this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
237 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
58134 readers
4172 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He can't be a "scapegoat" if he is the CEO. The buck stops with him, there is literally no one else left up the chain who can be responsible. It's his job.
Except for the board of directors that actually steers the company.
OK, how about the shareholders that elect the Board of Directors? Should they be "removed" as well?
My point is the function of the Chief Executive Officer is specifically to be accountable and responsible for the business functions of the company. Yes, BOD has made a bad call selecting him as a CEO and the shareholders will have an opportunity to re-elect the BOD, but how the business is run (the "Chief Executive" part) is owned by the CEO. And in this case he fucked up especially if he championed this pricing structure.
The Board chose him, an EA guy with his track record of screw-the-customer decisions, to head a B2B company where customer relationships are totally different from B2C, and customers aren't mainly naive fad-following kids that will keep pre-ordering games from companies that screw them in the past.
They're dealing with adults with businesses as customers, not thrill-seeking teens who will forget any and all shit done to them in the past just to keep on playing the same games as their friends.
At the very least the members of the Board are spectacularly incompetent and should be removed so that the company has a chance of not collapsing withing the next 2 or 3 years (as projects that can't be moved out of Unity wrap up and customers chose different frameworks for new projects).
The shareholders elect the BOD and they can remove them if they like. So in theory if you want to burn the house down then go after the shareholders too and the capitalistic society, but in my opinion that's another battle for another time.
In practice this is the reason why companies have CEOs. They are practically accountable for exactly the stuff like this, it's a well known part of their job description. That's the reason why I don't really consider him a scapegoat because, well, it's literally his job.
The scapegoat part is that the company won't change at all.