Motorola split into two groups today in order to save their falling mobile business, but the real kicker is an insider's email that Engadget published. It has it all, from suicides to golf scores and how all that brought a giant down. Good afternoon reading, albeit sad. Update: My personal rant/editorial on the situation, describing the failure of Motorola to understand the importance of their EZX Linux-based phones and how this drove their business down.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-02
"They just get recycled over and over and over ending up with the same failures. But I can't blame them. The blame should fall squarely on the idiots who put them in charge."
I could not agree more. The worst part is when they fail, they STILL get paid millions to leave. Hell, if it was me I would be lucky to get 2 weeks pay. They can't be blamed for doing it, because they get rewarded for doing it. What a system eh?
Member since:2005-07-13
I blame it on e*trade and their subsequent followers. I wrestle with the concept, because I like the idea of empowerment for investors to manage trades themselves, but it has created a paradigm shift in the relationship between shareholder and vested corporation. There was a time when investing money was a commitment, it was inconvenient, you relied on professionals to handle it for you and they attached a considerable fee for their management, which discouraged whimsical speculation. There was a time, oh so long ago, that people invested money in a corporation expecting long term return. Now it's a hobby to share info on forums and short stocks at a whim, and otherwise play havoc with share valuation.
Like I said, I wrestle with it because, on the one hand, it's a powerful form of self-empowerment and represents many of the benefits that I think the internet enables, but at the same time, we have companies being held hostage now in many cases by shareholders demanding immediate and continual short-term growth, so CEO's and boards of directors inevitably buckle and often strive for immediate gratification, at the expense of long-term planning and strategy.
High-level executives often switch positions so often now that nobody has a vested stake in seeing their ideas through, they often just create enough havoc to make their mark, move on, and leave it to someone else to clean up the mess...
Member since:2006-01-10
I don't think etrade has as much to do with it.
The small time investor doesn't affect company policy or even demand growth...they're nothing...just playing the stock.
Most companies are still owned by large institutional investors (moto was almost 80% ins owned at last check).
The second part of what you say is true. Few people 'invest' for long term company growth. Even for startups this is true. The executives are just there to build something until they can IPO or sell it asap and 'dump' the future of the company on someone else.
Member since:2005-11-15
The folks on eTrade are not the problem. They are puny in comparison to many hedge funds. If anything point the finger at the hedge funds. But why point? This is called the stock market.
When you see forums driving stocks down you see that because that is what you want to see. For whatever direction the stock is going there are an appropriate number of fan folks saying this stock is worth X in a week.
A CEO can take two views with the market. Do whatever it wants and get punished, or grow the business. Those that grow the business do get rewarded.
Member since:
2005-07-06
This is just further proof that CEOs are like shitty pro sports coaches. They just get recycled over and over and over ending up with the same failures. But I can't blame them. The blame should fall squarely on the idiots who put them in charge.
Stakeholders who only have a financial interest in a company(board members and investors) are f--king idiots who shouldn't be authorized to decide where to eat, let alone who to hire to run a company.