zlacker

>>anothe+(OP)
The growth mindset is incredible for expanding when your product is in its early ages. But there should be a "sustain" mindset at some point. First you push to grow the market, or your market share. When returns on your efforts become diminishing, you push to improve how much you earn of each customer/each sale. At some point there should be a mindset that our company is worth X dollars, and we should sustain that.

What happens instead is companies keep rewarding executives by increases in revenue, they keep rewarding product managers similarly, and product managers selectively choose metrics that optimize immediate revenue, at the expense of brand loyalty. This is happening to almost every tech company, and the exceptions are rare gems.

In android, if I click on a link in facebook messenger that takes me to facebook, the back button takes me "back" to facebook's home screen instead of to the messenger app. Tapping back button again does nothing. I have to switch back to messenger manually. That's 5-6 taps/swipes instead of 1, because a product manager's bonus in FB depends on how well they beg for more engagement. As a result, I rarely use any of these products. I used to spend some time in Instagram/FB. I close LinkedIn immediately after an important interaction for similar reasons.

I made a mistake of buying another Samsung product after years. Never again. I made a mistake of buying another HP product, never again. I might still consider Dell only because of how well they supported me with their monitor flicker.

None of these products have a defect that's caused by poor design, programming, or manufacturing. They all suffer from growth-obsessed mindset.

Brother is what it is, not because of lack of innovation, but because of deliberate evasion of short-sighted greed.

>>aljgz+u4
Instead of trying to innovate in-house, many big old companies would be MUCH better served returning the money to shareholders.

The shareholders can then invest into new companies and startups.

This is much better for the economy AND for the shareholders

>>konsch+ea
Stock buy-backs exist, and are controversial for various reasons.

>>hef198+ab
My point is that stock buybacks and dividends are good for the economy.

>>konsch+od
The point is that they are good for management, share prices and share holders. The economy is made of more than just those groups.

>>hef198+Xd
They are also good for everybody else, because they incentivise investment that grows the economy, which means rising real wages.

>>konsch+cf
Now that you link stock buybavks to growing salaries, I cannot ignore it anymore.

Stock buybacks only benefit shareholders and companies, not the economie. Trickle down and all that doesn't work, stock buybacks reduce a companies tax burden, especially when leveraged which they often are, do not lead to more investment. And they make the rich even richer.

See, for example, here:

https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for...

And salaries rise, primarily, through labour organization and collective bargaining.

>>hef198+zg
Stock buybacks are not “trickle down” economics. It’s returning money to investors who then have to rebalance their portfolios and find something new to invest in. This is what is good for the economy.