2125
Unity deleted these terms, don't let them get out (lemmy.today)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
256 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

From The Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20201111183311/https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService/blob/master/Unity%20Software%20Additional%20Terms.md

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

That's what everyone is saying but this policy will only cost them from lawsuits, so it can't just be about money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It will cost them in future earnings... Companies won't want to work on their platform if these policies are still in place... and many will never want to work with them again since they've shown their hand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    That is what makes me think there's something more to this.

    I think rival companies might groom CEOs that get hired by their competitors but whom, secretly, are paid by the rivals to destroy the companies from within.

    Perhaps I'm wrong but that's the only explanation I've been able to come up with that makes any sense to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    The CEOs don't need to be paid by other companies. All a competing company needs to do, is to convince some company's board members to hire a CEO with a track record that they know will tank the company... maybe through indirect lobbying, maybe by hinting they want to hire them because it's "such a valuable CEO"... and bam!

    CEO ruins company, then bails on a golden parachute, and you only had to spend whatever it took to mislead the competing board.

    (I've seen it done to tiny companies with as few as 20 workers, it's surprisingly easy to convince a board to hire someone who will destroy everything)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    How does one insulate a company from corrupted CEOs?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Technically that's what a board of directors is for. They are the ones who can axe a CEO and hire another.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yet they're not capable of sussing out bad actors before hiring them, so how is a board a good system?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Oh, plenty of business "geniuses" make some pretty boneheaded moves, especially when they feel a need to try to produce huge growth after saturating a market, or if their business results somehow fall short of some need (either actually losing money, or some arbitrary self-imposed "goal" not being hit).

    Currently there's an epidemic of businesses making some pretty dubious long term decisions for the sake of trying to prop up numbers amidst a receding market reality. Recessions are, in part, a self-fulfilling prophecy, where whatever impetus exists, it's exacerbated by every participant screwing things up further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent