Tim Apple, Granny Scarfs, and Snooping
November 24, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I spotted a write in a source I usually ignore. I don’t know if the write up is 100 percent on the money. Let’s assume for the purpose of my dinobaby persona that it indeed is. The write up is “Apple to Pay $95 Million Settle Suit Accusing Siri Of Snoopy Eavesdropping.” Like Apple’s incessant pop ups about my not logging into Facetime, iMessage, and iCloud, Siri being in snoop mode is not surprising to me. Tim Apple, it seems, is winding down. The pace of innovation, in my opinion, is tortoise like. I haven’t nothing against turtle like creatures, but a granny scarf for an iPhone. That’s innovation, almost as cutting edge as the candy colored orange iPhone. Stunning indeed.
Is Frederick the Great wearing an Apple Granny Scarf? Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
What does the write up say about this $95 million sad smile?
Apple has agreed to pay $95 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the privacy-minded company of deploying its virtual assistant Siri to eavesdrop on people using its iPhone and other trendy devices. The proposed settlement filed Tuesday in an Oakland, California, federal court would resolve a 5-year-old lawsuit revolving around allegations that Apple surreptitiously activated Siri to record conversations through iPhones and other devices equipped with the virtual assistant for more than a decade.
Apple has managed to work the legal process for five years. Good work, legal eagles. Billable hours and legal moves generate income if my understanding is correct. Also, the notion of “surreptitiously” fascinates me. Why do the crazy screen nagging? Just activate what you want and remove the users’ options to disable the function. If you want to be surreptitious, the basic concept as I understand it is to operate so others don’t know what you are doing. Good try, but you failed to implement appropriate secretive operational methods. Better luck next time or just enable what you want and prevent users from turning off the data vacuum cleaner.
The write up notes:
Apple isn’t acknowledging any wrongdoing in the settlement, which still must be approved by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White. Lawyers in the case have proposed scheduling a Feb. 14 court hearing in Oakland to review the terms.
I interpreted this passage to mean that the Judge has to do something. I assume that lawyers will do something. Whoever brought the litigation will do something. It strikes me that Apple will not be writing a check any time soon, nor will the fine change how Tim Apple has set up that outstanding Apple entity to harvest money, data, and good vibes.
I have several questions:
- Will Apple offer a complementary Granny Scarf to each of its attorneys working this case?
- Will Apple’s methods of harvesting data be revealed in a white paper written by either [a] Apple, [b] an unhappy Apple employee, or [c] a researcher laboring in the vineyards of Stanford University or San Jose State?
- Will regulatory authorities and the US judicial folks take steps to curtail the “we do what we want” approach to privacy and security?
I have answers for each of these questions. Here we go:
- No. Granny Scarfs are sold out
- No. No one wants to be hassled endlessly by Apple’s legions of legal eagles
- No. As the recent Meta decision about WhatsApp makes clear, green light, tech bros. Move fast, break things. Just do it.
Stephen E Arnold, November 24, 2025
Collaboration: Why Ask? Just Do. (Great Advice, Job Seeker)
November 24, 2025
Another short essay from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If you see an image, we used AI. The dinobaby is not an artist like Grandma Moses.
I read
I am too old to have an opinion about collaboration in 2025. I am a slacker, not a user of Slack. I don’t “GoTo” meetings; I stay in my underground office. I don’t “chat” on Facebook or smart software. I am, therefore, qualified to comment on the essay “Collaboration Sucks.” The main point of the essay is that collaboration is not a positive. (I know that this person has not worked at a blue chip consulting firm. If you don’t collaborate, you better have telepathy. Otherwise, you will screw up in a spectacular fashion with the client and the lucky colleagues who get to write about your performance or just drop hints to a Carpetland dweller.
The essay states:
We aim to hire people who are great at their jobs and get out of their way. No deadlines, minimal coordination, and no managers telling you what to do. In return, we ask for extraordinarily high ownership and the ability to get a lot done by yourself. Marketers ship code, salespeople answer technical questions without backup, and product engineers work across the stack.
To me, this sounds like a Silicon Valley commandment along with “Go fast and break things” or “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” Allegedly Rear Admiral Grace Hopper offered this observation. However, Admiral Craig Hosmer told me that her attitude did more harm to females in the US Navy’s technical services than she thought. Which Admiral does one believe? I believe what Admiral Hosmer told me when I provided technical support to his little Joint Committee on Nuclear Energy many years ago.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough. Good enough.
The idea that a team of really smart and independent specialists can do great things is what has made respected managers familiar with legal processes around the world. I think Google just received an opportunity to learn from its $600 million fine levied by Germany. Moving fast, Google made some interesting decisions about German price comparison sites. I won’t raise again the specter of the AI bubble and the leadership methods of Sam AI-Man. Everything is working out just swell, right?
