Business/Markets/Stocks/Economics Random, Random

[ponchi101]

He does make the news with frequency.

[ti-amie]

My first thought was about the legions of people who, hearing he doesn't sleep, tried to imitate him not knowing he's a drug addict/speed freak.
This does however explain a lot of things.

[Suliso]

On the same Musk topic I was reading that he fired ca 75% of TW employees. Granted the site has significantly lost quality likely because of it BUT it still does work. Makes one think that had he fired half as many there would be no real effect at all.

The big tech giants are minting money and most of them overemploy and overpay. Good for those few who work there of course, but not that great for the local economy. Google is now making trouble even in Zurich...

[ponchi101]

What does "overemploy" and "overpay" means, from the social aspect? Let's say you have ten people to do one job (a team). I have seen situations in which there are redundancies, so, in theory, you could fire some of the people.
And then, if anything happens to any one person, you have no backup. If one employee goes, s/he takes with him/her all her knowhow, and you are in a jam.
You need some redundancy in companies. And if you over employ, and you company keeps doing well, thank you so much. You are helping society to remain in balance.

[Suliso]

What does "overemploy" and "overpay" means, from the social aspect? Let's say you have ten people to do one job (a team). I have seen situations in which there are redundancies, so, in theory, you could fire some of the people.
And then, if anything happens to any one person, you have no backup. If one employee goes, s/he takes with him/her all her knowhow, and you are in a jam.
You need some redundancy in companies. And if you over employ, and you company keeps doing well, thank you so much. You are helping society to remain in balance.

Some back up is needed indeed, but not 5x back up. I've read stories from recently fired office workers at Amazon and Facebook that entire teams had little to do. They were hired, given hardly anything useful to do and a year or two later fired. Nothing as extreme as in TW, but the same idea.

As for overpaying that's of course from a perspective of those not employed there. For example, recently Google has greatly expanded its presence in Zurich (5,000 employees, Meta and IBM are here too). They pay enormous salaries (300-400 k for high caliber IT professional, interns are making 100k) which allows them to price out pretty much anyone else from the real estate market in neighborhoods nearby. Young guys come and pay 6,000 $ for a rent for a two bedroom apartment (for reference 1,500-2,000 is a standard in Basel) without blinking an eye. Local companies, even very good ones, can't compete with that.

In fact the same situation, but on a much grander scale is happening in SF area. Social protection is less there so lower income quarter people have nowhere to live at all hence increased homelessness, drug use etc. Quality of life in San Francisco has declined despite all the mega companies in the area.

Just before covid I was supposed to travel for a conference in SF. The plan was that my partner would join me after the conference, we'd rent a car and go to Napa valley among other places. That idea was discarded quickly enough when I saw that there is nowhere to stay for less than 500 $/night in Napa. We found some other places to go, but of course the whole trip was called off anyway for well known reasons.

We might be going to Denver next year for ACS conference if company agrees to pay for it. I believe that part of US still operates normally.

[ti-amie]

I really thought this had happened already.

[ponchi101]

I thought their only new business model was to offer YOU $250K to go for a dive.
How can this company survive is beyond my comprehension.

[ti-amie]

BUFFERING 4:30 P.M.
How a Strike Over Streaming Could End Up Killing Network TV
By Josef Adalian, Vulture's West Coast editor


Netflix has plenty of shows, like Matthew Broderick’s Painkiller, in the pipeline, while network shows like The Good Doctor will likely suffer. Photo-Illustration: Vulture. Photos: Netflix; ABC

While Hollywood studios’ failure to strike a fair deal with writers and actors hasn’t caused any real pain for Netflix (yet), that’s not the case over at the platform’s broadcast network rivals. For them, the ongoing WGA and SAG strikes represent apocalypse now: With soundstages dark, new episodes of big scripted hits like Abbott Elementary, Chicago P.D., and Ghosts will be missing from prime time this fall, replaced mostly by reality shows, reruns, and imports from the U.K. and Canada. “Network TV was already in a bad place, and this is really going to kick it in the nuts,” says one veteran broadcast exec, who expects ratings to plunge 30 to 40 percent as a result of the de facto cancellation of the fall season. “Every week the strike goes on, the networks get weaker, and Netflix gets stronger.”

You would think such a prospect would send the parent companies of ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox scrambling back to the negotiating table to cut a deal. After all, many of the big issues in the current impasse — streaming residuals, tiny writers’ rooms, short episode orders — are not ones that really impact broadcast TV. These companies also own streamers, but unlike Netflix, those platforms are bleeding money; linear networks still turn a profit every year (though it’s far smaller than years past). What’s more, the autumnal absence of network programming isn’t just an issue for broadcasters: Some of the best-performing titles on Peacock, Hulu, and Paramount+ are next-day runs of network shows — the ones that will soon be AWOL. By letting the strike drag on, legacy companies such as Disney, NBCUniversal, and Paramount Global are risking real damage to both their linear and digital businesses in a way that Netflix isn’t, at least not in the short term. (The long lead times in streaming means it has a deep stockpile of existing programming for fall, while a roster of international content will help keep the lights on when the well eventually dries up in 2024.) “I’ve gotta believe that Netflix is very happy to just sit back and let the networks burn,” one industry vet says. “Whether that’s by design or happy accident, I don’t know. But even if they don’t see the broadcasters as their main competition, everyone is competition in the video space. Now you’re gonna knock three or four of your competitors off who represent 20 percent of viewing.”

Despite all this, the old-school media giants have so far seemed content to link arms with digital-native platforms like Netflix and Amazon, even though the newbies have far more reason to preserve the status quo. That alliance has many longtime broadcast insiders shaking their heads — and wondering whether it will last. With broadcast ratings almost certain to plunge further and faster than they had been already, “it almost feels like the networks are complicit in their own self-destruction,” says former longtime Law & Order: SVU showrunner Warren Leight. “It’s like Stockholm syndrome. They’re siding with people who’ve been eating their lunch for the last decade. I probably have more in common with execs at NBC than the execs at NBC have with execs at Netflix.” The longtime broadcast exec is similarly befuddled: “Maybe their plan is to let their networks wither and die, which is what it seems,” he says.

So what’s behind this very weird marriage of traditional media companies and their disruptors? One line of thinking matches up with what our network suit suggests: The conglomerates actually don’t think their linear businesses can be saved and are fine with the process being sped up by a strike. Just last week, Disney’s Bob Iger seemed to suggest as much when he put a “for sale” sign on ABC and the Mouse House’s cable networks (save for ESPN). Over at Paramount Global, CEO Bob Bakish still talks about the power of his linear brands, but his actions suggest he’s all about streaming: Showtime is now basically a tile on Paramount+, MTV is 24/7 Ridiculousness, and CBS has gotten far less prolific in its scripted output and has let franchises such as SEAL Team and Criminal Minds migrate to its streaming sibling.

But at least CBS still has a president-level exec that’s focused exclusively on the network: NBC (and ABC) don’t even bother with network presidents anymore. Indeed, NBCUniversal just got rid of content chief Susan Rovner, who despite devoting a ton of her energies to making shows for Peacock was known internally as a strong advocate for treating NBC as something other than a distressed asset whose decline needed to be managed. “The nerds in charge of streaming — even at corporations with broadcast networks — resent the networks and their shows,” laments one industry insider with decades of broadcast experience. “A ton of their [streaming] viewing comes from their network shows. But instead of embracing it, they act like it’s a burden.” That divide isn’t just between networks and streamers: Someone who works at a legacy studio with ties to a streamer seconds that analysis of corporate priorities. “People who work at studios want one thing, but our streaming partners have a different way of looking at things,” he says.

Obviously, execs at the legacy companies push back at the idea that some people just want to watch the networks burn, or even the idea that starving broadcasters of their biggest scripted hits for a few months is such a bad thing. While ratings will surely be way down, and ad revenue will also take a big hit, one of the biggest sources of revenue for broadcasters — the hundreds of millions in fees they collect from their affiliates and cable operators — will remain steady. At the same time, expenses will plunge, because reruns and reality cost a lot less than new episodes of scripted fare. One industry insider forecasts the networks have a “pretty good chance to come out ahead, at least for a little while.” That might sound cold and calculating, but it’s also probably true: In its earnings report Wednesday, Netflix said its cash on hand would jump by around $1.5 billion this year, a revenue jump that’s a direct result of not having to pay actors and writers. “That’s why there’s zero hurry to settle,” the network wag says. “Every quarter they’re on strike, spending is down and profits are up.”

But while there could be some short-term “benefits” to broadcast TV switching to strike mode this fall, there’s also a real risk — specifically that the audience that tunes out will never return. “Whenever SVU is off for two weeks, there’s attrition in the ratings,” says Leight. The reality that most returning shows will go at least eight or nine months between original episodes — or longer if the strike drags on beyond October 1 — could spell Nielsen disaster. “This is going to hammer the ratings when shows are back on,” he says. The biggest danger as these insiders see it is that the audiences who have stayed loyal to the broadcast ecosystem — the folks who still watch Abbott Elementary when it airs on ABC every Wednesday — may finally give up and give in to the streaming dark side. “Do they think they’re going to flip a switch and everyone is going to come running back [to network TV] for ten episodes?,” a network insider says. “Maybe most people will, but it’s going to exacerbate what would’ve already been a 5 to 10 percent decline and make it so they’re down 20 percent when it’s all done. It’s just another chance for people to get out of the habit of watching network TV.”

Privately, some corporate execs don’t disagree that a protracted strike could be devastating to the network model. But they also argue that striking workers — particularly those in the WGA — should be just as worried. Even if the guilds achieve most of their goals, if the result is a dramatically weakened network TV ecosystem, that will mean far fewer of the good-paying, residual-producing, back-end-yielding broadcast jobs. Networks were already cutting back on the percentage of their lineups devoted to comedies and dramas, and the strike promises to further tip the scales against scripted. “The moment the strike was announced, ABC announced an all-reality schedule,” the network insider says. “There’s no going back to a majority of the schedule being scripted. It’s not going to happen. I think the writers have a lot of legit grievances. But some of the best jobs they’ve ever had are going to be gone after this … This feels to me like we’re going to come out of this strike and everybody’s going to lose.”

That might be true, but it’s hardly the guilds’ fault that their employers have embraced a streaming model that clearly does not work for them the way it does for Netflix and other tech-owned streaming platforms. Most of the jobs in TV are now in streaming and at companies not associated with broadcasters. It wouldn’t make sense for the WGA and SAG to ignore the real issues in streaming compensation in the hopes of preserving the shrinking number of good jobs on network TV. That’s not to say there isn’t room for writers and actors to compromise or to concede the legitimate stresses facing their employers. But any such conversation would have to start with companies either conceding there needs to be performance-based compensation attached to streaming residuals or for legacy companies realizing their interests aren’t the same as Netflix or Amazon.

For that to happen, however, there would have to be a massive shift in thinking among the members of the AMPTP, who so far seem more focused on complaining about the rhetoric coming from guild leaders than on trying to come up with serious counterproposals to address central issues such as streaming residuals. Even insiders sympathetic to the studios suggest that is unlikely to happen soon because while people at the network and studio level are still passionate about competing and winning against the tech giants, the folks running most of these corporations are focused on making their bottom lines look as good as possible as quickly as possible — no matter how much pain results. Just look at the last year of brutal layoffs at big media companies, which have been cutting profitable departments and divisions despite the obvious damage it’s doing to their end product. “It’s a mistake to assume there’s zero degree of humanity at any of these corporations. There isn’t,” says one industry veteran. “There’s not one thought given to ‘What does the business look like in five years’ or ‘How do we entertain the public?’ It’s all about what does this quarter look like and where is our stock price going.”

https://www.vulture.com/2023/07/hollywo ... aster.html

[ti-amie]

Elon Musk Says Twitter Will Soon Change Its Brand to “X”
"Soon we shall bid adieu to the twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds," Musk tweeted late Saturday night.


BY ALEX WEPRIN
JULY 23, 2023 7:19AM

Is the Twitter bird about to go extinct? It appears so, if Elon Musk gets his way.

Musk, the billionaire owner of Twitter, said in a series of tweets late Saturday night that he was going to change the brand of the social platform to be an “X,” sharing an animated gif of a stylized X against a stark black background.

“If a good enough X logo is posted tonight, we’ll make go live worldwide tomorrow,” he said as part of a series of tweets. “And soon we shall bid adieu to the twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds.”

As usual with Musk, it’s hard to tell how serious he is. He is known for making eyebrow-raising comments and then not following through on them or otherwise pivoting.

Still, Musk has long had an obsession with the letter. Or as he tweeted last night while sharing a photo of himself making his hands into an X while standing in front of signage for the Tesla Model X: “Not sure what subtle clues gave it way, but I like the letter X.”

Musk has a son named X Æ A-12 Musk with the singer Grimes but calls him by the name X.

But, of course, Musk also founded the website and online banking service X.com in 1999. It would eventually merge with another company to become PayPal. Musk reacquired the X.com domain from PayPal in 2017 and said in a tweet Saturday that the new Twitter, er, X, will operate off of it.

Tweets will be called an X, Musk wrote, and followers will be called “viewers,” a reference to a goal to make Twitter a bit more like TikTok or YouTube.

It’s not immediately clear if Musk cleared the name change with Twitter’s CEO, Linda Yaccarino. Yaccarino, a veteran advertising executive who joined Twitter from NBCUniversal in May, has been touting Twitter’s reach and as a place for premium video. For example, Fox Sports has been hosting a live pre-show on Twitter for the FIFA Women’s World Cup, and there are similar plans for NBCUniversal to do so for the 2024 Paris Olympics.

Musk said when he hired Yaccarino that he should shift to a role as executive chair and CTO, “overseeing product, software & sysops.”


https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/busin ... 235541959/

[ti-amie]

I...

Mark Taylor :TheCDN4:
@emarktaylor@thecanadian.social
#Twitter #Microsoft

You have got to be kidding me...

Via Keith Edwards @keithedwards

Microsoft owns the trademark for X. This is just too good.

[Oploskoffie]

Not that I needed any kind of push, but I just x-ed my X account without as much as a farewell X. (and to me that last sentence nicely sums up why the rebranding doesn't work...) Things weren't great before Musk took over but for the past year-or-so I couldn't venture too far outside of the feeds of the few people I actually followed without running into a ****load of hate, stupidity, ignorance and lies. It became really, really noticable, so... Bye bye blue birdie. It was, ehm, interesting while it lasted.

[ti-amie]

This a great thread that gives insight into Elmo and his obsession. It's kind of like TFG and golf.

John Bull
@garius@mastodon.me.uk
To understand Musk's renewed obsession with X and focus on financial services, you REALLY need to understand the X/Confinity merger that became PayPal.

And, particularly, the Peter Thiel-led coup that kicked Musk out as CEO/Chief Strategist.

Here's how that happened. 1/ #history #technology

In early 1999 Zip2, the newspaper online directory service Musk had co-founded, was sold to Compaq for $300m. Elon's share of this was about $20m.

Elon begins hitting up old connections from his time at ScotiaBank.

He says he wants to launch "A Financial Superstore" /2

Having drummed up support, he founds a new company to take this forward. He immediately buys the x.com domain off Pittsburgh PowerComputer for 1.5 MILLION shares of A-Stock in his new company, X.

Advisors express concern over X as a brand. Elon loves it. /3

He describes x.com as "the coolest URL on the internet". X, he says, marks the spot for treasure. That's how people will see it he insists.

He invests $12.5m of his own cash into X and begins trying to build an 'online bank'. /4

Musk's obsession with speed and disdain for regulation means X developers love him, but causes worry with the financial expert side.

First Western, the banking partner, discover that accounts are being opened under fake names.

The finance peeps try (but fail) to coup Elon out. /5

In early 2000, X hits the news for a vulnerability that allows money to be moved between accounts with just account details. This is fixed, but spooks investors.

Elon agrees with investor Mike Moritz from Sequoia to become CTO while Bill Harris (ex-Intuit) becomes CEO. /6

Meanwhile, over the road (literally), a startup called Confinity is making waves. It's funded by Peter Thiel, who is also its CEO, but is the brainchild of Ukrainian Max Levchin its CTO.

Backed by Nokia, Confinity is making a way to 'beam' money between PalmPilots by infrared. /7

Need to skip A LOT here. But jump forward a bit and both X and Confinity ACCIDENTALLY create the same killer product as an offshoot of their main one:

The ability to exchange money via email.

Confinity pivot to this exclusively. X don't. Musk's goal is financial superstore. /8

The strength and focus that HAS gone on X's email payment processor has mostly been due to David Sacks, one of Elon's hires who he trusts and who spotted the huge potential.

He keeps Musk grounded with eyes on this while Elon is ALSO pushing into riskier financial service stuff. /9

But Harris (X CEO) sees Confinity and X are BOTH in a death spiral. They are BLEEDING cash fighting. He speaks to Thiel. Thiel suggests a merger.

Musk fights this. But ahead of another funding round, Harris threatens to quit, spooking investors

Elon: "He held a gun to my head." /10


The firms merge. Harris and Thiel insist the new firm (X) focus on email payments, ideally on Confinity's PayPal platform.

Elon INSISTS financial superstore is the future. When Thiel and Harris fall out over strategy, Elon persuades Thiel to help coup Harris out. Elon is now CEO /11

Thiel, and Levchin, are initially fine with this. Musk has promised to focus on email payments, and to improve PayPal first. Financial superstore a "future thing".

But over months Levchin realises that Elon has become obsessed with porting PayPal ENTIRELY to Microsoft not Linux. /12

Months of dev time, with X burning $12m a month, is lost to Musk's obsession with PayPal V2. A complete rework on Microsoft. It's BEYOND a bad plan. Microsoft servers and MSSQL CANNOT scale enough at the time. But Elon decrees it. He even decrees a launch with no rollback option. /13

Elon also orders the killing off the PayPal brand. He orders paypal.com routed to x.com. Logos phased out. Decrees it should now be referred to as X-PayPal and described as part of the X family of financial services. He's not letting the dream go. /14

This obsession with X as a brand causes enormous concern as it CONTINUALLY goes down terribly with consumers.

Vivien Go on focus group testing:

"Again and again, the theme of 'Oh God, I wouldn't trust this website. It's an adult website' and 'I just wouldn't trust that" /15

Meanwhile, Thiel finds out via X's financial wizard, Roelof Botha, that the financial superstore side stuff is WORSE than Musk has let on. X is offering credit on almost no identity checks.

Combined with the V2 fiasco, Thiel and others realise X is on the verge of failing. /16

Thiel and others approach Elon and BEG him to abandon Paypal V2, and his strategy of trying to become a one-stop global financial service. Thiel points out they only have $65m left in the bank.

Musk refuses.

They have to go for "the grand prize" he insists. /17

Thiel, Levchin, Botha and Sacks now cross the rubicon. They decide to coup Elon. They quietly gather the signatures of a lot of the Confinity loyalists on a mass-quit threat.

On 19th Sep 2000, as Elon is taking off for Europe on his honeymoon, they make their move. /18

Thiel and Levkin are board members. The other four are Musk, Malloy (repping another major investor), Moritz and Hurd (Chair).

As Elon is in the air, Thiel asks Hurd to summon an emergency board meeting by phone. /19

Over the phone, Thiel and Levkin reveal the PayPal V2 and financial issues to Malloy, Moritz and Hurd, who had no idea about them. They're sympathetic to Elon as founder and visionary, but horrified this was all done without board approval and at the mass-resignation letter. /20

With Elon out of the country, he can't work his in person magic. He insists over the phone that the financial superstore is the big win. All this is in service of that.

It doesn't work. Malloy, Moritz and Hurd side with Thiel and Levkin. Elon is out as CEO before he can fly back /21

Musk is devastated and furious.

"Sneaky Backstabbing Bastards." He describes them as, but to his credit recognises he can't fight it and presents a public image it was a mutual decision.

Thiel becomes interim (and later permanent) CEO, orders the end of V2 and a focus on PayPal /22

Hopefully you can see the roots of this whole X pivot thing now. Musk has decided that the way to save Twitter and regain his genius status is to fall back on his unrealised vision from 1999.

Build "the world's financial nexus" as he described it then. /23

I think it's a TERRIBLE idea. The world's moved on. He's doing the tech equivalent of drunk-DMing his highschool girlfriend to tell her she's still hot.

But you can see the origins now. He thinks this is the genius idea that got away. And that this time nobody can coup him. /24

Anyway, hope that's useful context. None of what's going on is surprising if you lived through it or have studied it. You just have to get past the hagiography Silicon Valley creates around it's "great men"

[ponchi101]

Don't forget he has two kids named with strange X nomenclatures.

[ti-amie]

He can say what he wants. It still reminds me of a wannabe swastika.

[ti-amie]

Nice. Somewhere Tony Soprano is smiling.

Taylor Lorenz
@taylorlorenz@mastodon.social
Musk’s rebranded Twitter is offering extremely hefty discounts to advertisers while simultaneously threatening them that if they don’t spend at least $1k on ads in the next 30 days their brand will lose its checkmark and they won’t police impersonation https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-re