Slashdot Mirror


Twitter To Begin Layoffs (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Just a few days ago, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey returned to the company and took over the role of CEO. Now, the NY Times reports that the company will be facing layoffs as he cuts the company's costs. Twitter somehow manages to employ over 4,100 people across 35+ offices, so many investors are thrilled with the news. "Twitter's spending has been rising. In the last quarter for which Twitter reported financial results, costs and expenses totaled $633 million, up 37 percent from a year earlier. The layoffs will most likely affect multiple areas of the company, including the engineering and media teams, according to the people with knowledge of the plans." The company is also dropping plans to build a 100,000 square-foot expansion to its headquarters.

138 comments

  1. Bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they'll roll out the promoted tweets in earnest.

    1. Re:Bad news by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      100% promoted tweets! no user content. now we're talking!

  2. Great, another idiot by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The layoffs will most likely affect multiple areas of the company, including the engineering and media teams, according to the people with knowledge of the plans.

    So, cut everyone except the management positions. What's left? NOTHING. And I hope he becomes CEO of Facebook in a few years, too.

    1. Re:Great, another idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering the disparity in wages these days, firing just one guy from management would reduce costs 2-3 times as much.

    2. Re:Great, another idiot by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, at least, I hope they inform their employees of their firing with a tweet.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Great, another idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The layoffs will most likely affect multiple areas of the company, including the engineering and media teams, according to the people with knowledge of the plans.

      So, cut everyone except the management positions. What's left? NOTHING.

      And I hope he becomes CEO of Facebook in a few years, too.

      Well you get the manager to fire everyone below them.

      Then, you fire the manager.

      If you fire the manager alongside everyone under him, it will be a major clusterfuck.

    4. Re:Great, another idiot by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      The layoffs will most likely affect multiple areas of the company, including the engineering and media teams, according to the people with knowledge of the plans.

      So, cut everyone except the management positions. What's left? NOTHING.

      And I hope he becomes CEO of Facebook in a few years, too.

      Well you get the manager to fire everyone below them.

      Then, you fire the manager.

      If you fire the manager alongside everyone under him, it will be a major clusterfuck.

      That's what you hire hatchet men for. You put them in a management position with the task of shutting things down and firing people. It's part of the deal that they go away at the end.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:Great, another idiot by FrankDrebin · · Score: 2

      #pinkslip

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    6. Re:Great, another idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ? Twitter sends 140 characters of ACS2 to people, how in the living hell does that require 4,000 people to do?

    7. Re:Great, another idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe something like: Dear employee, in order for our company to maintain a lead in the marketplace, it comes with a heavy heart we must make cutbacks. Sorry, you

    8. Re: Great, another idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crazy for a glorified IRC client.

    9. Re: Great, another idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine what kind of sociopath you'd have to be to be willing to do, much less enjoy, a job like that?

    10. Re: Great, another idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're called "efficiency experts".

    11. Re:Great, another idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The disparity isn't even in the wages but in the profits the early investors could make by having the opportunity to buy stocks of an unknown website and having its value skyrocket through the media coverage controlled by the same early investors who than can dump the shares right before the exponential growth of the stock value stops. It was the same with Facebook or with any other "offer for free, grow fast, increase stock value exponentially by selling to ignorant investors, promise profit by introducing ads, when unsuccessful extend life by layoffs, when unsuccessful give yourself a golden parachute, and a small (read big) bonus by selling your shares by the short increase in stock value because you stepped down" schemes.

      The only thing we all can agree on is that nothing of value is lost, and some people have made some money as long as it lasted (expect to stupid small stock market gamblers).

    12. Re: Great, another idiot by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I had one as a neighbor. I don't think he enjoyed it, but he took the work. He freed many Tektronix employees from the burden of employment.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  3. Message from Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're fired. Reason: Check-in logs used too many characters. Server space is important.

  4. Really...? by Ed_1024 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From summary:

    Twitter somehow manages to employ over 4,100 people across 35+ offices

    What do they do? I would have thought this is one business that could almost be run in the cloud with no human involvement (apart from the tweeters)...

    1. Re:Really...? by belthize · · Score: 1

      Agreed. If somebody had asked me how many employees twitter had I don't think I'd have guessed more than 1000. I'd be vaguely interested (as in I'd read it if it were in front of me but I won't go looking) to see what the employee distribution was by department and role.

    2. Re:Really...? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Presumably about 90% of them are selling advertising? Sorry, 'Sponsored Tweets' or whatever they call it.

    3. Re:Really...? by rgmoore · · Score: 4, Informative

      What do they do?

