace? by VirexEye · · Score: 1

      They're still around?! I thought I recognised "Tom" squeegying my windows at a red light the other day...

      You mean after selling MySpace to Rupert Murdoch at the height of MySpace's popularity? Seriously?

    2. Re:MySpace? by flappinbooger · · Score: 1
      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    3. Re:MySpace? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I've been sort of expecting somebody to post what his Slashdot ID was.... I'm sure he didn't only post as an A.C.

    4. Re:MySpace? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That explains why nobody saw the signs and stepped in to help him. Who visits myspace any more?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:MySpace? by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      lol a cry for help on myspace, all that's heard is cricket chirps as a tumbleweed bounces by.

      Wait, not lol, this is a serious tragedy, how politically incorrect to find humor in a thread discussing mass layoffs and shooting sprees?

      Oh, wait, I'm the one that brought up the shooting spree. Bummer. I feel so bad now. I'm going to go lay down. Good thing I don't have a myspace account, that would be the last straw.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    6. Re:MySpace? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wait, not lol, this is a serious tragedy, how politically incorrect to find humor in a thread discussing mass layoffs and shooting sprees?

      If I have to blow Bill Maher to get some credibility around here, that's what I'll do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. New product? by Shimmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What "new product"? MySpace is MySpace, isn't it? What else do they do? (Can't bear to RTFA and find out.)

    --
    The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    1. Re:New product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      Trying to reposition itself, the Los Angeles-based network recently rolled out a new interface focusing on music and social entertainment.

      So, MySpace is the new product.

    2. Re:New product? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      So, MySpace is the new product.

      Welcome to the new space, same as the old space.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:New product? by RJHelms · · Score: 1

      Not just MySpace, but a new, inferior version of MySpace.

      Maybe it's just the software tester in me, but I tried to shamelessly promote my band on the "new" MySpace and found it so riddled with bugs as to be completely unusable. Before the changes, it was actually a decent enough tool for musicians, even if no one else was using it. I think they're scaring bands away by replacing something that didn't work as a business model with something that just flat out doesn't work.

    4. Re:New product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, how can you a company be barely four years old and have "legacy"?

    5. Re:New product? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why would you use something that makes you look like a retard like myspace when there are dozens of alternatives, including spending under $5/mo for your own hosting?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:New product? by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      To access the built-in audience immediately rather than expend the effort and time required to get visitors to go to his own brand new and totally unknown website?

    7. Re:New product? by RJHelms · · Score: 1

      The assumption that I don't use any of the dozens of alternatives is a little silly. In the real world, using MySpace doesn't preclude any other attempts at promotion.

      Also, I never claimed not to be a retard, you insensitive clod!

  7. The funny thing is... by TheRedDuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I bet most of those ex-employees will be complaining about it on Facebook this evening.

  8. Still some MySpace folks left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MySpace, the choice of bat shit insane mass murderers everywhere.

  9. Translation: preparing for sale by rsborg · · Score: 2

    From the article: 'MySpace's management kept most of the site's developers but gutted nearly every other job role, according to a staffer who survived the cuts

    Translation: They're up for sale, and devs are part of the more valuable "human capital". I wonder who would be buying?

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Translation: preparing for sale by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Translation: They're up for sale, and devs are part of the more valuable "human capital". I wonder who would be buying?

      That doesn't make sense. If you're trying to sell, you don't fire the employees first yourself -- what would be the point? Once you're out, you don't care how many employees the company has. Instead, you invite possible buyers to the office and make sure every single body is at a desk, working away like a busy little beaver on countless amazing things, making the company look like an incredible value and pushing the bidding price up. Then the investor walks away thinking, "Wow, they sure do great stuff there -- but they seem to have too many employees. If we buy the company, we can fire half of them and we'll end up with a real bargain!"

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Translation: preparing for sale by publiclurker · · Score: 2

      Sounds familiar. A friend of mine was kept on with a company as one of only three engineers when the company was sold. Apparently a plantation is more valuable if you throw in a few slaves to work it.

    3. Re:Translation: preparing for sale by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That doesn't make sense. If you're trying to sell, you don't fire the employees first yourself -- what would be the point?

      Because it fudges the profit numbers. Firing people doesn't hurt the revenue stream until a few quarters or even years down the road. But it significantly reduces costs which can provide a temporary bump in profitability. Buyout candidates have been doing this for longer than I've been alive and for some reason it still seems to fool potential buyers.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Translation: preparing for sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That means they would actually swing by and look at what is going on. Many investors could give a shit and only care about one quarter to the next.

      When half the building goes and 'everything is fine' it is up for sale. I have been thru it a few times myself on both sides. Every time 'to better align the company' poof a buyer is there.

      It is to make the company look more profitable than it really is. Fox is looking to offload that turd...

    5. Re:Translation: preparing for sale by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying maybe there's no buyer on deck today, but NewsCorp sees a time (next year? the year after?) when it no longer wants to sink money into a failed experiment. Could be.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    6. Re:Translation: preparing for sale by IICV · · Score: 2

      Buyout candidates have been doing this for longer than I've been alive and for some reason it still seems to fool potential buyers.

      Because of what the grandparent poster was referring to -

      Translation: They're up for sale, and devs are part of the more valuable "human capital". I wonder who would be buying?

      By laying off half their workforce, MySpace is saying "Look - the people who are still here? They're dedicated and awesome developers. They're dedicated, because otherwise they would have left already; they're awesome, because otherwise we would have fired them (after all, we have no reason to keep on chaff at this point). Buy us, and you'll get a pre-screened workforce of awesome and dedicated developers, which is worth quite a lot."

      Companies spend a lot of money trying to hire competent people. What MySpace is doing right now is saying "here's the cream of our crop, ready to be slurped up if you buy us".

    7. Re:Translation: preparing for sale by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      Firing people also doesn't help the books for a quarter or two, since you have to pay off the severance and get through the lawsuits for the ones who think you didn't pay them enough.

    8. Re:Translation: preparing for sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firing people also doesn't help the books for a quarter or two, since you have to pay off the severance and get through the lawsuits for the ones who think you didn't pay them enough.

      That money goes into a separate bucket of non-recurring charges which is reported differently so as to make the numbers look good. You see it all the time in corporate earning reports.

    9. Re:Translation: preparing for sale by Spotticus · · Score: 1

      Its all about the financials As a buyer you don't want to be saddled with severence costs as it falls to your income statement and can negatively impact quarterly results (leading to extra-ordinary losses). As well, anytime you do anything that impacts the structure of an aquisition you need to reevaluate any associated goodwill which can trigger an asset write down ultimately impacting your balance sheet.

  10. Facebook Button on MySpace? by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 2

    There is a "Connect with Facebook" button on the front page of myspace.com

    It blew my mind

    1. Re:Facebook Button on MySpace? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      There is a "Connect with Facebook" button on the front page of myspace.com It blew my mind

      Of course. If you were running a social media company, given all the press Facebook gets on a daily basis, would you want partners and investors thinking your company is a direct competitor to Facebook? This is part of MySpace's new messaging, that it offers something unique and complementary to the other social networks.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Facebook Button on MySpace? by OutputLogic · · Score: 1

      MySpacebook button

    3. Re:Facebook Button on MySpace? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Even better, under the random sampling of posts being made in real time was this winner: "Omggg I hate this facebook is way better!"
      It is kinda funny that you can now use Facebook Connect to sign onto Myspace.

  11. Derp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one can only hope the next iteration empowers the individual and gives them ownership and true control of their information.

    You mean like the absolute control over whether or not you post online your age, gender, sexual orientation, or the fact that you like Midgets Soaked in McRib Goo?

    Wait, this is Slashdot - I forgot, social networks break into your homes and mess up the place if you don't post embarrassing details about yourself.

    1. Re:Derp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or the fact that you like Midgets Soaked in McRib Goo?

      I knew I'd regret posting that.

    2. Re:Derp. by mick_S3 · · Score: 1

      Well I am glad to know I am not alone in the world.....

      --
      A gin in the hand is worth two in the bottle.
  12. How's that working out, Rupert? by Voline · · Score: 3, Funny

    NewsCorp bought MySpace for $580 million five years ago. Good going Murdoch. I hope the rest of your investments do as well.

    1. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by al0ha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, he's a *real* business genius isn't he? This is what cracks me up about really rich people and their view of those who have not done as well in life. According to people like Murdoch, it is because they have worked harder than all of us and are much more savvy; but the truth is it is because good fortune (luck) has graced them in life. I'm not sure of how many potential *Murdochs* there are out there, but I am sure there are hundreds, just like all the talented people unveiled by shows like American Idol who to that point had not made it, only because they had not gotten lucky yet.

      Nobody makes it big without a substantial helping of good luck. Not lotto winners, World Series of Poker winners, nor people like Murdoch and Trump.

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    2. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Good going Murdoch. I hope the rest of your investments do as well

      According to Reuters he did did pretty well:

      Initially, the deal paid for itself after Google Inc inked a three-year $900 million search advertising deal in 2006.

    3. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NewsCorp bought MySpace for $580 million five years ago. Good going Murdoch. I hope the rest of your investments do as well.

      With the absolute shit that Murdoch foists on the U.S. airwaves everyday, I sincerely hope that all of his investments go down in fucking flames. If anyone is trying to do harm to the U.S., he is at the top of that list.

    4. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Jaysu · · Score: 1

      I hope Goldman Sachs is paying close attention to this matter.

      --
      It has been said that 63% of all statistics are made up
    5. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, this is something a lot of young tech geeks don't realize. Companies come, they make a profit and then either innovate and develop new products and make more profit, or die. That's how a free market works.

      MySpace launched their service, made profit, didn't innovate and died within a few years time. And that's all right. Google is lasting a lot longer because they keep innovating. Facebook? Well, we'll see what happens. It ultimately depends on their ability to innovate.

    6. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Nobody makes it big without a substantial helping of good luck.

      Since luck has no physical property or defined quantity, that phrase is largely meaningless. It would be equally accurate to say that nobody makes it big without a substantial helping of ether.

      The one thing we do know is that a large percentage of those who "make it big" through no effort of their own end up making it small again, with an equal amount of effort. Keeping your money is just as hard as making it, if not more so.

    7. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I was taking a tour of a famous estate turned museum over Christmas. The tour guide was trying to be as sympathetic to the estate trust as possible by commenting on how 'well she managed' her trust fund -- increasing by over 4x over the last 85 years.

      I immediately did a little calculation in my head and figured out that this brilliant, successful trust fund heiress... had lost a significant portion of her trust if it only increased by 4x over 85 years. When I got home I ran it through an inflation calculator and sure enough, she under performed inflation and significantly underperformed the market.

      It's like they say: the easiest way to make a little money is to start with a lot.

    8. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Nobody makes it big without a substantial helping of good luck. Not lotto winners, World Series of Poker winners, nor people like Murdoch and Trump.

      WSOP winners, definitely. The consistently winning poker players freely admit that there is luck in any individual tournament -- that's what brings out the fish. The ones that can keep winning, better than chance, over a long period of time are the ones who show that they have skill, and are not simply winning due to luck. (Yes, there is a possibility it's "all luck", but that decreases the longer a person wins. In fact, the Two Plus Two Pokercast was mentioning a couple of people that were big names a few years ago, but you no longer hear about them.)

