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
They are good for the stock. There is no evidence they are good for the company, its workers, or the economy.

Stock buybacks have destroyed companies like GE and Boeing.

This is very well covered in the book about Boeing - Flying Blind. A bunch of Jack Welch mentees did the same trick, selling the company for parts and buying back the stock - until there was nothing left to sell. It was very "profitable" for a while, though!

It's not a tool for company growth - it's an accounting trick to make the wealthy ultra-wealthy.

There is a reason why buybacks at these levels were illegal (or at least very hard) until the early 80s, but there were multiple pro-big-business "reforms" that took root under Reagan which are now wrecking sensible Capitalism.

>>renega+SH
So you’re saying companies paying dividends is bad?

That companies should always operate as worker cooperatives and never return money to shareholders?

Because stock buybacks are just another type of dividends.