227
"There are no benefits to being owned by Microsoft," says Doom dev: "They have destroyed immense amounts of value that I don't even think that they're aware of" (www.gamesradar.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/business@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 4 months ago (6 children)

This implies an awful lot of opportunity to make an awful lot of money anywhere we have an under performing big business. Or at the very least a cheap way to improve services for everyone for a long while (forcing the big guy to subsidize in order to stick around).

Shame so few take the opportunity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    The problem with that is you either allow yourself to get bought out or you get priced out of existence.

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

    I'm confused by your post. Getting priced out of existence is great for consumers. Literally having your goods paid for by Bezos. This is what I mentioned above: you can extract money from Bezos for you by making him buy the company, and you can extract money from Bezos for everyone by making him price you out for awhile. So just do this on loop for the benefit of all?

    Why can't, say, the democratic socialists pop up a moderately competent diaper company to force Bezos to do it again? Slightly increase dues to keep the competitor alive for awhile, and enjoy a big-business subsidy for all.

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

    It would take billions to get millions out of these people assuming they weren’t already wise to it and you weren’t stopped by the republican controlled FTC or other agency. Also you would be asking people to work for a company with a guaranteed lack of upward mobility and job security, not to mention no ability to accrue retirement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    I'm not convinced that Pillows .com was a money-loser, considering its ability to grow and reasonable sale price. Do you know where the total spent by amazon vs spent in Pillow tallys can be found?

    And if there was a profit/net outlay from Bezos, then we can use that for employee benefits. It's unusual to have a corporate pension in the US; folks still have a stock-market retirement plan. Plus, as soon as Bezos buys your Pillow corp, you'll be starting another (or something similar) soon....

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

    Often need VC money. VCs often want to exit as quick as possible, which usually means getting bought out by large companies. Large companies often have quite a big "moat" with sky high barrier to entry. A startup is not going to be able to build a logistics network like Amazon's, for example. VCs are not in the business of competing; that's not what they want to hear when looking for companies to invest in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    Surely some rich person benefits from Bezos bleeding? (Though my favorite variant of this remains some other large nonprofit moving into the space. Ideally using a non-VC revenue stream.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent