Technology

Then 6 months later gets a VP job somewhere else because he "has experience" all the while eyeing another run at CEO.

Someone find out if he or his family sold stock before the drop.

This is actually wrong. There's a near 100% chance that the decision was made by the board, and also the decision to remove the CEO. So we're talking about the fall guy, but being an insider, the fall guy will get a tidy sum for the dive

Then the CEO can be recycled to some other project, and a new CEO instated at Unity, so they can pivot or double down with no moral dilemma. In reality, the board was there all along and it's all a big PR game

You're saying the workers should own the means of production. Sounds fair to me.

Pisses me off that CEOs never get fired for their bullshit and get to "retire" or "resign" like they didn't just make the most boneheaded decision that severely hurt the company.

They're rich people and it's not considered acceptable to hold rich people accountable in even the most trivial way.

CEOs are beholden to the shareholders, not the employees

He's been told to retire or be fired.

Being actually fired is not at all good for his CV at that level, hence he is leaving by "retiring", a different process in legal terms.

That said, anybody with any experience with high-level management knows that a manager "retiring" after having made the kind of the decision this one did with the consequences it had, actually means he's been pushed out, just not through the formal process of "firing".

Once you slightly climb the career ladder, vocabulary turns into marketing bs. Suddenly you most not say "problem" anymore. They're "opportunities" or "challenges". So at that level you don't get "fired" because that would sound bad for the next company you're going with. You're looking for new challenges elsewhere. Leaving behind a dumpster fire like in this very case.

when they never end up being fired

When you're a career professional, this is what being fired looks like.

"Choosing to retire" is face-saving language for "is being asked to step down," which is sort of like the police asking you to turn yourself in. You can choose not to, but you're still getting arrested either way

I swear they treat CEO's who tank companies like they do priests who molest kids and just send them to another place whenever they get caught.

red hat

Given their decision making in 22-23 especially, yikes

No way, bro, we just gotta get each user to pay, bro. Have them pay a monthly fee to us to play games, bro. It’ll totally scale, bro.

Burn the whole board.

Judging by those eyes alone, I'd say he's going back to the collection of dismembered prostitutes in his basement.

That's not exactly an uncommon structure. In case you're just realizing this now: rich people are a bunch of corrupt fuckers.

Who wouldn't want to supervise themselves?

He didn't fail. He did what the board asked of him which proved to be more unpopular than they all had expected. So they gave him an obscenely generous severance package and sent him on his merry way.

He's been rewarded and they're just trying to position it so it looks like the company leadership gives a shit and won't try the exact same thing at a later date.

The problem is making it more shareholder proof. Enshittification comes from the line go up mandate. Unity is but a single example.