Given the transparency of the gesture of removing a person in power after a controversial change being an obvious and common scape goat mechanism, I'm not convinced this is Unity recovering right here. Pretty sure this is just Unity acknowledging they fumbled the ball and they're desperately trying to spin this as, "no, no, we're the good guys, that _one_ person in power was the one you had beef with." I say, why let them create that spin?
I contend that even if he is a scapegoat, this should be considered a good thing. It's not enough to let them off the hook, but I don't think anything would be. However, needing to scapegoat someone is a materialized cost to a verifiable person in power. It is a precedent the next CEO and chair will have to pay attention to. They will need to be more careful in the future when they try to rip off their business partners.
This situation is being watched by all the other executives out there at other companies, who are just waiting for a moment where they think they could get away with the same thing. This resignation is a loud and clear "don't you dare!"
I'm not so certain that the resignation is a loud and clear "don't you dare," though. Career CEOs will land on their feet by finding a new business to champion. In the meantime, I'm fairly certain they would have been granted a monetary incentive to resign that's probably paying for a sabbatical in a nice resort somewhere before returning to work with a "new vision as a changed person." Perhaps that's just my skepticism leaking out though. Obviously none of us know the exact details of their departure. Perhaps you're even right.
Both situations seem possible. I guess time will tell how Unity wants to move forward.
Others mentioned it earlier but it looks like Godot had a big boost in users from this fiasco. Perhaps Unity is concerned about real financial damages done to their bottom line because of all this? I’d expect them to try a lot of stuff and see what sticks to make sure they don’t miss their targets this year.
Right? We don't need to send a signal to unity a signal has to be sent to the industry at large. Unitys collapse is the signal we need to send. If history tells us anything it's that a company doesn't learn from its mistakes but the industry might learn from a companies demise.
It's not about recovery. The company wants to do the pricing. If they have to sacrifice a few CEO's to warm people up to idea then so be it. Companies don't walk away from this stuff.
Developers need to have a big think and should be managing their risk and exposure to potential price shocks like this to ensure their own viability.
I wanted to learn how the new APIs work from OpenAI so in doing so I have built a small tool that simulates a job interview.
As the user you enter the job title you are interviewing for, and the app then returns a sample interview question to respond to.
You can choose to either type the response, or use your the voice to text features of browsers to fill out the box instead, a bit more realistic in how interviews tend to go.
After you respond, your response is analysed versus the question and will let you know what was good and bad about it. There is currently no guard rails on the job title so you can meme it a bit as well (for example a colleague put in 'a cup of coffee') for fun...
I'd love any feedback good or bad about it, ideas etc. This is the first time i'm showing something i've built to the world (I'm not a professional coder) but I appreciate any feedback.
There is no logging going on, no email sign-up, nothing, just open the site and you can try it.
The only way Unity was going to be able to begin to recover from their recent PR snafu was for him to go. They needed a fresh start.