    9. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Perhaps the tour-guide's figures were already inflation-adjusted?

      Anyways, it really didn't take a brain to rake in investment money in postwar America, whether by stocks, real estate, or even simply buying a home. The economy and population were mushrooming, so those who started with anything found it multiplied over and over. Now a lot of that unearned income is being repaid by people upside-down on their mortgages, the govt. bank bailouts, etc.

    10. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

      It seems they might not have gotten the full 900 mil. See

      http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/myspace-in-trouble-on-900-million-google-deal/19224196/

      Also one has to wonder how much it cost to run myspace all these years. I don't think we will ever know for sure whether Murdoch made or lost money with Myspace. The myspace finances were not separated out in the statements. In the 2010 statement the group in which myspace belonged (named appropriately as "other") suffered around a $500 million loss. However that group included other businesses.

    11. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by icebraining · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since luck has no physical property or defined quantity, that phrase is largely meaningless.

      No, it's not. Luck is probabilities. The phrase means that making it big depends on variables outside of the person's control, and that effort doesn't correlate well with success. Whether it's true or not, I can't say.

    12. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are missing is the luck that is required to even begin competing in the WSOP.
      There is a whole sequence of events that must occur to enable a person to even get a chance at playing.
      I'm not talking about formal entrance qualifications, I'm talking about things like having enough free time to learn to play well and/or running in to the right mentors to teach them to play well. Then there's having enough money from other sources of income to be able to weather any significant run of bad luck - you can't win on the averages if you can't survive a cold streak to eventually get to the hot streak.

    13. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by fwarren · · Score: 1

      I can sell you some "ether" to help you make millions. I have bottle of it riiiiight here...

      --
      vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
    14. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I'd say you don't hear about them because many are addicts and like all addicts they eventually crash and burn. I remember reading an article in the 90s about one of the recent at the time WSOP winners and old man Binion said "Yeah that kid would be an all time champ...if you could get the guy to ONLY play poker". It went on to talk about how in between poker games he would bet on ANYTHING..football, baseball, golf, if he couldn't find any other "action" he would actually bet thousands on which side of a sugar cube a fly would land on.

      So I'd say a lot of those "flash in the pan" poker players are simply too addicted to gambling to last long term. Even in poker one needs to keep a halfway decent stake if one is gonna consistently play for the real money and if they are addicts that money just won't stay in their possession long enough to keep them earning. In a way it reminds me of some of the day traders that I've met, literally bleary eyed from staring at a half a dozen screens and constantly moving from one trade to the next. It is like if they aren't moving SOMEWHERE they just can't be happy. Kinda sad really.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    15. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither deal involved cash transfers of the amounts shown. Both were volume/performance maximum values.

    16. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's also possible, though, that some of the 'big names' cashed in their chips and retired. Don't you think that could be true some of the time?

    17. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      The difference with poker is that everyone starts a tournament with the same stack of chips. Over enough time it's totally egalitarian. You can't say the same of business, whereby some people start with nothing and others start with billions, in a world where business success is 99% funding.

    18. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by eggnoglatte · · Score: 1

      Well, but it is a trust fund, not an investment fund. I.e. a large percentage of the investment revenues will actually go towards funding the museum and other activities. So they do all that, and STILL grow. That is not bad at all.

    19. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by euroq · · Score: 1

      Since luck has no physical property or defined quantity, that phrase is largely meaningless. It would be equally accurate to say that nobody makes it big without a substantial helping of ether.

      I see where you're trying to go with this, but this statement is not true. "Nobody makes it big without a substantial helping of good luck" is indeed meaningful (although perhaps incorrect... people DO make it big without luck, i.e. I don't think Steve Jobs / Bill Gates were as lucky as people on American Idol, because I think they had real talent which wasn't randomly given to them). Luck, to a scientific mind, is randomness. And yes, randomness is something.

      As to your point about keeping it when making it big, I think you're viewing one particular scenario in your mind, such as a lottery winner who wins and then has no money after 5 years. Keeping your money isn't as hard as making it; it is much harder to make it than to spend it once you reach a certain threshold of sustaining your basic needs in your environment. In fact, that's why there's so many fewer people at the top of the income brackets than at the bottom. To make average income levels is very easy, to make the 80%+ percentile is difficult. As a matter of fact, only 20% of people make it past the 80% percentile :)

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    20. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by euroq · · Score: 1

      Sounds like there might be something missing there in the facts the tour guide was saying. If we take that fact that it increased 400% over 85 years, then the money wouldn't be worth shit if it was actually worth something 85 years ago. $100 in 1925 is now worth $1213, so it technically would have shrinked if it were only worth $400 now. Increasing 4x might mean many other things, and it might have included inflation.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    21. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by euroq · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing with you, but I just wanted to add that MySpace has been making more than Facebook in net profits for years. In fact, it's made billions in profits through advertising. MySpace has been very successful, even if none of us ./ers us it anymore.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    22. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since luck has no physical property or defined quantity, that phrase is largely meaningless.

      Are you Jewish, or just Aspy?

      (looking at your username I fear you might be both :( )

    23. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yeah. I posted that after getting out of bed. It didn't come across well.

      My point is that if you pay salaries and make a profit and begin to pay off debt, you're a successful company. That's all it takes. You don't have to be around forever and rule the world. Most startups never get anywhere close to being profitable. If you do get profitable it's still extremely hard to keep being successful in a free and innovative market like the web. Most web companies are going to fail sooner or later because of the competition and the pace of development. /Same AC

    24. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Do those sour grapes taste good?

    25. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by IICV · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to people like Murdoch, it is because they have worked harder than all of us and are much more savvy; but the truth is it is because good fortune (luck) has graced them in life. I'm not sure of how many potential *Murdochs* there are out there, but I am sure there are hundreds, just like all the talented people unveiled by shows like American Idol who to that point had not made it, only because they had not gotten lucky yet.

      Hundreds? If Rupert Murdoch is one in a million, there's seven thousand people who are just as capable of achievement as he was out there. It just turns out that most of those potential new Rupert Murdochs aren't going to get the opportunities he had - not everyone can be the son of Keith Murdoch, the owner of an already successful newspaper empire.

    26. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree with you on your comment that "people DO make it big without luck", though I definitely agree with you on your view on luck. It really annoys me when I say that a circumstance or person was lucky and people think that I'm talking about some mystical magical property that they possess and will carry into the future rather than simply retrospectively observing that random circumstance has come to their aid.

      But as for people making it big without luck, although it's possible there are some, it's not very likely. Consider great geniuses of history. Most of them were incandescent intellects, I'll grant, but how many of them actually had more than a handful of truly original brilliant breakthroughs in their careers? Most of them are known for just one or two great breakthroughs. Nearly all of them have a much larger body of work than just those great breakthroughs, of course, but often attention was brought to the rest of that work because of their reputations. They ended up with minions to greatly increase their own productivity. How many brilliant minds have there been through the ages who were just as intelligent and capable, but who never had one of those great serendipitous moments during an experiment that their intellect would have latched on to (irrelevant to this discussion, but I also wonder how many incredible serendipitous moments have occurred with the only observer being a mediocre or unprepared mind who just says something like "damn, something went wrong, sample must have been contaminated, I'll have to run the experiment again"). Then there are those who made the same brilliant discoveries, but were simply beaten to the punch by someone else who got all the glory.

      If geniuses aren't enough of an example, consider sports. Professional athletes tend to be a sample of the pinnacle of human athleticism. However, for every amazing professional athlete, there are probably plenty of people with the same potential, or even the same extant level of skill and ability who simply never made it into professional sports. One great example comes from graphing birthdays of athletes in certain sports, especially those where raw size and strength play more of a role. There tend to be clusters. The reason for this seems to be that those people managed to be fortunate enough to start school a year later than their peers who were a little older than them, meaning that they were older than most of their classmates, and that statistical edge of size, strength, coordination, etc. meant that they performed better, got more encouragement, got accepted into teams, put into leadership positions, got to spend less time sitting on the bench and so on. That made a real difference in which talented kids were more likely to reach a point where they would be picked up for professional teams. Then, there's all those people who had plenty of talent but managed to injure themselves and therefore never play well again, or at least not for the few critical years where it really counts. After all, there are, plain to see, plenty of pros whose careers were cut short by injury, not so improbable that there have been plenty who never made it that far because the injury came earlier. There are plenty of other factors. Simply not being born in the right place is a big one. Being on a team that never gives the potential pro a chance to shine, for example.

      So, then, on to business success. People like your examples, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Clearly they have a lot of drive, intelligence, and business acumen. They're not at the top of the bell curve, they're definitely off to the right. Your average person would need a frankly incredible amount of good luck to match them. However, where would Steve Jobs be if he hadn't been friends with Steve Wozniak? Used car salesman springs to mind, but probably he'd be some sort of moderate business success with a chain of attempts to make it big under his belt. Who could tell. Point is, without the opportunities he got from the course of his life, he wouldn't be the huge success he is

    27. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Not true.

      90% of it is work and working smarter. Very few are rich because they inherited money or won the lottery.

      Bill Gates worked hard and smart and was first to develop software for the microcomputer. Many saw the potential but only he acted on it, thus he is worth his 20 billion dollars.

      If you stop mocking the rich you might become one some day. Take risks and start a business and lead. Donald Trump works his butt off and many of you reading this prefer to browse slashdot instead so you get paid what you are worth.

      However, I will say I think investment bankers are croonies who deserve to be in jail but that is a different matter.

    28. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by BobGregg · · Score: 3, Informative

      >> people DO make it big without luck, i.e. I don't think Steve Jobs / Bill Gates were
      >> as lucky as people on American Idol,

      You should read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. His thesis is that people make it to extraordinary levels often by virtue of having had extraordinary chances that others haven't had. For example, as a very young man Bill Gates had opportunities to get computer time that were available to very few others at his age. That's a very relevant kind of "luck" - a contributing circumstance provided by others, that he would not have been able to provide for himself.

    29. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      The ones that can keep winning, better than chance, over a long period of time are the ones who show that they have skill, and are not simply winning due to luck. (Yes, there is a possibility it's "all luck", but that decreases the longer a person wins. In fact, the Two Plus Two Pokercast was mentioning a couple of people that were big names a few years ago, but you no longer hear about them.)

      In a large enough sample there are going to be people who are going to seemingly win an inordinate number of times. You are just not considering the thousands of losers who are invisible. Read "Fooled by randomness" it explains it better than I could.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    30. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      NewsCorp bought MySpace for $580 million five years ago. Good going Murdoch. I hope the rest of your investments do as well.

      Well, consider that people are now throwing around a 50 billion valuation of Facebook the question is really "Did Myspace have a 1% chance of becoming Facebook instead of Facebook?" I would say yes. They could have had a 90% chance of failing and it would still be a good investment because the expected value would be $50 bn * 10% = $5 bn. It's like a lottery ticket with no winnings, it's worthless now but it wasn't worthless before the drawing.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    31. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You also have to be an unscrupulous fucker in order to get where he is. It's not enough to see the opportunity, you have to be willing to step on people as you walk up the steps.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by terminalhype · · Score: 1

      Right. Because Bill Gates didn't start out as a privileged child of wealthy and powerful parents, which might have helped him in some small ways. Hmmm?

