zlacker

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Philips' revenue was ~20 billion last year. Why must these people shit all over everything to squeeze out even more on top of that?

Where are all of the businesses with values that put humans first? Is it just necessary to be so ruthlessly destructive to make it at all?

>>mostly+(OP)
Duty to shareholders or whatever the standard excuse is.

>>mostly+(OP)
It’s not just that.

Philips’ “managers” are screwing up many of their historic product lines and then discontinuing them when the margins go negative.

>>mostly+(OP)
HN is filled full of money and well-connected engineers.

There are hundreds of people on this site that can begin creating a competing company/product line starting tomorrow if they care to.

It's exceptionally difficult, expensive, with a high risk of failure. And it'll properly take years of your life even if it fails. No small order for sure.

> Where are all of the businesses with values that put humans first?

A lot of them start out that way, while they're still founder owned/controlled. The enshittification is a market opening, if someone dares to pursue it.

>>Negati+v
That’s a lie that the execs tell. Yes, they do have a duty to the shareholders, but the lie is that they are allowed to exercise their reasonable business judgement, which actually gives them very broad latitude to determine what’s in the shareholders interest.

The execs could easily argue that in their business judgement it’s in the shareholders best interests if they make a long term play, and chose to forego maximizing profits in the short term, and instead maintain positive customer goodwill in the interests of maximizing profits over a longer time span.

As long as they can provide some plausible reasoning behind their decision, they’re safe.

So, the “I have to maximize shareholder value” argument is… on the surface true, but hides a ton of autonomy and decision making power that the executives have.

>>advent+01
Not only that, there are many of us that are contributing to the problem and are willing to hand wave it away because of the pay and the freedom that comes with it.

(Not you and me, though, we have principles, right?)

>>ncalla+r1
About ten years ago, an activist investor tried to get Apple to reduce their green stance, in favor of profit. They wanted Apple to commit to only working for profit and shareholder return.

Tim Cook got visibly angry at them, and told them that it was a core principle, and there was no way that Apple would compromise on it.

Say what you will about him, but he has personal reasons for valuing privacy, and he knows that compromising one core principle, in favor of profit, will inevitably lead to compromising customer information.

Looks like he made the right call. Apple is closing in on $3T.

>>mostly+(OP)
Does Philips the main corporation still own Phillips hue? I thought they sold off the brand or at least the rights to the brand?

>>mostly+(OP)
Philips doesn't make lightbulbs, only healthcare products now. The lighting brand was spun out into a new company called Signify [0] several years ago as part of Philips' persistent goal to divest themselves of anything that could be considered remotely innovative or forward thinking.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signify_N.V.

>>mardif+W5
Philips spins off subsidiaries like a spider does webs. It’s been a while but last I knew they were basically NL’s biggest startup incubator.

>>ChrisM+V4
Tim Cook also acted from a place of strength. That was one investor, and Apple was (and still is) rolling in more money than it quite literally knows what to do with.

I wonder if Tim Cook could get away with it if margins were slimmer, and Apple wasn't the most ludicrous cash making machine since Standard Oil.

Thats my worry, when Apple (and they very well may, who knows) takes a dive, eventually, at some point in the future, will they start selling off the farm?

>>LeafIt+U4
A large chunk of the HN crowd of course, we work for big tech companies or heavily capitalistic private enterprises. not you and me though! ;)

>>mostly+(OP)
We need a not-for-profit tech company

>>no_wiz+Z7
There’s two questions:

“Could get away with it” in terms of “would he be liable for a lawsuit for failing to meet the duty to shareholders”, probably not as long as he could article a reasonably justifiable reason his actions were in the shareholder interests, that isn’t directly contradicted by evidence.

“Could he get away with it” in terms of “would shareholders fire him?” maybe not. Depends on the shareholders, I guess.