      There are plenty of things to do in the company. For one thing, they have to have a bunch of people trying to convince advertisers to buy space. I assume that's the main reason to have a bunch of scattered offices; they have to have the people selling the ads where the buyers are. They also have a bunch of developers working on new features, like their new "moments" thingy, and presumably on better ways of targeting their ads. Finally, they have to have customer service and support people to do things like responding to abuse complaints.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    4. Re:Really...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really easy to take a web app and just imagine it will scale to however many users you want, just throw more servers at it. But to make twitter successful they probably need regional marketing who understand their local markets, people to manage celebrity accounts, people working security and support -- think how many users they have and imagine some % losing account access or being hacked, people to manage these offices and people, regional HR and finance for per geo tax & finance, local mobile carrier preload deal managers/BD heads, etc. etc. Some of these offices may be lower value today but operated as an emerging market opportunity for growth. That's just a guess and there is probably more.

    5. Re:Really...? by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 4, Funny

      What do they do? I would have thought this is one business that could almost be run in the cloud with no human involvement (apart from the tweeters)...

      C*O and Senior Management: 20

      Middle Management: 10

      Administration: 5

      Devs: 2

      Legal: 4063

    6. Re:Really...? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of those were the paid moderators charged with investigating flagged tweets and suspected code of conduct violations. A lot of that can't be automated, so it must be one of their more labor-intensive tasks.

    7. Re:Really...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe you ought to have a look at all the technology that has come out of Twitter.

      https://engineering.twitter.com/opensource/projects

      Then there's also Apache Storm, and Nathan Marz's book on the Lambda Architecture.

    8. Re:Really...? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      What do they do?

      There are plenty of things to do in the company. For one thing, they have to have a bunch of people trying to convince advertisers to buy space. I assume that's the main reason to have a bunch of scattered offices; they have to have the people selling the ads where the buyers are. They also have a bunch of developers working on new features, like their new "moments" thingy, and presumably on better ways of targeting their ads. Finally, they have to have customer service and support people to do things like responding to abuse complaints.

      I have always wondered how Twitter makes their money. I suppose these layoffs answer that question... they don't make money.

    9. Re:Really...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What do they do?

      There are plenty of things to do in the company. For one thing, they have to have a bunch of people trying to convince advertisers to buy space. I assume that's the main reason to have a bunch of scattered offices; they have to have the people selling the ads where the buyers are. They also have a bunch of developers working on new features, like their new "moments" thingy, and presumably on better ways of targeting their ads. Finally, they have to have customer service and support people to do things like responding to abuse complaints.

      So, like, about 100 people?

    10. Re:Really...? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      4100 is a strange number for a company like Twitter. If it was 4160, I could understand, as then each employee would be in charge of one letter of the alphabet in each position of a Twitter message. But how do you divide the work with 4100 people on board?

    11. Re:Really...? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      don't forget all the accounting, it, hr, admin, all the back office stuff that is not directly related to the software, the service, or the adds. those people have a target on their backs. the people who fill out the tps reports.

    12. Re: Really...? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Twitter used to run on an enterprise hosting service, bare metal, Cassandra, Hadoop etc. They decided one day to insource and left the service holding the bag on leases for 2900 HP servers.

  5. Wow by PSXer · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seems to me that...

    comment continued in next post

  6. Why did it go public? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it stays small (or goes back to small, in terms of assets, including human assets), why did it need to go public? Isn't the way back to small proof that there's nothing big in future, and shouldn't investors be worried, not thrilled? Small needs only a small invest, and if that would lead to great things, the original investors/owners wouldn't need anyone to participate.

    1. Re:Why did it go public? by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Probably because they had no real business model beyond attract users for a long time which meant they needed to take on venture capital to pay for everything. The VCs know that the best way to get their payout is to take the company public and cash in on the IPO.

    2. Re:Why did it go public? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      Ah, very very good point. Cloud/internets things don't HAVE to employ people at all, just machines.

      Which speaks to Twitter and cloud-based corporations not nearly as much as it speaks to the stock market in general.

      If it's nothing but a brainless stampede to what has the best valuation, it raises the question of 'is the highest valuation of a public corporation reserved for those that destroy all human resources leaving only capital itself and a bunch of cloud computers?'

      If humans do not think so, then when computers take over winning in the stock market, will they be more likely or less likely to make fellow computers with no human involvement win in the stock market and wipe out everything else?

      Weird kind of 'singularity', using the mechanisms of capitalism as economic warfare against humans themselves. Weirder that humans themselves are starting that tactic. I'm prepared to bet that massive layoffs will still be good for the stock price.

    3. Re:Why did it go public? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      To make the original investors and owners rich.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    4. Re:Why did it go public? by umghhh · · Score: 0

      Massive layoffs are always good for stock price. The problem is this is not working if you have nobody to let go. I think we are indeed reaching the singularity - the brainlessness of human kind is growing faster than ever, faster even than population in some quarters is. Major layoffs will follow major rupture in societies. Massive die off follows. Dark ages again. It all points this direction. I only hope they finally find place for storing damned radioactive waste somewhere but that is not a big worry - after all I will not see any problems with it in my lifetime.

    5. Re:Why did it go public? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Probably because they had no real business model beyond attract users for a long time which meant they needed to take on venture capital to pay for everything. The VCs know that the best way to get their payout is to take the company public and cash in on the IPO.

