> because they would place another bet on something else to remain competitive.
Now might not be the best bet making time. Circumstances and the market change.
Revolving loans might cost more to service, which also impacts R&D and product expenditures. It's very dynamic.
> To cut so heavily looks like they've no great idea on the next bet that they could make, that they don't believe those people they hired could contribute towards another thing in the near future (or they have no runway to explore doing so).
Exactly this. And that's just reality. No company has perfect information.
> Companies should place bets to stay relevant and grow, this looks like there isn't a big bet now.
AI clearly is looking interesting and shaping up in a big way for music, but the iron probably isn't hot enough to strike yet.
These are hard problems that leadership constantly grapples with.
> Now might not be the best bet making time. Circumstances and the market change.
This is true, but I personally believe that the loss of knowledge and experience from within is a significant drag on momentum for when you do want to hire again... these people likely won't return even if the markets change, they've been burned, why would they return.
If it's possible to place the next bet, retain as much knowledge and experience as possible, and leverage that towards something new, then surely that is the best thing to do.
Could there have been other bets? Probably, if audio is the definition of the market and what you have at the moment is predominantly Western music, then stronger pushes into native apps for different markets? A classical specific app / flavour? A jazz specific app / flavour? Podcasts are good, but I think audiobooks are better... the audiobook market does not feel "done" at all, there's a lot more that could be done here too. Generational AI dynamic music could be a thing too, not streaming a file but streaming the basis of a constantly generated infinite thing, i.e. study aids, sleep aids, etc. Or how about audio app sync with video devices to enable the audio from your film to come out of your smart speakers or Hi-Fi even without a 5.1 amp?
A lot of these are smaller bets than "podcasts will be worth a gazillion dollars", but each is still significant, sticky, and leads to higher retention, and fights against the commoditization of music playback and the low margins there.
17% cuts does signal a lack of ambition despite "economic headwinds", it feels like a "we need to cut deep" rather than a "what are all the new bets we can make and then we are compelled to cut the difference".
Now might not be the best bet making time. Circumstances and the market change.
Revolving loans might cost more to service, which also impacts R&D and product expenditures. It's very dynamic.
> To cut so heavily looks like they've no great idea on the next bet that they could make, that they don't believe those people they hired could contribute towards another thing in the near future (or they have no runway to explore doing so).
Exactly this. And that's just reality. No company has perfect information.
> Companies should place bets to stay relevant and grow, this looks like there isn't a big bet now.
AI clearly is looking interesting and shaping up in a big way for music, but the iron probably isn't hot enough to strike yet.
These are hard problems that leadership constantly grapples with.