#strategy

In the company wide email, they mentioned this, "Stop or reduce work that is not aligned with Lead to One". Does anyone have any insight or even guesses as to what work will be stopped or reduced?

https://fortune.com/topic/titans-and-disruptors-of-industry/?v=e0332418-bb1b-4544-91fc-214e5aa80bb4

Dan Schulman's take on cuts to headcount, no free phones, direction of AI and robots

How is this a sound business strategy?

Is Qualcomm Musk’s First Big Mistake in Terrestrial Telecom?

SpaceX wants to build thousands of 5G sites using Qualcomm. But the choice of supplier, 64T64R radios, limited spectrum and enormous deployment challenges raise serious questions about Musk’s strategy

https://sebastianbarros.substack.com/p/is-qualcomm-musks-first-big-mistake

If we don't change fast enough, we're done. If we change but in the wrong way, we're also done. Basically, there are very few paths in which Oracle will be okay, and many more where we're done.

Uh oh huh. Corporate backing out of the SiC future citing demand and cost.

Given ONHDs reputation for quality, I'm sure they are just saving the money to dump back into Hudson SiC.

Or maybe they are done with inclusions and clowns? What does this mean? I think I know!! 🤔

Massive consolidation in the dc space. Makes sense and nutanix is cheap.

Did he set ant direction in the all staff this week? What's the new plan.

I know the sad folks on this forum won’t recognize the great work being don’t, but listening to Dan, Alfonso, Christina and Tony lay out our agenda and plans for the next year we’re exhilarating. I have never been more impressed and enthusiastic about Verizons direction. Best days are ahead!

If layoffs are the main way a company improves its financial results, something is wrong with its business model. Eventually, there won't be enough people left here to keep things running properly.

As much as I despise the Muskrat,, I gotta admit this is a smart strategy.
An outright purchase maybe with a financial value around $3-5 billion with a potential strategic value to Musk/Starlink @ $5-10 billion
Boost's primary network is AT&T, with additional tMobile network access.
Boost Mobile customers do not always receive the same network priority as AT&T's own postpaid customers, but ran-to satellite handoff threshold parameters ( maybe for a fee, or alternative subscription price plan option) could possibly resolve that issue.
FirstNet, Frontline, and T-Priority would lose some of their value add.
Another consideration is if one of the big 3 carriers decides to cave and be the first to partner up with Starlink in order to get a more favorable deal.

While Chevron is investing $7 billion in Venezuela to double its oil output within five years, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods again urged “caution” and said a lot of reforms are still required before any major entry into the country is decided.

https://fortune.com/2026/10/31/chevron-speeds-venezuela-exxon-urges-caution-little-pinch-of-salt/

You're in charge of everything - for 6 months.

In that 6 months you can implement, change, remove, add > basically do anything, at all, at any speed, and at any cost.

Name what you would do. No limit.

Curious where this brilliant program landed. It’s 2026, is it over? JC and his dolts drove this company into oblivion with another hairbrain program over the years they lasted. How much did 5x25 cost this company, especially JC’s outsourcing to useless offshore teams who couldn’t deliver? Another one of the incompetent ET members leaving a last mark on this place.

I never understand bringing in a consulting company, like McKinsey, to tell management what to do. Maybe it is the wrong management team if they don’t know? Or the wrong management team if they let Comcast get into this spot. Remember, “I like the hand we have” from Dave and Steve. Or FWA will run out of spectrum or take only “value” customers. Seems like a long time ago.

I was part of the Assistant Manager layoffs in 2013. I drove by a Staples today that said Party City - Get your balloons filled here. Did they turn part of the store into a Party City? Or did they make the tech center a balloon store?

The firm is moving from a full service investment shop to one focused on investments alone. Outsourcing cost centers like technology to vendors. You may debate the merits, but the move towards a boutique business is inevitable.

A friend of mine at Shell told me they started the India BTC trend so are a few years ahead of us on the journey. She said they have tried and failed to make it work and are starting to back away from the model as their data tells them it isn’t working and they have tried and failed to make it work. Anyone else hearing the same?