      And this is different than with other internet startups how, exactly?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Why did it go public? by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      And this is different than with other internet startups how, exactly?

      It's not. This is Internet Bubble 2.0.

    7. Re:Why did it go public? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Come on. It's not like the world will end when Twitter goes bust.

      The ones who'll really lose are the ones left holding the shares when that happens.

    8. Re:Why did it go public? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it stays small (or goes back to small, in terms of assets, including human assets), why did it need to go public?

      Well, in the scenario in which it remains private, we have a small company with a small bunch of people working incredibly hard to do something small.

      And, in the scenario in which it goes public, we have a small company with a small bunch of people working incredibly hard to do something small, a few people make BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND SWIM IN COCAINE AND HOOKERS FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, and a few more people make a million or two and get to retire nicely, and then the company blows up and returns to a small bunch of people working incredibly hard to do something small.

      All companies are ultimately doomed whether they get big and implode or remain small and shrivel on the vine, but lifestyle businesses are guaranteed an ignonimous death. They start small, and they end small, and their employees remain small until they die of burnout or old age, whichever comes first. Why not go with the scenario in which there's at least a non-zero chance you might be one of the lucky ones who makes it big.

    9. Re:Why did it go public? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      its not a startup, its a publicly traded company with a half billion in revenue. it was a startup, but not in a long time.

    10. Re:Why did it go public? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      its not a startup, its a publicly traded company with a half billion in revenue. it was a startup, but not in a long time.

      In 2014 revenue was 1.4 billion. Unfortunately they made a net loss of 0.57 billion, and have had losses for the past five years.

      Their financial results are more like those of a start up than a normal publicly traded company.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Twitter's spending has been rising and it's a good thing they're laying people off to cut costs because god forbid they allow people to make a living, own a house and have a family. I'd rather see profits go up by half a percent than help hundreds of people live a comfortable, happy life with a steady income!

    Employing people shouldn't be a sin. It's enough of an insult we have to work like dogs our entire lives just to be able to eat and survive then you get shareholders who want more and more profit and are willing to screw us over to get it.
    How many of these people being laid off will lose their home or significant other? How many will end up in a god awful job they'd sometimes rather be dead than go to? How many lives have to be ruined in the constant pursuit of profit?

    1. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, employing people should not be a sin. To Wall Street investors, however, it is a huge unforgivable one. Unless of course we're taking about H1-Bs from India. Then it's ok.

      Bottom line: don't work for a publicly traded company if you can at all arrange not to. Your income is a lot safer that way.

      That said, I'm surprised that a useless social networking company that caters to narcissists employs anyone at all, but that's kind of a special case. Then again, considering everyone under 40 has a portfolio consisting entirely of Facebook, Twitter, GoPro, and maybe Apple such a collapse repeated a few times could cause the ruination of a whole generation...

    2. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't work for a publicly traded company

      +1. also, public companies are just a scam to enrich a small group of executive insiders. why should I show up every day and work my ass off to make some fuckhead rich? at least with a small private company I can keep an eye on the top people and get an idea if they're taking too much of the pie.

    3. Re: Investors are parasites by 0123456 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Dude, you do realize you can, you know, like, invest in the public company you work for that's, like, enriching their investors?

      Oh, no, better just to bitch about the EVIL 1% than actually do something.

    4. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I hate to break it to you, but you have it backwards. You KNOW in a public company who is getting rich. Stock grants/options/sales for the executives are all recorded for the public to see. In a private company you have no idea where the money is going.

    5. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like, where are the golden parachutes for the worker bees, like?

    6. Re:Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waste is a sin. You see investors as wasteful; sucking away money without contributing to the company.
      I counter that unnecessary employees are wasteful; sucking away money without contributing to the company.

      If the company is to stay in business, it must earn a profit. In order to do that, it must not employ a bunch of people that it simply doesn't need.

      Incidentally, those parasitical investors are also keen on investing in startups, which provides launch money that helps those startups create jobs and get off the ground.

      It turns out that the economy is complicated and interconnected, and every choice is a trade-off. You sound like someone who doesn't actually know the facts, and just sees the world from a poor person's perspective (e.g. *I* should have access to a stable and comfortable living without having to do anything risky or hard! Anyone who does not offer me that is greedy and evil!)

    7. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you are part of a public corporation you can get stock options, stock grants an also invest in the employee share buying program where you get shares at a discount. In a private corporation you get nothing - just your salary. I much prefer to be part of a public company. That is how I made all my money.

    8. Re:Investors are parasites by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Companies do not exist to lose money either. Now, their market cap is $20B, they lose $750M per year, and have 4,100 employees. They have about $2B cash less debt. While their CFO did make an obscene amount last year ($72M), and likely should be fired as he doesn't seem to be doing much for the company, that won't solve all their problems.

      This type of situation has the dot-bomb written all over it. Trimming things back at least gives the company a chance to survive.