    33. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by operagost · · Score: 1

      You call it luck; the rest of us call it perseverance. Even billionaires like Donald Trump have failed a lot, but when they succeed, they win big. But if you want to continue to tell yourself that success is due to luck, then make Homer Simpson your role model and "never try".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by operagost · · Score: 1
      Because no immigrant ever came here with nothing and ended up with a chain of convenience stores. I'm sure all those supposedly Indian, Korean and Pakistani guys just have speech impediments.

      Yes, you need funding-- but there are PLENTY OF PEOPLE who are perfectly willing to lend you some of their money.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    35. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by operagost · · Score: 1

      No, you don't HAVE to. Really! Business is not a zero-sum game.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    36. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Xyrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Current most likely way to become rich: Lucky sperm.

      Hard work won't make you rich. Only the naive believe that.

      That's not to say hard work is pointless. Hard work will still (usually) give you a comfortable life. But hard work alone won't ever make you rich. It just doesn't work that way. I can tell you for a fact that a single mom working three jobs to support her kids is working harder than most CEOs in this country, but she isn't going to get rich doing it.

      You need to know People, and have a lot of luck. Even if you are the first with the Next Big Thing(tm), it may languish in obscurity for years or decades without the right resources and connections.

      But if the luck thing isn't working out then try being an asshole. That really seems to move people up the corporate ladder...or gets them elected to congress.

      --
      ~X~
    37. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, you don't HAVE to. Really! Business is not a zero-sum game.

      I don't think you have to be a malicious bastard to succeed in business. I do think you have to be a malicious bastard to be where Rupert Murdoch is.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      varying amounts of good fortune falls on the deserving, the undeserving, the prepared and ill-prepared alike. the distribution is random. but the type of people who get more out of their good fortune is not random.

      those who put in sweat equity into their lives, and hustle, are smart ..they utilize their fortunate moments. others under utilize or completely miss their fortunate moments.

      you want to use words like luck and fortune.

      but the real word is opportunity.

      some people realize it's there, and work their asses off to do well, and be ready for opportunity if and when it comes.

      you sound like the type of person who makes excuses.

    39. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but once you hit that first big score and are ludicrously rich, then you hire people to watch the money for you and make sure it stays there.

      THEN you kick back without worry and bask in the life of the fabulously wealthy. At that point, only if you WANT to make a decision about finance would you ever need to decide on anything. You don't actually need to do the slightest bit of anything any more, because you've hired other people to do all of the 'hard' part for you.

    40. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      Bill had the luck to be born to a well-off family. It's well known he dropped out of harvard, it's less well known that he could have afforded to return to Harvard if things hadn't panned out. As one article put it: his having access to computers when he was young is comperable to having access to helicopters, not something most of us have.

      He's undoubtedly very smart, driven, and focused, but he had a leg up on other people to begin with.

    41. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by aztektum · · Score: 1

      It isn't luck, he got his start thanks to inheriting the family business. That isn't luck, people inherit wealth all the time.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    42. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Gladwell overstates it. The implicit assumption is that if those people hadn't had that "extraordinary chance", they'd be losers. There's no justification for that assumption. If Bill gates hadn't had computer time, there's no reason to assume he would have ended up as a janitor at the local highschool - he could simply have found success elsewhere. Conversely, if someone else had had access to the computer instead of Gates, there's no reason to assume that they would have become a billionaire instead of him. We see an entire generation in schools today that was raised with computers in the household - how many of them can do more than check facebook and send out tweets? Is it more logical to assume that Gates had the opportunities he did because he had the aptitude for it, and actively sought them out? Or because he just "got lucky" and happened to somehow pull a successful business out of his ass?

      Gladwell's book is a fun read, but he oversimplifies way too much.

    43. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by euroq · · Score: 1

      I probably shouldn't have said with NO luck/randomness. There is always randomness. The other poster (another anonymous coward) made a great point about the type of people who get more out of "life" than those who don't. There is definitely a non-random statistical probability that those who are more of will be more successful. Fill in the blank with smartness, prowess, drive, whatever you want.

      Of course, we could go down the metaphysical question of the randomness of your unique existence was completely random, created by your parents or God or whatever. In any case, abilities, however random they are, do indeed increase your statistical probability at succeeding in life.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    44. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      If you read the parent poster we were talking about the "here today, gone tomorrow" poker players and NOT the "big names" that by their very nature end up in the top circle at least more than once or they wouldn't BE big names, now would they?

      This is one of those "taboo" subjects nobody is supposed to talk about, when it has been proven pretty much beyond a reasonable doubt that gambling IS addictive. Now me personally I believe in the analogy the late great William F. Buckley used, which I paraphrase here "If I set a bottle on a table and say 'this is poison, it will destroy your health, your sanity, your family, and eventually kill you' and you push me out of the way and drink it? Well then STUPID YOU! Why should have have to spend billions to build walls around the bottle and cages to put you in just so you don't drink it?"

      So I personally believe that drugs, gambling, and prostitution should ALL be 100% legal, and if you screw your life up with them too damned bad. But to pretend that it isn't a serious problem to quite a few people is just dishonest. I'd love to see a "Where are they now?" kind of study on the top 30 players from the WSOP for each of the last 10 years, because I'd bet my last dollar (no pun intended) that for the 10 or so that made a good living out of it you'd have a good 40 or more that lost everything simply because they couldn't stop. The one I was writing about said he literally had to have his wife give him an allowance like a child because he would lose the payments for the bills otherwise, he just couldn't stop himself from gambling. If that isn't an addict I don't know what is.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    45. Re:How's that working out, Rupert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hes working to make DirecTV suck as hard as myspace

  13. In other news by ohiovr · · Score: 1

    Myspace used to employ more than 10 people! What do these people do all day?

