Native Instruments Layoffs?

[vurt]

bean counters sound like really ocd eaters.

[whyterabbyt]

That's what you think. And honestly I didn't say I know better than anyone. I just said its unethical to hire more than you need.

You have no idea whether they did that or not, though. I don't think any company hires willingly more employees than they need. Why would you do that? Every company wants to save on costs, and, epmloyees are the biggest matter of expense there is.

C'mon, its clearly more ethical to not give people jobs.

[Forgotten]

bean counters sound like really ocd eaters.

[Hink]

I don't believe that artists are going to have a secure path in the world if they sell or not the discs, in fact, their revenue does not comes from that, several interviews (including from Motorhead's Lemmy, RIP) point that their money comes from merchandise and live concerts. While the record companies who sell those discs are the ones who profit from that, not the artist itself. (That isn't to say that record companies can't help an artist promote if it does sells well, as that could get more people to discover the artist and go to their concerts. But they have never been a primary source of income for the artists and nowadays, with the ability to publish your music on several existent platforms like Bandcamp or iTunes, record companies have gotten less "useful" or "relevant" by per se)

This is false. Not to agree with the magical free-market word soup to which you respond (though copyright infringement is indeed a crime and not only in the U.S., it came up in this thread for no good reason), selling what we once called records did indeed provide very substantial, primary income to musicians. In fact, lots of musicians to this day still derive income from sales of their work. The income from sales also generated support for financing new work, which is a benefit that no longer exists for young musicians.

Why? Because the music business was very happy to embrace the argument that musicians should make their money on the road (which money they want to control as well). The fact that unauthorized downloading (by people justifying their crimes to one another by saying they were just collecting freely available files despite knowing full well they were screwing the artists as well as the marketing apparatus) did cut a huge hole in record sales made the argument that much more appealing. To say musicians did not ever make money from record sales is just false. You can say plenty of musicians were roped into abusive contracts that left certain people penniless after making hits. You can say there were problems with the music business. But lots of artists (and engineers and producers and salespeople and record-shop owners) - including artists who were/are not in a position to tour except at great expense - made money, "a living" from selling music in song and collection form. To say otherwise is just false.

I encourage you to view your crimes for what they are. If you are going appropriate someone's work knowing that person is selling it, whether to stick it to the man or to enjoy the fruits of your access to the internet via dad's computer, you are violating the artist's right to benefit from that work, you break a trust with the community to behave in a decent and mutually respectful manner, and you violate the artist's copyright, which encodes those principle into a legal framework.

Own it if you want to go down that road, but quoting Lemmy on the value of touring while you are coughing up your lungs isn't going to cut it as an argument in favor of anarchy because, you know, the web wants to be free.

It's not unlike helping yourself, while no one is paying attention, to a visual-art print being sold at a crafts fair and saying no one stopped you, and that the artist should just print more, because she still has the original, so you couldn't be said to be stealing it, really, when you think about it, and hey, it's good for her to get out to more crafts fairs to meet her supporters. It's nonsense to talk this way.

As for NI, getting back to the thread, the owners and their consultants are well within their rights to fire people and to hire more consultants. It is, however, silly to say lack of an MBA and a huge pot of gold - or not owning NI or any similar company - disqualifies KVR participants from recognizing a story played out in business repeatedly in recent decades, or from noting that this addresses none of what customers think NI should be doing, or from saying the posted explanations read like a parody of a corporate layoff press release or an internal memo.

Again, however, I arrive at whatever.

THIS POST WAS DIRECTLY BELOW MY POST WHERE i CLEARLY STATED IT ENDS HER...IT DOES

btw this means DO NOT START ANOTHER THREAD BECAUSE THIS ON WAS LOCKED