Silicon Valley is very big on virtual reality right now. But imagine a VR “game” where you can control a company remotely, but without any of the fiduciary duty that the law places on a company executive, or an investor? You don’t need nerd goggles to play this game. For it’s very similar to the relationship that’s emerged …
- With the sheer number of own goals Zuk has scored, there's no way he could have survived this long as CEO.
- Even the two Googhoul test-tube babies chose to step aside for N-@-z-i Schmidt...
- Starting with the 'D-u-m-b ... F-u-c-k-s' comment to trying to slurp WhatsApp. Talk about U-turns at every Privacy intersection.
- Even dozy regulators like Irish DPC have started to ask WTF Zuk???
This only becomes relevant if this behaviour is shown to damage the performance of Facebook stock.
In the very likely event that it doesn't...no harm no foul. Which group of institutional tech investors do you think would have been making better decisions here? One reason they let tech CEOs get away with this kind of shite is because they rightly don't trust themselves to make decisions which require any sort of vision or long term perspective.
Your snide comments about google glass make the point - it was, evidently, a commercial dud. However...there will be other ideas which look equally stupid at the outset which will not be, and the work done on google glass will have long term benefits (assisting tech developed, people with deep expertise) that are already making a difference in the industry.
I don't want my tech CEOs or VCs worrying about getting crap like this in the press, in the way that, sadly, my institutional tech investors do.
Anonymously cowardlyly cos I work in the industry and this is not my employer's opinion.
"This only becomes relevant if this behaviour is shown to damage the performance of Facebook stock."
No. It has to be shown to have in any way weakened the overall health, well-being, short- or long-term performance of the business: and that includes the ability of shareholders to have trust in management. There is a reason why back-channel stuff like this is frowned upon—because it directly contradicts the purpose for which the committee was created. Any attempt (which this appears to be) to undermine that body is serious stuff indeed. It demonstrates a level of bad-will which creates justified mistrust and suspicion.
"In the very likely event that it doesn't...no harm no foul."
As if you would know, how?
"Your snide comments about google glass make the point"
Ok, we're beginning to see what you're up to here. When you try to spin a statement of fact as "snide" you are telling us a lot more than you think.
"I don't want my tech CEOs or VCs worrying about getting crap like this in the press, in the way that, sadly, my institutional tech investors do."
Actually, you do, because without trust, or *with* concealment and the appearance of conspiracy, the whole thing unravels and becomes a wild west in which power is exercised without responsibility. The fact that FB shareholders, like the very definition of perfect suicidal idiocy, allowed Zuckerberg to retain power vastly disproportionate to his shareholding, massively diluting their own influence, will go down as one of the great mysterious stupidities of the era.
"Anonymously cowardlyly cos I work in the industry and this is not my employer's opinion."
That's ok. Most of the smarter adults on the internet these days apply a simple equation to posts, whereby trust given to facts and opinion is inversely proportional to anonymity.
Shocked I tell you. Shocked.
Although it's a fact of life than many corporate boards have directors from other corporate boards and there seems to be no limit to how many boards one can sit on, there are far too many boards that abuse this. Enough, that conflict of interest is the norm, not the exception. And because, like million dollar tax loopholes that only rich people can take advantage of, it's legal which makes it very hard to prove these conflict of interests because they are allowed.
The shear amount of unethical, sleazy deals that are done in boardrooms would make you very angry if you knew what was really going on.
Most people have no clue.
He doesn't do metaphors very well, does he?
Hmm I quite like "Andreessen groomed Zuckerberg to run Facebook" as a headline for this.
Is Andreessen a real Nordic name? The implication is that he is "Andrew's son" IE the son of Andrew, but I don't think Andrew is a common or valid Nordic name to begin with.
Anders? Hans Christian Anderson? Doesn't seem too far fetched.
Likewise, depending on when the family name arrived in the US, there are man, many examples of people with "foreign" names either not being able to read/write on arrival or the immigration officers not being able to spell the name or even the family simply later Anglicising their name to fit in better to explain some of the odd and unusual spellings of some US surnames.
people with "foreign" names either not being able to read/write on arrival or the immigration officers not being able to spell the name or even the family simply later Anglicising their name to fit in better to explain some of the odd and unusual spellings of some US surnames.
That doesn't explain the odd and unusual spellings of some US forenames...
Here's a famous (if you like chess) German guy with a similar name:
So where the protagonist of this article has ree, the chess master had er.
Er, there is a Dutch grandmaster named Hans Ree.
"[...] but I don't think Andrew is a common or valid Nordic name to begin with."
Saint Andrew is the patron saint of the Russian navy - their flag incorporates a saltire. Also the patron saint of Ukraine and Prussia.
André is the French form of the name. In 1809 Napoleon's influence meant the adopted heir to the throne of Sweden was Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte - a Marshall of France. Modern Swedish therefore has many influences from the French language - whereas Denmark was part of the Hanseatic League and does not have those influences.
Names change - especially if they are rarely written down except by the occasional official. Assimilation of immigrants even over a few generations can produce a suitably localised form. My own English family name is a Norman-French 11th century import. There are now about six spelling variations - all very similar. None of which would allow most people to guess the original spelling and meaning.
In Luxembourg in the1980s there was a popular bar which everyone called "Johannes". That made sense - until you went looking for it. The sign over the door was "Jones".
Ahem, the historical records show that Microsoft leaned on AOL and others, to exclusively use Internet Explorer.
"Microsoft first proposed to Netscape that, rather than compete with each other, the two companies should enter an illegal conspiracy to divide up the market. When Netscape refused, Microsoft then used its Windows monopoly to, in Microsoft's own words, 'cut off Netscape's air supply.'"
boutique VC firm Andreessen Horowitz (which pretentiously styles itself as "a16z")
Not that pretentious in the grand scheme of things. The original source snowclone was "Il18n" for "internationalisation", which has been around for a decade at least (I remember seeing it on software design docs in 2005)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019