    1. Re:In other news by paiute · · Score: 1

      Myspace used to employ more than 10 people! What do these people do all day?

      They update their Facebook pages and search for jobs on LinkedIn.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  14. Imeem? by Stregano · · Score: 1

    I loved Imeem and then MySpace bought them out. So, maybe somebody else who can afford Imeem should buy them up and allow them to go back to their business they had and possibly make amazing music plug-ins for their walled garden *cough*Facebook*couch*

    --
    The world is how you make it
    1. Re:Imeem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You should stop eating couches and you won't have the inconvenience of coughing them up any more.

    2. Re:Imeem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That we can see on our walled garden iPhones? Fapple is the new Wintel.

    3. Re:Imeem? by pilkch · · Score: 1

      pics, k thx bye

  15. Washing Windows?? by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that he's got a package labeled 'parachute' neatly stored near his desk, just in(evitably) case.

  16. Tom didn't mention this on Facebook by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    I guess he still has a glimmer of pride left after all.

    I am sure he is laughing at this post... all the way to the bank.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  17. Take care of the mice, what else? by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is a little know fact that MySpace got its name from a typing error.

    It was supposed to be called Mice Pace - based on their innovative approach of running millions of mice over millions of keyboards in order to create a sample of "perfect code".
    It was a variation of the idea with monkeys and typewriters - mice were cheaper to get and easier to scale up.

    The result is the site we all know as MySpace. They could never get the Complete Works of Shakespeare out of the mice either.
    But they did get half a Justin Bieber song once. Thousands of mice had to be put to death after that.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  18. My Empty Space! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHA, bad investment Ruppert!

    1. Re:My Empty Space! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He bought MySpace for $580 million. Google inked a $900 million advertising deal with MySpace two years later.

      That's what you call a profit, son.

    2. Re:My Empty Space! by icebraining · · Score: 1

      That depends on the operational costs.

  19. 47% of employees? by Draaglom · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure you can have 47% of one person...

    --
    "What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?"
    1. Re:47% of employees? by Stregano · · Score: 0

      You can with a ninja sword

      --
      The world is how you make it
    2. Re:47% of employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure you can have 47% of one person...

      Work part time?

  20. Path to profitability through layoffs? by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 2

    How exactly does MySpace make money?

    Does it really have a path to profitabillity?

    1. Re:Path to profitability through layoffs? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Whoah! If you're the real Kaz, long time no C. :)

      I don't know if they have a path to profitability; but cutting unnecessary staff can't hurt.

      When I hit their page, I saw a number of ads were blocked, so that answers the revenue question. Individual pages also seem to have a link-bar at the top, which appears to link to promoted content. Eminem is listed as their "top artist". Really??? Even that seems dated.

      As to whether or not they datamine their userbase and sell that info... I don't know.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:Path to profitability through layoffs? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      How does any social networking site get money? Through ads and data mining.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Path to profitability through layoffs? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      LOL I remember seeing a (now-dead) famous piano player (forget the name, I was just a kid, my dad was interested) in concert, he mixed humor into his piano playing. I remember him playing one song that "dances around middle C" without actually hitting it, and he commented towards the end, "long time no C" -- so, thanks for wording it that way, and triggering the memory!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    4. Re:Path to profitability through layoffs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Path to profitability through layoffs? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Eminem is listed as their "top artist". Really??? Even that seems dated.

      Uh, Eminem's new album was the biggest seller in 2010 in the US (3.4 million copies, 741,000 of which in the first week).

    6. Re:Path to profitability through layoffs? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      There's always was a blindingly obvious path to profitability for Myspace.

      They have a million unsigned bands, and they know *exactly* who the fans of those bands are. If they simply put two and two together and sold music to the fans, they would suddenly have a business model.

      They didn't just have the potential to be Facebook and blew it, they also had the potential to be iTunes and they blew that too.

      If I was a venture capitalist with a couple of hundred million spare, I'd buy the collapsing shells of EMI and Myspace, and merge them.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    7. Re:Path to profitability through layoffs? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Correct, thanks!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  21. This is it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the year of MySpace!

    1. Re:This is it! by froggymana · · Score: 2

      That will happen right after the Year of the Linux desktop....

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    2. Re:This is it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh noes! Employees who produce no useful product and make all their money on a temporary trend are getting laid off now that the trend has shifted to the next slightly similar trend (for the dull: facebook)! I am so sure this is a great loss. Yes, yes I am, and I am of course not being sarcastic at all, nope, not me.

  22. Space for rent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Myspace seems to have a lot of office space to rent out.

  23. This is the problem with many companies by rudy_wayne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it has laid off 500 employees, 47% of its total staff.

    Which means it had 1064 employees before the layoff. What in the world could they possible need more than a thousand people for? And why are now able to run with only half that many?
    If you can't run MySpace with 100 people -- and that's being generous -- there's something seriously wrong. This is another case of "Somebody (in this case Rupert Murdoch) gave us a lot of money, so we can afford to hire a shit load of people regardless of whether or not we actually need them.

    1. Re:This is the problem with many companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, one of your luxuries is being able to employ more people than is necessary. The absolute focus on the bottom line is a middle/lower-class thing.

