HorrorScope wrote on May 9, 2013, 20:04:

BitWraith wrote on May 9, 2013, 08:53:
This is the part of Capitalism that I don't understand.

"For the quarter, non-GAAP net revenue of $1,040 million was within our guidance of $1,025 million to $1,125 million. Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $0.55 was slightly below our guidance of $0.57 to $0.72." As for the year: "GAAP net revenue is expected to be approximately $3.50 billion. Non-GAAP net revenue is expected to be approximately $4.00 billion. GAAP diluted loss per share is expected to be approximately ($0.97). Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share is expected to be approximately $1.20."

How does this equal massive layoffs exactly?

No shit.

My company in our announcements we use all the time "We owe it to are shareholders", as if our product isn't the goal, some people that invest are. Which I am one by the way, and as a shareholder I say, take care of the employees. So they selectively listen to shareholders.

The numbers listed are for EA as a whole. EA is a pretty huge company with many diffeent departments. The layoffs were from departments that was losing lots of money - mobile gaming I think it was.

BitWraith wrote on May 9, 2013, 08:53:
This is the part of Capitalism that I don't understand.

"For the quarter, non-GAAP net revenue of $1,040 million was within our guidance of $1,025 million to $1,125 million. Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $0.55 was slightly below our guidance of $0.57 to $0.72." As for the year: "GAAP net revenue is expected to be approximately $3.50 billion. Non-GAAP net revenue is expected to be approximately $4.00 billion. GAAP diluted loss per share is expected to be approximately ($0.97). Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share is expected to be approximately $1.20."

How does this equal massive layoffs exactly?

No shit.

My company in our announcements we use all the time "We owe it to are shareholders", as if our product isn't the goal, some people that invest are. Which I am one by the way, and as a shareholder I say, take care of the employees. So they selectively listen to shareholders.

Weren't there other EA layoffs last month too? EA is looking a bit wobbly these days.

Mr. Tact wrote on May 9, 2013, 08:56:

BitWraith wrote on May 9, 2013, 08:53:
How does this equal massive layoffs exactly?

Gotta improve the numbers to get those executive bonuses rolling!

Executive bonuses want spikes in profit because greedy shareholders only make money when the share price spikes up. If a company doesn't grow, shares don't increase in value and shareholders don't make money. The best way to make money is spike your profits at the cost of long term viability, then dump your shares. The way the stock market works right now is kind of screwed up, it actively encourages businesses to run like crap.

Things would be very different if the market focused on stocks that pay dividends rather than the voting stocks that are effectively gambling these days.

BitWraith wrote on May 9, 2013, 08:53:
How does this equal massive layoffs exactly?

Gotta improve the numbers to get those executive bonuses rolling!

This is the part of Capitalism that I don't understand.

"For the quarter, non-GAAP net revenue of $1,040 million was within our guidance of $1,025 million to $1,125 million. Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $0.55 was slightly below our guidance of $0.57 to $0.72." As for the year: "GAAP net revenue is expected to be approximately $3.50 billion. Non-GAAP net revenue is expected to be approximately $4.00 billion. GAAP diluted loss per share is expected to be approximately ($0.97). Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share is expected to be approximately $1.20."

How does this equal massive layoffs exactly?

You work for EA these days, you get laid off. It sucks, but so must be working at the worst company in America.

900 employees is a lot... if that's 10% then that means EA has around 9000?

So EA picks up the Star Wars licence, and they celebrate by laying off 10% of their workforce.

Awesome.

Sh * t rolls down hill, guys at the top don't get dirty.

Ravor wrote on May 8, 2013, 22:30:
It's too bad they have to fire 900 people when they could just fire one or 2 execs instead to come up with that same wage value..

http://www.forbes.com/profile/john-riccitiello/

numbers are your friend.

900 employees @ 50,000 a year is 45,000,000$. which is equivalent to 9 CEOS with all of their bonuses and stock options. an "exec" i can't see making more than 150,000-300,000 a year all in. This would be like 900 employees = 300-150 execs.

so yes, lots of hyperbole, but i get your sentiment. it's obvious that the decision makers's heads need to roll, not the drones, but welcome to the corporate world. you think this is solely relegated to EA? lol.

Ravor wrote on May 8, 2013, 22:30:
It's too bad they have to fire 900 people when they could just fire one or 2 execs instead to come up with that same wage value..

Heh, a bit of hyperbole, but not too far off the truth.

I feel terrible for all the working stiffs who just lost there jobs, the vast majority of whom have no part in the EA policies we love to hate. They're just people, many of whom doing what they love, and now they have no jobs in a tough job market.

It's too bad they have to fire 900 people when they could just fire one or 2 execs instead to come up with that same wage value..

Seems just like yesterday when there were reports of dozens of high performance supercars in EA's parking lot.

This seemed a likely outcome given the quarterly financial report detailed yesterday here. The shares did not reflect the outcomes expected despite having an increased in revenues which met their target. Sucks for the employees that they are at the mercy of shareholders which are disproportionally held by rich individuals and investment groups rather than those in similar positions as the the affected employees.

hah, i kept reading the title as "EA 100% layoff report confirmed"

read it 3 times and still had to read the text below to notice it was 10% and not 100%