    9. Re:Investors are parasites by theGhostPony · · Score: 2

      Been there. Gave Lexmark International a decade of my life working in Software Dev. Then in 2009 they closed our lab and let us all go after they off-shored our work to Cebu. Do you know how hard it is for a fifty-year-old to get work in this field these days?

      I'll never forgive those fuckers for what they did to us.

      --
      /. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
    10. Re:Investors are parasites by ahabswhale · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh bullshit. Twitter burns money like there's no tomorrow. They've never made a single penny of profit. To think that this would somehow go on forever, without consequences, is ridiculous. If anything, investors have been way to forgiving of twitter for far too long. Also, you're not doing anything to preserve jobs when you risk the company going under. Grow up.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    11. Re:Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      how hard it is

      Yes, and have known since high school. Companies never give anything and neither should you (or anyone). Trade your time for money, sure, but do your own planing that should include planning on getting laid off at any moment for any reason.

    12. Re:Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of these people being laid off will lose their home or significant other?

      These significant others don't seem to be very significant if they are filing for divorce as soon as their meal ticket gets laid off.

    13. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And is all your money anything impressive?

    14. Re:Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, screw those profit focused founders who do stupid things like create new companies such as Twitter which then end up needing employees to run the business.

    15. Re:Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many lives have to be ruined in the constant pursuit of profit?

      Unfortunately as many as necessary!

    16. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, employing people should not be a sin. To Wall Street investors, however, it is a huge unforgivable one

      So, how many gardeners, nannies, and cooks do you employ?

      Oh, right, you don't have the money to employ them, so you don't.

      Guess what, it's the same with Wall Street investors.

      Then again, considering everyone under 40 has a portfolio consisting entirely of Facebook, Twitter, GoPro, and maybe Apple such a collapse repeated a few times could cause the ruination of a whole generation...

      Don't generalize from your own stupid investment decisions to everybody else.

    17. Re:Investors are parasites by nnull · · Score: 1

      And sadly, with this mentality, innovation begins to suffer. But it wasn't me who created this situation. It's a sad state of affairs when it used to be companies employing happy workers that were pushing boundaries, now it's small start ups that wait to be bought out.

    18. Re:Investors are parasites by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Your rant might make more sense if Twitter was profitable. They posted a $137 million loss. So yea I suspect the share holders do think getting EPS (as there are no profits) up by half a percent is pretty important, because I am sure none of them signed up to fund, other people's desire to: "own a house and have a family".

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    19. Re:Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter doesnt make a profit.

    20. Re: Investors are parasites by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Private companies can offer ESOP plans giving the workers a stake in the companies success.

    21. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private companies can offer ESOP plans giving the workers a stake in the companies success.

      And how does the employee sell shares in a privately-held corporation once they think it's topped out? A company that has no exit strategy is a black hole for capital.

    22. Re:Investors are parasites by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2

      Twitter's spending has been rising and it's a good thing they're laying people off to cut costs because god forbid they allow people to make a living, own a house and have a family. I'd rather see profits go up by half a percent than help hundreds of people live a comfortable, happy life with a steady income!

      Employing people shouldn't be a sin. It's enough of an insult we have to work like dogs our entire lives just to be able to eat and survive then you get shareholders who want more and more profit and are willing to screw us over to get it.
      How many of these people being laid off will lose their home or significant other? How many will end up in a god awful job they'd sometimes rather be dead than go to? How many lives have to be ruined in the constant pursuit of profit?

      What profits? There aren't any profits. There never have been. Twitter's operating margin is -30.2%. If they can't reduce expenses, everyone loses their jobs.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    23. Re:Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter's spending has been rising and it's a good thing they're laying people off to cut costs because god forbid they allow people to make a living, own a house and have a family. I'd rather see profits go up by half a percent than help hundreds of people live a comfortable, happy life with a steady income!

      Employing people shouldn't be a sin. It's enough of an insult we have to work like dogs our entire lives just to be able to eat and survive then you get shareholders who want more and more profit and are willing to screw us over to get it.
      How many of these people being laid off will lose their home or significant other? How many will end up in a god awful job they'd sometimes rather be dead than go to? How many lives have to be ruined in the constant pursuit of profit?

      All of them. The end.

    24. Re:Investors are parasites by Alioth · · Score: 1

      What profit? I don't think Twitter has ever made one.

    25. Re:Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it has much to do with dot-bomb. More to do with the ridiculous salaries executives are making. They have a CFO making $72M a year, there's pretty much nothing he can do to be worth that value. There are likely millions of people who could replace him, and do a better job for a tiny fraction of that sum. The issue is it's not about ability or value, it's about sucking as much money as you can from a company and splitting some with your buddies while the lower end workers are simply tools to achieve that end.

    26. Re:Investors are parasites by sjames · · Score: 1

      It may not totally solve their problem, but cutting him will do as much for them as cutting nearly 1,000 other employees.

    27. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A corporation's priorities should be this:

      1 Customers
      2 Employees
      3 Shareholders

      This would be best for the country, because you know, jobs. Corporations would be good citizens, and if well run, still make a buck.

