basseq

This reads like a Speaker for the Dead moment (from Ender’s Game): neither eulogy nor denunciation, but an honest accounting. Acknowledging the real impact without excusing the real harm.

This is neither prescient nor particularly insightful. Private equity metrics have been down for a while: fundraising down 20% since 2022, distributions down 11%, deal value and count down 60% and 35% respectively, exit value down 24% YoY.

PE is fueled by interest rates, and the entire thesis has flipped from revenue/growth to EBITDA. The shift is exposing some dogs: both PortCos that can't hide fundamental business model issues behind cheap capital and PE firms that can't lead operations and financing in a new environment. The correction is well underway.

I'm at the tail end of two of these, of ~10 in my career. They are always tough, always a bit of chaos, and all different.

Planning is important, and avoid committing to targets or deadlines until you have your arms wrapped around what needs to be done. This can be wide-ranging, and include: product parity, contract management, internal asset development (project plans, test suites, customer training, etc.), customer change management, and team throughput.

You have few clients but large impacts. You likely want to pick the friendliest one and give them generous terms to be the "test case". Expect it will take 2x longer than your estimate.

Do as much work on parity as you can: what are the differences between v1 and v2, and how will you bridge them? If data migration is involved, you will need tooling and team training.

Inevitably you will find that customers move slower than you like and are using v1 in ways you did not expect.

We've gone through a round of layoffs, and I've been thinking about the same thing.

It's not that it's too easy—it's that it's too impactful.

The real answer is social safety nets. If you want to protect people, address the root problem that your life is dependent on having an employer. Proper unemployment or UBI plus universal healthcare makes losing a job annoying ("ugh now I have to find another one") vs. terrifying.

Jack up the corporate tax rate (on revenue) to pay for it—which should be a wash after reducing the load of severance, healthcare benefits, etc. that companies are paying today.

Better worker protections like the UK/Europe are mechanisms too—notice periods, guaranteed severance, etc.—but have their own chilling effects.

This has the added benefit of reducing the barriers of entry for individuals: people are more likely to leave bad jobs or pursue their own opportunities, which in turn should drive subsequent job creation.

> Did they? Or did Adobe just stop offering #1, forcing customers into #2 whether they like it or not?

I'm recalling that they did run both models in parallel, but couldn't find a reference in a quick search.

Regardless, the 25% stock price jump would indicate that from a "voting with their wallet" perspective, subscriptions were a rather unequivocal winner.

There are certainly pay-once-use-forever models out there, though my perception is that they're niche pricing models for a reason. (And still not outright ownership!)

Does that mean prospects and customers were happy about it? Maybe not. But I suspect the only answer that would have really satisfied the majority would be the unattainable "best of both worlds".

People tend to want to best of both worlds. They want to "own their software" (i.e., pay once, use forever) but they also want the benefits of SaaS: low up-front investment, cloud services, continual evolution, network effects, etc.

Photoshop is an easy example: would you rather pay $400 up front to have version X.X forever, or $10/mo forever to always have the latest version. That's a tradeoff! Consumers have voted with their wallets on #2.

Cloud services are even harder because you start talking hardware. "Owning Photoshop" is easy because it runs on my computer. I'm maintaining my computer for me and only me. What would "owning their software" even look like for, I donno, Github? Are you running your own AWS instance? Are other people running their own instances?

There are ways to build P2P software, or on-prem enterprise stuff... but no one really wants to buy it. They're ok paying $10/mo for the billions of dollars of infrastructure because there's really no other way to do it.

Or perhaps: are there good web games anymore?

Whether it's consumer trends or technical accessibility, it seems to be more of a "wasteland" than it was 10 years ago. [Old man shakes fist at clouds.] Meaning more "small and not very good games" or a focus on simpler concepts à la Wordle.

Did developers move to mobile? Was there something about Flash that reduced the barrier to entry that we have lost? Did consumer preferences change? Is this all anecdote and the indie game scene is thriving?

Exactly. These cost comparisons are way off.

For those new to the boating world, a slip is just a space to park your boat on a dock. You would then need to, k'know, have a boat to live on.

That "drop out" concept just seems entirely wrong. Not only because its erroneously constricting the applicant pool, but because it strongly biases the earlier roles in the queue.

For example, consider two roles and two applicants, with fit scores as below:

               Role 1    Role 2
  -----        -----     -----
  Applicant A    96%       95%
  Applicant B    95%       50%

Ignoring the "drop out" bug, under the algorithm described the system would evaluate all candidates for Role 1, determine Applicant A is the best, then move on. At that point, Applicant B is the best candidate for Role 2... even though they're not a very good one. Overall, not a great outcome (73% avg.).

You'd think the algorithm would want to maximize outcomes across all roles: the more optimal "best fit" solution would be Applicant B in Role 1 and Applicant A in Role 2 (95% avg).

(I'm assuming the reality here is that Role B isn't available at time of evaluation, so there's no way to evaluate the universe without waiting, which may be sub-optimal.)