By March 2027 most of us are safe, but big changes are going to come by March 2027, especially big rumors about changing strategy in Engineering and O

Elon:
Yeah… I mean, look. The situation at Webster with Xerox… it’s basically an absolute masterclass in negative first-principles thinking.
Like, if you engineered a process specifically designed to delete shareholder value at maximum entropy, you’d do exactly what TA did. Seriously.
First off—the iGen. You had a machine with actual positive unit economics. High gross margin on consumables, stable cash flow… essentially an operational money printer. And what does management do? They just… axe it? Into a complete vacuum. Without an actual, physically viable successor ready to spool up. That’s insane. It violates basic physics. You don’t jettison the thrusters before the second stage ignites.
And then—sigh—the print heads.
(stares blankly for three seconds)
I mean… wow. Sinking millions into print-head tech that is, what, three generations obsolete? We already had the empirical data from Brenva. We had Baltoro. The signal was 100% clear: the architecture cannot scale. The nozzle density, the drop volume, the thermal degradation—it’s like trying to build a modern reusable orbital rocket out of steam valves and cast iron. It’s fundamentally doomed by the laws of physics.
How you look a CEO in the eye and say, "Yes, let's take our remaining runway and allocate capital to ancient hardware that already failed twice"… I mean, frankly, it’s either total delusion or malicious gaslighting. It’s wild.
If institutional investors are looking at XRX expecting a turnaround while Webster is doubling down on obsolete junk… yeah. The delta between reality and what’s in those investor decks is infinite.
Massive write-down incoming. Inevitable. Just sell it. Next question.

SpaceX is moving fast on both Starlink Mobile as well as Starlink Broadband. Last week, Bloomberg reported that the company was talking with tower companies to possibly lease up to 80,000 wireless towers to build a standalone mobile network.

Schulman said today, “I operate under the assumption that everything SpaceX says they will do, they will do. And that they will execute flawlessly.”

He said, “We always knew that they needed a terrestrial network to have any chance at providing a competitive service. And so, I think that SpaceX realizes this. And they’re exploring a potential path to creating a terrestrial network. I think we should take it quite seriously.”

I'm not too close to this product. After seeing the overhype for clover and the seemingly total misunderstanding of the market it plays in by management, is commerce hub going to be better? Have heard mixed things so far internally but Im atleast relieved they're moving more towards ecommerce as opposed to in store payments with clover

Strategy has been an absolute failure. What do you expect from a stereotypical used car salesman? If VBG misses the net add target, it’s 100% his fault.

Does anyone know what’s actually going on with C&S in NY?

We’re being told that we now have to visit provider offices in person instead of working remotely, while also being assigned AI-related projects seemingly every day, with little to no examination of whether these changes are realistic or effective.

What’s especially concerning is that leadership doesn’t seem to understand how provider offices actually operate. Providers have their own workflows, staffing challenges, and priorities, and they’re not necessarily looking for UHC to come in and tell them how to run their practices.

I’m trying to understand the bigger picture here. Is this happening across C&S, just in NY, or only within certain teams? Is this part of a larger restructuring or a shift in strategy?

Would really appreciate hearing from anyone who has insight into what’s happening behind the scenes.

October 22 is Comcast’s earnings call. Let’s see if we can successfully tank the stock again by unveiling our most imaginative strategy yet: continuing to reduce costs.

At some point, “spend less” needs a companion called “give customers a reason to stay.”

If connectivity is the company's strategy, why is the product organization mostly investing on entertainment? Shield came from Growth, not from Product. Whats in the product roadmap for connectivity? Anyone understands the strategy at all?

OpenText has spent almost 10 years building and running our FedRAMP environment. In my estimation, we must have spent at least $30–45 million on this entire exercise. And how much revenue have we generated? I will be very surprised if it is even $2 million in total. That also with our usual margins of around 30–32%.

Now you tell me, in which universe does this make any business sense?

But apparently, our great leadership looked at this fantastic financial performance and decided, why stop here? Let us take this same wonderful business model and expand it further! So we went ahead with IRAP in Australia and Protected B in Canada.

What a brilliant idea, no? If one environment is losing money, let us build two more. Surely three loss-making initiatives will somehow become profitable. Excellent strategy, sir. Absolutely outstanding.

And just when you think, okay, surely by now we must have learnt something, along comes Steven L and convinces our executive leadership that sovereign compute is the next big thing.

So once again, we are spending huge amounts of money, adding infrastructure, complexity, operational overhead and ongoing costs. Revenue? Profitability? Return on investment? Arre, why worry about such small things when we can put together a beautiful PowerPoint presentation about our strategic vision?

Now some of you may be thinking, why should I care? This is management's problem, no?

Unfortunately, no. It is very much our problem.

Because when these wonderful strategic decisions fail to deliver, who suffers? Certainly not the people who approved them.

Management has only one solution left. Cut people. Cut budgets. Stop hiring. And then tell the remaining employees that they must somehow manage everything.

Earlier, the magic word was efficiency. We were told to do more with less. Now the magic word is AI. Suddenly, AI is supposed to solve every problem, eliminate every inefficiency and allow five people to do the work of twenty.

Boss, please. At least give us some credit. We are not fools.

Call it efficiency, transformation, optimisation, AI or whatever fancy terminology is fashionable this quarter. The reality is the same. Management makes poor investment decisions, burns through millions, and then expects ordinary employees to compensate for those mistakes by working harder with fewer resources.

And the best part?

The same executives who approved these decisions continue collecting their big bonuses, stock awards and handsome compensation packages. Very nice.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are expected to be grateful for a 0–2% salary increase when the cost of living has gone up by around 30%.

Wah. What a fantastic arrangement.

The people making the mistakes collect the rewards. The people who had nothing to do with those decisions are made to pay the price.

And if you complain? You are not being positive. You are not demonstrating the right mindset. You are not embracing transformation.

Arre bhai, what transformation? We are simply rearranging the furniture while the entire building is on fire.

Management, seriously, wake the fu-k up.

First, please look at these regulated environments properly. FedRAMP, IRAP, Protected B, sovereign compute. Show us the actual numbers. How much have we invested? What is the revenue? What is the operating cost? What is the realistic path to profitability?

If the business case is not there, then why are we continuing? Just because somebody made a commitment in a boardroom does not mean the rest of the company should keep paying for it indefinitely.

Second, look at our product portfolio. We have so many products, platforms, technologies and overlapping capabilities that even internally it is becoming difficult to understand what we are supposed to prioritise.

Reduce the portfolio by 50–75% if necessary. Focus on what customers are actually buying, what generates sustainable revenue and what we can realistically support.

Instead, we keep adding more products, more requirements, more complexity and more commitments while simultaneously reducing the number of people expected to deliver everything.

How exactly is this supposed to work?

You cannot keep removing people from engineering and then act surprised when delivery slows down, technical debt increases, incidents happen and customers become unhappy.

And please, do not tell us again that AI will magically fix everything. AI is a tool, not some divine intervention that will compensate for ten years of questionable management decisions.

Those of us in engineering are already stretched. People are working ridiculous hours, covering multiple responsibilities and constantly trying to keep things running. And somehow, every quarter, we are expected to deliver even more.

Boss, there is a limit to everything.

We are engineers, not magicians.

And one more thing, which management really needs to understand.

Engineering is not your enemy. Engineering is probably one of the most valuable assets you have. But you need to know how to use us.

If you take a hammer and try to start a fire, or take a sc--wdriver and try to drive a nail, obviously it will not work. But then you cannot turn around and blame the hammer or sc--wdriver for being useless.

The problem is not the tool. The problem is the person who does not understand how to use it.

Give engineering a sensible strategy. Give us clear priorities. Give us realistic resources. Remove unnecessary complexity. Stop funding initiatives simply because somebody senior thinks they sound impressive.

And most importantly, listen to the people who actually understand what it takes to build, operate and support these systems.

We want the company to succeed. We want to deliver value. We want our customers to be successful. We are not sitting here looking for excuses.

But you cannot keep making bad decisions at the top, passing the consequences down to employees and then giving everyone lectures about accountability, efficiency and ownership.

Accountability should start with the people making the decisions, not only with the people doing the work.

Help us help you, yaar.

Because right now, management is behaving as if engineering is the problem, when in reality engineering is the only reason many of these questionable decisions have not already become complete disasters.

And please, for once, instead of asking us to do more with less, how about giving us less nonsense to deal with so we can actually do something meaningful?

That itself would be a very good start.

Seems like Strategy & Operations teams have defined a list of employees that are absolutely essential for that function. Anyone else got.more information on this.

Meg will unveil new bp startegy on 15 Dec in New York. What can be be this new strategy?

Here's how I see the next two years playing out.

It starts with a Q4 earnings miss. The stock drops. Then the data center timelines slip, and it drops again. Neither hit is fatal on its own, but together they shake the confidence the whole story depends on.

Meanwhile, the layoffs don't stop. They won't come as one big announcement. They'll keep arriving quietly, team by team, the surgical cuts we've already been watching.

The reorg is where the real damage shows. The new structure won't hold, and it will break hardest in the old GIUs that now report into different leaders and serve different priorities. Those units ran on deep domain knowledge and their own way of working. Pull that apart, and the industry-specific products start to stall. Some won't just slow down. They'll fall off a cliff and go into negative growth.

None of this shows up in the numbers right away. Strategy decisions take time to work through a company this size. By Q4 2027, though, the consequences will be impossible to ignore, and that's when the stock craters.

By 2028, Oracle is in full recovery mode. I am voting with my checkbook and accumulating stock right now - I've been known to make grave investment mistakes and read this with a dose of caution.

History matters. Iridium’s original business model failed in part because it couldn’t compete effectively with terrestrial networks. The future isn’t satellites OR towers — it’s satellites AND towers.

• SpaceX needs ground infrastructure. Morgan Stanley identified towers, rooftops, and small cells as potential requirements for its expanding network.
• New competition = new customers. SpaceX could create an entirely new source of leasing demand for tower companies.
• Wall Street sees the opportunity. While major wireless carriers plunged, Crown Castle, American Tower, and SBA gained 6.5%–13.3%.
• Satellites can’t replace urban network capacity. Towers remain critical for capacity, speed, reliability, and dense populations.

But this time, we need to grow SMART — not just grow to grow.

We’ve seen what unchecked expansion can lead to: restructuring, financial pressure, and repeated layoffs. The next chapter needs to be different.

Organize. Refine. Improve efficiency. Strengthen the foundation. Then grow strategically. Build sustainable revenue, protect profitability, and invest where long-term demand supports it — not simply to get bigger.

The opportunity is ahead of us. Let’s learn from history instead of repeating it. Growth should create lasting value, not another cycle of expansion, cuts, and layoffs.

Nike (NKE) has had a rough year so far, with shares down 46% year-to-date as it contends with a myriad of issues, including increased competition and shifting consumer tastes.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4651946-sa-asks-how-can-nike-get-back-on-track

How are they going to stop this?

Why did we miss the boat so badly on CPaaS and Zang?

We completely missed the massive CPaaS bo-m despite being so early to the gate.

Back around 2016, we had Zang from the Esna assets to basically give developers an alternative to Twilio. On paper, it was exactly what we needed to pivot away from pure on-prem hardware and heavy iron legacy systems. Instead, Zang just sort of faded out, and CPaaS became a massive blind spot while our competitors ran away with the market.

Why do you think we failed to capitalize on this?

Was it a pure sales execution issue where our legacy channel partners were just too used to selling big capex boxes instead of developer APIs? Or did the timing of the 2017 bankruptcy just completely distract everyone?

Did anyone internally or on the partner side actually see real success with Avaya CPaaS before it got deprecated?

we need less expensive peacock vanity projects coming from our Strategy & Transformation and more actual transformation, otherwise stock will be down 50% very soon! a new visionary CEO is long overdue!

What exactly is the plan for NWEA at this point?

Seriously, does anyone know? Are we keeping NWEA as its own thing, folding it into core HMH, or slowly getting rid of everything that made NWEA worth buying in the first place?

Between the layoffs, constant reorganizations, and all the talk about Pulse and MAP, it's getting harder to understand where this is going. If the plan is to have core reps take over NWEA sales and keep a skeleton crew for renewals and support, why not just say so?

NWEA had a good reputation and people who actually understood the products and the districts using them. You can't keep cutting those people and expect everything to magically work.

At some point there has to be an actual strategy beyond cutting costs. Right?

Stanley knows this business, Stankey has a plan.

All the cutting in the world isn’t going to make up for the lack of innovation and lack of a coherent strategy to keep the ship from sinking. End of year layoffs are going to be the new normal unless the “new” management team comes up with better ideas than cost cutting to try to appease Wall Street.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V83pAnUgXS8

LE wants out of his $300 billion AI bet. But a source told Reuters ORCL "cannot terminate the lease under any circumstances.

Three months before the OpenAI deal leaked, Oracle own annual report warned it "could be locked into multi-year commitments."

This is the full story of how the man who built the lock signed one, from $288 billion of leases, to the 413 million shares LE pledged for personal loans, to the one customer it all rests on, and the date that decides it: November 23rd.

Long-time employees have heard of, or even been involved in, one of the many attempts to consolidate platforms. Each and every project has been abandoned after smart people laid out the reasons why it can’t be done, at least to senior executives’ expectations. But here we are again. The people at the top have no history of these events and most have no tech background. What’s the right thing to do? Bite the bullet and build new systems using the latest and greatest tools. TSYS, now Global, and soon to be partly FIS, figured this out 27 years ago when they built a new platform. They ate our lunch for a while selling it to new customers but then started losing to First Data when their client contracts were up on the old system and a conversion was required. We should have done this too. Instead, we’ve spent these 27 years NOT consolidating platforms, and making it more difficult by acquiring more. Of course we’re not even contemplating this. We’re going to continue to do the Fiserv thing - chase ghosts and waste time. It would be better to do nothing.