    2. Re:This is the problem with many companies by MogNuts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I first saw it, I remember thinking that it *only* has 1000 employees? I find that pretty amazing to have so *little* employees.

      Think about it. It at one time (only 2-3 years ago) was one of the most popular, most trafficked sites around. All those those data centers, servers, coding (yes it was awful but code doesn't create itself), arrangements with bands and music licenses. Hell its bread and butter was to need data mining analysts and advertising campaign analysts. They should have a department of 100 each!

    3. Re:This is the problem with many companies by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, one of your luxuries is being able to employ more people than is necessary. The absolute focus on the bottom line is a middle/lower-class thing.

      And hiring a thousand people you don't actually need must be an "upper-class" thing. LOL. Let me know how that's working out for you.

    4. Re:This is the problem with many companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My assistant's assistant's assistant who was just laid off from MySpace would tend to disagree with you! Thank god she had stock options in newscorp and a 5 year severance package.

    5. Re:This is the problem with many companies by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

      When I first saw it, I remember thinking that it *only* has 1000 employees? I find that pretty amazing to have so *little* employees.

      Think about it. It at one time (only 2-3 years ago) was one of the most popular, most trafficked sites around. All those those data centers, servers, coding (yes it was awful but code doesn't create itself), arrangements with bands and music licenses. Hell its bread and butter was to need data mining analysts and advertising campaign analysts. They should have a department of 100 each!

      I'm not aware of MySpace ever owning any data centers. They almost certainly paid someone else to handle that and had a few employees monitoring things. And it certainly doesn't take a thousand people to code a shitty site and make a few deals with bands and mine data and create marketing campaigns. Unless of course somebody gave you a butt load of money and you aren't the least bit concerned with how you spend it. We see how well THAT worked out.

    6. Re:This is the problem with many companies by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      What in the world could they possible need more than a thousand people for?

      One to hold the lightbulb and 1063 to turn the chair around?

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    7. Re:This is the problem with many companies by dachshund · · Score: 2

      And why are now able to run with only half that many?

      Who says they are? In my experience, when a firm lays off half of their employees, the other half aren't far behind.

    8. Re:This is the problem with many companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're laying off 500 people because they're moving it to the 'cloud'.

    9. Re:This is the problem with many companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, and why would you possibly be aware of that? They rent out the space, but the operations is all MS-manned. Has been since the begining.

    10. Re:This is the problem with many companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works very well, sometimes. There are a lot of contracts that are determined by the quantity of people employed in a specific region. Almost none of the profit goes into the owner's pocket, but each contract allows them to make the company larger and more influential. The reason this is an upper class thing, is because the lower/middle class is incapable of doing it.

    11. Re:This is the problem with many companies by Caetel · · Score: 1

      They'd already laid off 30% of their staff only 18 months ago. Facebook has around 2000 employees, and AFAIK they're bigger than Myspace ever was.

    12. Re:This is the problem with many companies by MogNuts · · Score: 1

      Just wow. Facebook is only 2000 employees? Think about that. That's pretty damn amazing for such a huge operation. Don't forget that (depending on which stat firm reports it) Facebook is either #1 or #2 most trafficked site on the *entire* internet.

    13. Re:This is the problem with many companies by MogNuts · · Score: 1

      Hah I agree with u there. I don't think I'm ever seen a worsely coded, malfunctioning site *ever.* And I've been using the internet since Mosaic.

      Though speaking personally, believe it or not, just to run internet marketing and advertising campaigns (which in essence is how Myspace makes money; forget the entire other division which provides a social network), it requires a lot more than u think. You need the SQL guys to run in conjunction with the reporting software guys to run in conjunction with the marketing/advertising analysts who need a team to develop presentations to give to clients and then you need copywriters and the writers who interact with the graphic designers along with the javascript/perl/python/java/etc. programmers. It really is a huge operation. Even for a firm who does one simple e-mail campaign, you're talking about 20-30 people.

      It's a lot, and a lot more than u think. Hence my surpise at how little employees they have.

    14. Re:This is the problem with many companies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Having worked at a company which did pretty successful dynamic websites for music acts, all more complex than MySpace, I can tell you that you need maybe a half dozen people to write the code, if they are worth a shit, and MySpace is the kind of organization that gets to reuse code for site after site. You need a couple to a couple dozen account managers to sell your crap. You need a couple of HR people, and two or three execs to talk to other execs, because no one else can handle the tedium and frustration of talking to people like them. And you need a bunch of artists proportional to the amount of content you're producing. A company working on just one website which is its product will need maybe a dozen creatives and three or four marketers. Last but not least, you need an IT department of maybe a half-dozen people, tops, for the above scenario, with a few more people added on if you have lots of creatives and/or marketers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:This is the problem with many companies by MogNuts · · Score: 1

      See my other post in this thread about running even simple e-mail campaigns.

    16. Re:This is the problem with many companies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I disagree with everything you said, having helped to run e-mail campaigns.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:This is the problem with many companies by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Probably a lot of them were "customer service" - Handling offensive content complaints, etc.

      Likely minimum wage sort of stuff. Potentially a lot of them were part-timers.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    18. Re:This is the problem with many companies by MogNuts · · Score: 1

      LOL. Maybe I came across as snarky. I was just too lazy to write my post again.

      You're welcome to disagree. I've had friends who were running e-mail campaigns as marketing analysts, and that is what I've learned from them over the years and discovered as the heirarchy. I'm glad that u had such a wonderful, lean, non-typical hierarchy doing that. Good for you.

    19. Re:This is the problem with many companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know how I know you don't know what you're talking about?

      XOXO,
      An ex-MySpacer

  24. They shitcanned the wrong people, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had they shitcanned the officers instead, the money saved would've been able to keep the company afloat for another five years. And the best part is, then the remaining employees might actually be able to do something useful and turn a profit for the company.