      Instead we have this:

      1 Shareholders
      2 Customers
      3 Employees

      And that ordering of corporate priorities is enforced by law in the US. Shareholders can, and have, sued companies that don't place shareholder value first. Thank the SCOTUS for that.

      By law we have created a sick form of capitalism that actually hurts us.

    28. Re: Investors are parasites by segwonk · · Score: 1

      "That said, I'm surprised that a useless social networking company that caters to narcissists..."

      Wait, wait, wait a minute. I see this characterization all the time and it's getting tiresome. Yes, there are plenty of narcissists on Twitter. Fine. But there are also plenty of us who like to curate feeds of interesting people and organizations we like to follow. Twitter fills that niche for me, and it's pretty easy to skim past their minimal advertising.

      i.e., people making these pointless observations about Twitter are adding nothing of value to the conversation.

      I might also add in response to the comment above about no managers being targeted for firing... That may be, but the way I read it, the summary mentions whole departments and I would assume managers would be included in the layoffs.

      --
      - ------ Go 'til ya know.
    29. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is they aren't making a profit, they are losing millions.

    30. Re: Investors are parasites by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Uh, is selling stock the only way to make money? All those private companies out there must be blackholes.

    31. Re: Investors are parasites by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken. The sole purpose of a company is to make money for the owners. Owners (which includes shareholders in the case of publicaly traded company) are number one. Nothing else makes sense. Customers if given the chance would take everything, humans have unlimited wants.

    32. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you'd be able to invest even more money if we didn't have as much wealth inequality.

    33. Re: Investors are parasites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was covered.

    34. Re:Investors are parasites by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is time to start a new business? We can't call it Slashdot Inc. or anything... Hmm...

      How about Graybeard International LTD?

      They can specialize in contract crisis work where people who retain the talents of yesteryear are able to run in and solve emergency IT problems or crisis work in engineering new projects. We can even have a superhero logo. Someone draw up some plans. I'd consider investing in something like that. Kind of like a mature Geek Squad (only with talent/skills) for businesses.

      I can steal the signature of one of our peers - Have GNU, will travel. Wearing a cape and mask is mandatory, however.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    35. Re: Investors are parasites by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The shares are issued and held by the company and paid out in it's entirety if you change jobs or just want the money. There is no trading of the shares. Shares increase in value based on the performance of the company and can go up or down but they are less volatile than the investment packages people carry in their 401K.

    36. Re: Investors are parasites by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      don't work for a publicly traded company

      +1. also, public companies are just a scam to enrich a small group of executive insiders. why should I show up every day and work my ass off to make some fuckhead rich? at least with a small private company I can keep an eye on the top people and get an idea if they're taking too much of the pie.

      Nonsense, unless you're the Head of Finance or something, you will have absolutely no idea how much the directors in a private company are earning.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    37. Re: Investors are parasites by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      Yes, employing people should not be a sin. To Wall Street investors, however, it is a huge unforgivable one. Unless of course we're taking about H1-Bs from India. Then it's ok.

      Bottom line: don't work for a publicly traded company if you can at all arrange not to. Your income is a lot safer that way.

      That said, I'm surprised that a useless social networking company that caters to narcissists employs anyone at all, but that's kind of a special case. Then again, considering everyone under 40 has a portfolio consisting entirely of Facebook, Twitter, GoPro, and maybe Apple such a collapse repeated a few times could cause the ruination of a whole generation...

      Employing people is not a sin, but being employed is also not a God-given right.
      Employees need to create value for companies. If an employee costs the company $100k/year, and the company only benefits $80k from that worker, it would be charity to continue to keep the employee on the payroll. That's all well and good, until there's no more in the piggy bank.

    38. Re:Investors are parasites by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --You misspelled "Neckbeard" ;-) but I'm with you 99%. I would invest in that company, maybe work for it when the time came :-D
       
      // not even half joking, somebody DO THIS

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    39. Re:Investors are parasites by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It's tempting. I've got the funding to get something of that nature started - I think it'd have to be expensive, very pricey, and would need to have people on-site in many instances so these people would have to be able to up-root and move, with a quickness, for an indeterminate amount of time. I'm really thinking the "super heroes" of IT, Comp Sci, etc...

      It needs some mulling and refining but I already sold my business and retired. I'm not sure that I'd want to do much more than provision investment funds and, maybe, guide (not lead - I'm not qualified in the technologies which I'm thinking would be best suited for this). Someone, at some company, has old hardware that is an embedded system, no documentation, and the person who put it in place has long since moved on? Call Neckbeards Inc! Old COBOL and we need an up-time better than the five nines? Call Neckbeard Inc! Need a custom app and need it fast, secure, and effective? Call Neckbeards Inc!

      Not just consultants but actual workers - highly qualified and absolutely the best in the industry (or really damned good). Sort of like Geek Squad except with real geeks who know their shit and are actually able to have a diverse set of skills and experiences so they can fix emergencies that can't be easily resolved. From networking, security, forensics, programming, architecture (server), mainframe work, etc... Even consulting - why not bring in the people who've worked in the field to help you set up your new data center? Pay them well and then send them on their way but - in return - get great service.

      It would be imperative that the work be truly high quality and that the people involved would have an impeccable service history or at least be able to demonstrate vast sums of knowledge - even if they're just very specifically involved in one field, I guess, but we'd need a bunch.

      This might actually be viable.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  8. Twitter's 6 employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Twitter is such a simple service that its employee roster is easy to quantify: one CEO (needed to rake in the cash and phone for hookers and pizza), and 5 software engineers who are permanently asleep in their hammocks except when something breaks and the alarms go off.

    So who are they going to lay off? I'm confused.

    1. Re:Twitter's 6 employees by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Funny

      You forgot all the UX people whose job it is to randomly change Twitter's UI around for no real reason. Don't forget, Twitter is a modern web-based application, it needs UX because if there's one thing a platform based around sending 140-character messages shouldn't be, it's simple.

      (No, really, they seem to love randomly changing their website and client apps. I guess so those 4100 employees can justify their existence. Alternatively they feel they need to mimic Facebook.)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    2. Re:Twitter's 6 employees by umghhh · · Score: 0

      UX? Is this some new type of pr0n? I heard a guy talking about it the other day in the meeting.

    3. Re:Twitter's 6 employees by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      UI people decided that "UI" wasn't pretentious enough, and so created "User Experience". The don't just fuck up the UI these days, they fuck up every part of the user experience.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Twitter's 6 employees by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      User Experience As in how do we make the experience for the user as miserable as possible while at the same time making it look 'pretty'

    5. Re:Twitter's 6 employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      User Experience As in how do we make the experience for the user as miserable as possible while at the same time making it look 'pretty'

      No, no, you forgot, we have to get metrics to justify all the design decisions. So we can A/B test every combination and permutation of design possibilities. Every time we A/B test, the company pays us to fuck up the UX with at least two designs, and not just one! More metrics means more jobs for more UXtards!

    6. Re:Twitter's 6 employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely that could have been farmed out to the Firefox UX team to reduce costs...

      - T

  9. what in the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do all these people even do at twitter all day? What is there for a developer to develop?
    Sounds like a 100 person company to me!

  10. They ought to let go of abandoned handles also by maweki · · Score: 1

    Maybe they also let go of some abandoned usernames. I am @maweki1 and unable to get @maweki because of some shmuck that has tweeted twice in 2010 and then never again.

    1. Re:They ought to let go of abandoned handles also by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      That's probably about 90% of their userbase though, which would make advertisers pay even less for sponsored tweets than they already do.

  11. What about clock boy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has Obama's clock boy still got a spot there? Maybe he can decompile something and call it his invention.

  12. Another failed company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Why couldn't this be github? ????

  13. @world, just lost my job at twitter #techboomover by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    This may be the tipping point the for Tech Bubble Version 2.0

  14. Fail Whale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When last did you see the infamous Twitter Fail Whale? 4,100 sounds like a lot of people, but Twitter is running well, right now. I suspect that the staff are doing something right.

    1. Re:Fail Whale? by umghhh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That actually fits into my observations of industry - do something right and you get optimized out of your job.

    2. Re:Fail Whale? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      When last did you see the infamous Twitter Fail Whale?

      I predict we'll be seeing the big fella a lot more, starting roughly 12-18 months from now.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re: Fail Whale? by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      That actually fits into my observations of industry - do something right and you get optimized out of a job.

      I don't see that as a problem. If I automated something so well to increase efficiency and lower cost, I see that as a career success that I could easily sell as a talking point at my next interview.

      Like they say at Netflix, a company is like a pro sports team, not a family. For instance, I'm sure all of the engineers who got laid off at Netflix when they moved everything to AWS wont have a problem getting a job.

    4. Re: Fail Whale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately since you've go nowhere left to go because all the jobs have been automated and a smaller pool allows for less people that get paid below a living wage to do the job. Have a nice life...you know until you starve to death...oh you're still here?

    5. Re: Fail Whale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen this effect time and tie again in the development space. The ONLY way to ensure the long term existence of your position is to embed yourself in something no one else can do, keep everything you do a secret (in service to the prior statement), or engineer in obsolescence or subsystems that intentionally require ongoing code changes. If you engineer and deliver a rock solid solution that doesn't require ongoing code changes then the minute your product is delivered you are out the door.

  15. Whoopdeedoo by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    ....and nothing of value was lost.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  16. Latest quarterly report by f97tosc · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the latest quarterly report they reported about $500 million in revenues and about $630 million in cost (including administrative and R&D) for a total loss of $130 million.

    Pretty incredible raking in half a billion on online advertisement and still make a loss.

  17. Gotta pay the new CEO's Salary somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So get rid of the people that make the company work.

    If you have shares in this company think about selling ASAP. This sort of CEO move is just the right way to kill a company.
    4K employees can hardly get $600M+ in salaries. That is $150K average salary. In reality there are problably far too many exec's. These should be the people to get laid off but naturally that won't happen.

    1. Re: Gotta pay the new CEO's Salary somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      150k is going to be the average salary. This is San Francisco. A computer science graduate will start at 110-120k.

  18. Their target demo of preteen girls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is getting older and moving to Facebook. The site is dead unless they can appeal to the upcoming group of preteen girls.

  19. Re:@world, just lost my job at twitter #techboomov by OzPeter · · Score: 0

    Re:@world, just lost my job at twitter #techboomover

    What's a Tech Boo Mover? Never heard of that before. Is that something to do with Honey Boo-Boo?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  20. hard to imagine it wouldnt happen. by nimbius · · Score: 2, Informative

    In american companies its routinely accepted that they maintain 15% growth each quarter to be seen as profitable in the eyes of investors. traditional managers will try to maximize this by the product offered, but rarely does a product outside of things like fast-casual food or illegal narcotics offer anything close to this revenue trend. So, what do we do? infrastructure has to be repaired and replaced, and talented engineers in the most expensive city in america aren't cheap. eventually you reach a revenue plateau and have to resort to book-cookery to make the company meet the unspoken 15%. You cant cut project managers, mid management, or upper management because theyre implicit in maintaining the revenue illusion. So, you cut engineering, support, NOC, network and any other skilled craft because they get paid in non-trivial sums.

    once this trend starts its hard to buck. uptime suffers, features are placed ahead of security and bugs, and what once was a well oiled machine now becomes, er, a slashdot of sorts. layoffs continue until morale improves, or more likely you find a buyer. After that your once proud brand just becomes another cog in the internet of things.

    and for those wondering why you have layoffs in america instead of terminations? its because fired employees are entitled to unemployment compensation and laid off employees arent. Sure, they may never be rehired at that job, but the simple fact is companies do it to skirt a myriad of prtotections americans fought for in the early and mid 20th century.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:hard to imagine it wouldnt happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and for those wondering why you have layoffs in america instead of terminations? its because fired employees are entitled to unemployment compensation and laid off employees arent

      That's not true. You are not penalized by unemployment for being layed off, but rather only if fired for cause (theft, etc)

    2. Re:hard to imagine it wouldnt happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fired employees are entitled to unemployment compensation and laid off employees aren't

      You have that backwards. Seems typical level intelligence for this site.

    3. Re:hard to imagine it wouldnt happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're not form the US are you? Having been laid off, and having received my severance package, and having been entitled to unemployment, and having been entitled to a fair few other things, I assure you, you don't know what you're talking about.

    4. Re:hard to imagine it wouldnt happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he got caught amidst a well thought out reply and punished for uaing slashdot at work.

    5. Re:hard to imagine it wouldnt happen. by camazotz · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out you appear not to be from the US. In the US you do get unemployment for being laid off, but not for being fired. One of the many reasons that lay-offs happen is actually due to the fact that in order for a company to fire you it has to demonstrate some level of employee malfeasance, which means arbitration in court if the employee disputes the accusation. I've been through and initiated both processes (and I've been laid off twice and was unemployment-eligible both times). In fact I had an ex-employee who left for personal reasons try to get unemployment compensation by claiming she had been terminated. In actual court she admitted she hadn't and that she thought the fact that the other job prospect (which she did not tell anyone about curiously) had fallen through so she felt she deserved the unemployment. My defense was, "We were happy to help you out in the tough times you stated, and would have rehired you if you'd come back to us." Judged ruled in my favor.

  21. Stick a fork in Bootsrap? by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

    Is it done?

    1. Re:Stick a fork in Bootsrap? by eWarz · · Score: 1

      Bootstrap is no longer part of Twitter (hasn't been for a while) and will continue to exist.

  22. Well final batch of VCs exiting? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Opened at 40, peaked at 70 struggling in 30s now. The last batch of stock options and restricted shares must be coming due to be sold. So some window dressing, get a price bump for a quarter? Seems like it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  23. How to cut costs without losing to many jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move operations out of San Fransisco to, say, Austin Tx. Same hippy culture vibe, and you'll save a fortune in real estate costs, get tax deferrals for 3-5 years, and you won't have to eliminate as many job positions.

  24. Hopefully it affects the Narrative^W Abuse Dep't. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    The Abuse department no longer does any abuse-related work - just narrative control for some few thin-skins.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  25. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never understood these social websites anyways. They are just time wasters for "working" people and bored grannies.

  26. Arrogant twats by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The handful of twitter employees that I met were Type A arrogant twats. These were the sort who within 10 minutes of meeting them would tell you all the different ways they were better than you. First it would be the uber degree from the uber university. Then of course it was that they worked for twitter. Then it was their near perfect SAT that got them into that degree. Then it was where they described that they were doing stats except that they wouldn't even use such a pedestrian word such as ML but had to state it like the title of a serious research paper. Then they might tell you their name but not before telling you all the famous people they had recently met.

    The feeling I got from them was that there was a coked up arrogance to them. That sort of god's gift to mankind attitude.

    What would burn their balls though was when I would say, "Seeing that twitter will eventually peak in usage what comes next to justify that massive valuation? Surely tiny blogging doesn't justify that much value with so little revenue and pretty much no profit."

    Usually they would tell me that it was secret. I would then ask if they were working on the secret. This is where their balls got scorched as if they were so important then why were they just working on a bit of data mining?

    I met exactly one twitter guy who was only somewhat arrogant and he quit. Still a twat though.

    So if I had to guess what their failing was; I would say that it was that they had a tiger by the tail. So they hired people with awesome resumes who went around telling people (and each other) how awesome they all were and thus it became a circle jerk as to how they were going to succeed. But the people they hired were more expert at pleasing teachers and going through checklists in life rather than actually producing anything of value. Had someone of genius assigned them a task they all probably could have done it very well. But on their own they could only massage what already existed.

    Basically these were the kids with an A+ in chemistry and memorized the period table at the beginning of the year but had never just blown shit up in their back yard.

    1. Re:Arrogant twats by istartedi · · Score: 1

      First it would be the uber degree from the uber university

      I know this isn't what you meant, but I couldn't help but imagine an app that tells you there's a guy who knows something about sorting algorithms around the corner. You use it to meet him in a coffee shop, where he explains that stuff to you, and you code some exercises in your language of choice. Next thing you know, you've got an Uber degree in CS from Uber University.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:Arrogant twats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, exactly like Google, Netflix, Hulu etc.

    3. Re:Arrogant twats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Netfilx was founded by a Borland guy and a Rational guy. Google by 3 mathematicians. So at least on the very top level those firms are fine.

    4. Re:Arrogant twats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, that's the best rant I've heard in awhile.

    5. Re:Arrogant twats by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      I like that app. I did sort of worry, while typing, that uber had that whole new meaning.

    6. Re:Arrogant twats by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      For God's sake don't give them ideas o_O

  27. oh, gosh, I hope they stay in business by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Funny

    Twitter provides such a useful service, sucking up celebrities, politicians, journalists, SJWs, and all sorts of other unsavory characters.

    If Twitter ever closes its doors, these uncivilized hordes will wreak havoc on the rest of the world.

    1. Re:oh, gosh, I hope they stay in business by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      The rest of the world is hard. Look at how they tried (and failed) to brigade Slashdot during Brianna Wu's AMA. "I don't understand how the Slashdot works". They think they can overwhelm something with shear numbers and a hash tag.

      I'd rather deal with one or two roaches in my corner of the internet than walk into a mass of all the roaches in the world in a single spot.

  28. Actually, it *could* be automated. by tlambert · · Score: 2

    I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of those were the paid moderators charged with investigating flagged tweets and suspected code of conduct violations. A lot of that can't be automated, so it must be one of their more labor-intensive tasks.

    Actually, it *could* be automated. What we are probably seeing is them about to do a roll-out of exactly that, and the current moderator staff scaled back to the point that they only have to deal with explicit moderation and tweaking of the automoderation software, for things which fall through the filters in the wrong direction, either pro or con.

    My suspicion is that there was an internal "secret project team" utilizing "big data" techniques until they ended up with a trained-up model that (mostly) ended up with the same answers as the human moderation teams, and they are doing this concurrent with a roll-out, and will decide how many people to let go, subsequent to growing pains.

  29. They are all twitter twats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so who cares

  30. Deconstructing Abbott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Undoing the mess brought upon by Mike Abbott.

  31. Well Duh. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    All they have to do is reduce tweets down to 40 characters and they'll need fewer people. Makes perfect sense.

  32. The future of jobs by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Something is really off about the "new economy".

    Twitter is still considered a "rising star", and one of the biggest and most used tech brands.

    YET it only employees about 4k people AND is laying off.

    Craiglist is also one of the most-used services, yet only employs about 60 people.

    1. Re:The future of jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it's not too hard to determine how the new economy works out:

      Unless you have very trustworthy friends with whom you are or will be able to work with and form and protect a coherent community, once the value of your labor is reduced to the cost to of an automaton, you basically get to live by the whims of whoever is in power.

    2. Re:The future of jobs by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's the 'cloud' paradigm, very typical of this stuff. The 'new economy' is stuff that can just GO AWAY, silently in the night. Something happens or somebody buys something or the company's just all execs and PR people, and it becomes like a Google technology millions of people lean heavily on: suddenly, just gone, nobody to talk to about that.

      'Disruptive', no?

      Twitter could just go away, and a bunch of Slashdotters would snark that nothing of value was lost. Not quite true. The real take-away point is that in the new economy, nothing of value is being made. It's shared fantasy sucking up all the capital that otherwise would have to go find real work.

  33. Why have investors? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Why do successful companies even need investors? Haven't they become self-sufficient? Why keep the unneeded bloat?