  25. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "These changes were purely driven by issues related to our legacy business, and in no way reflect the performance of the new product."

    How About

    "These changes were purely driven by issues related to our legacy business, and in no way reflect the performance of said employees. If you're looking for talented devs/marketing/whatever, contact us". Would make the transition easier for some people.

  26. Mods? by astern · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing most of these people were full-time mods responsible for keeping tidal-waves of porn and spam off of the site.

    Too bad they couldn't find a way to automate the blocking of duck-face pictures.

    http://antiduckface.com/

    --
    If the world isn't beating a path to your door you're doing something wrong.
    1. Re:Mods? by RobDollar · · Score: 1

      In my opnion, all online profile pictures should be run through a recapture type system to weed out that bizarre duck face phenomenon. Why do people do it?????????

  27. I gave up on MySpace years ago by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    I thought it was the must idiotic mess of ugly web real estate I had ever seen. Poor execution which never got any better.

    Now looking at Facebook, I think it's confusing as hell, too. Something better will come along and knock them off their peg.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:I gave up on MySpace years ago by boxwood · · Score: 2

      giving up on myspace is soooo last decade man. All the cool kids are giving up on facebook now.

  28. GeoMySpaceCities by rueger · · Score: 3, Funny

    Am I alone in thinking that MySpace was Geocities for the new millennium?

    1. Re:GeoMySpaceCities by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Yes you are.

      Geocities had a load of interesting and insightful informaiton back in the day (electronics, programming, emulation, DIY, etc). Myspace has always been just a bunch of stupid teens.

      Yeah, I am that old and yeah you are stepping into my lawn.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:GeoMySpaceCities by xtracto · · Score: 1

      s/informaiton/information/g

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  29. On the hate of Facebook... by yuhong · · Score: 1

    It seems like there is a lot of hate for Facebook on Slashdot. I wonder whether MySpace gained anything from it.

  30. Too many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    500 employees? That's more than their current user base.

  31. fate by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    The fate of any online service who's sole purpose seems to be to flood their users with spam and marketing gimmicks. Twitter take notice.

  32. Fuck you Rupert Murdoch by F34nor · · Score: 1

    I feel sorry for the employees but the worse his investment becomes the happier I am.

  33. I thought the same thing, only more annoying by Amiga500_Rulez · · Score: 1

    Everyone should have seen this coming. Makes me wonder what will happen with FB and Twitter.

    1. Re:I thought the same thing, only more annoying by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Facebook's different. It's somehow managed to reach a critical mass where everyone you ever knew is on it - which is sort of making it more and more solid. If you ditch Facebook, you lose touch with a whole lot of people - who you maybe couldn't really bother to get their email addresses and email them, but want to keep in touch with in a low key sort of way.

      I've never really been able to see the point of Twitter though.

    2. Re:I thought the same thing, only more annoying by xtracto · · Score: 1

      hmmm well... I thought the same about MSN messenger (at least in my country), and nowadays the majority of people who were in MSN use Facebook to communicate instead.

      Good ridance if you ask me... It was so bad to get 10 messenger windows opening just as you login, with messages of people that would *never* think of writing you an email and only say "hey hello how have you been, long time on see you" because you popped up online.

      So, I expect something else will come in some years and everyone will migrate from Facebook to that...

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  34. MySpace?! by adairw · · Score: 1

    People actually still use it?!

  35. former ms employee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just keep in mind that despite the product having been shit all along, the core tech behind it all is very legit. At one point the site was one of the most trafficked sites in the world, we were pushing more bandwidth than google somewhere in the '06 timeframe. From a backend technology point of view it was one of the most interesting and fun places to work around. But yes.. all the product criticism is unfortunately completely justified. The leadership on that side of things has always been worse than non-existent. It's a real shame for the techies that know what they're doing that still work or used to work there.

    1. Re:former ms employee by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      It started to go downhill drastically at about the time Murdoch bought it.

    2. Re:former ms employee by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      It started to go downhill drastically because Murdoch bought it.

  36. Huh, I already knew this... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    It was posted on Facebook...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  37. 3 Million people just shared what they’re in by willodotcom · · Score: 1

    Wished they hadn't to be honest....
    This for example, was on there today(thanks(?) to Sarah Michelle Olmstead)

    "Wat am i supose to do wen the best part of me wuz always u nd wat am i supose to say wen im all choked"

    I mean for fuck's sake.

  38. how r the stocks? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    What does this do to the stocks, up or down, I am not sure, maybe up cause they see myspace is serious in streamlining and remaining in the game, or down, because everyone sees this as signs of trouble...?

  39. roll back myspace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one uses myspace anymore because the layout/menus are all messed up and pages take too long to load on older computers. All they need to do is roll back to the version they were using a couple years ago and everything will be fine and people will start using it again.

  40. legacy business by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Truer more descriptive words never spoken.

    I know my first reaction is MySpace is still hanging around? They had more than 1000 people working for them still? They still have 500 people doing something at MySpace?

    In other news MySpace lost half their user base... :)

  41. Aw, Snap! by prometx42 · · Score: 1

    I mean, Daaaaaaaaaaaaa --*cough, cough!*-- aaaaaaamn!

  42. Whats funnier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The post itself, or that it was modded 'Funny'?

  43. Netcraft confirms it by cashman73 · · Score: 1
  44. Job Offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an offer to any newly laid off MySpace project manager or product person, we will give you an interview as soon as you can make it over...

    Citrusbyte is a rapidly growing LA based web application dev shop.

    http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/sof/2159291337.html