The write up presents seven reasons why collaboration sucks. Most of the reasons revolve around flaws in a person. I urge you to read the seven variations on the theme of insecurity, impostor syndrome, and cluelessness.
My view is that collaboration, like any business process, depends on the context of the task and the work itself. In some organizations, employees can do almost anything because middle managers (if they are still present) have little idea about what’s going on with workers who are in an office half a world away, down the hall but playing Foosball, pecking away at a laptop in a small, overpriced apartment in Plastic Fantastic (aka San Mateo), or working from a van and hoping the Starlink is up.
I like the idea of crushing collaboration. I urge those who want to practice this skill join a big time law firm, a blue chip consulting firm, or engage in the work underway at a pharmaceutical research lab. I love the tips the author trots out; specifically:
- Just ship the code, product, whatever. Ignore inputs like Slack messages.
- Tell the boss or leader, you are the “driver.” (When I worked for the Admiral, I would suggest that this approach was not appropriate for the context of that professional, the work related to nuclear weapons, or a way to win his love, affection, and respect. I would urge the author to track down a four star and give his method a whirl. Let me know how that works out.)
- Tell people what you need. That’s a great idea if one has power and influence. If not, it is probably important to let ChatGPT word an email for you.
- Don’t give anyone feedback until the code or product has shipped. This a career builder in some organizations. It is quite relevant when a massive penalty ensures because an individual withheld knowledge and thus made the problem worse. (There is something called “discovery.” And, guess what, those Slack and email messages can be potent.)
- Listen to inputs but just do what you want. (In my 60 year work career, I am not sure this has ever been good advice. In an AI outfit, it’s probably gold for someone. Isn’t there something called Fool’s Gold?)
Plus, there is one item on the action list for crushing collaboration I did not understand. Maybe you can divine its meaning? “If you are a team lead, or leader of leads, who has been asked for feedback, consider being more you can just do stuff.”
Several observations:
- I am glad I am not working in Sillycon Valley any longer. I loved the commute from Berkeley each day, but the craziness in play today would not match my context. Translation: I have had enough of destructive business methods. Find someone else to do your work.
- The suggestions for killing collaboration may kill one’s career except in toxic companies. (Notice that I did not identify AI-centric outfits. How politic of me.)
- The management failure implicit in this approach to colleagues, suggestions, and striving for quality is obvious to me. My fear is that some young professionals may see this collaboration sucks approach and fail to recognize the issues it creates.
Net net: When you hire, I suggest you match the individual to the context and the expertise required to the job. Short cuts contribute to the high failure rate of start ups and the dead end careers some promising workers create for themselves.
Stephen E Arnold, November 24, 2025
If You Want to Be Performant, Do AI or Try to Do AI
November 6, 2025
For firms that have invested heavily in AI only to be met with disappointment, three tech executives offer some quality spin. Fortune reports, “Experts Say the High Failure Rate in AI adoption Isn’t a Bug, but a Feature.” The leaders expressed this interesting perspective at Fortune’s recent Most Powerful Women Summit. Writer Dave Smith writes:
“The panel discussion, titled ‘Working It Out: How AI Is Transforming the Office,’ tackled head-on a widely circulated MIT study suggesting that approximately 95% of enterprise AI pilots fail to pay off. The statistic has fueled doubts about whether AI can deliver on its promises, but the three panelists—Amy Coleman, executive vice president and chief people officer at Microsoft; Karin Klein, founding partner at Bloomberg Beta; and Jessica Wu, cofounder and CEO of Sola—pushed back forcefully on the narrative that failure signals fundamental problems with the technology.? ‘We’re in the early innings,’ Klein said. ‘Of course, there’s going to be a ton of experiments that don’t work. But, like, has anybody ever started to ride a bike on the first try? No. We get up, we dust ourselves off, we keep experimenting, and somehow we figure it out. And it’s the same thing with AI.’”
Interesting analogy. Ideally kiddos learn to ride on a cul-de-sac with supervision, not set loose on the highway. Shouldn’t organizations do their AI experimentations before making huge investments? Or before, say, basing high-stakes decisions in medicine, law-enforcement, social work, or mortgage approvals on AI tech? Ethical experimentation calls for parameters, after all. Have those been trampled in the race to adopt AI?
Cynthia Murrell, November 6, 2025
Parents and Screen Time for Their Progeny: A Losing Battle? Yep
October 22, 2025
Sometimes I am glad my child-rearing days are well behind me. With technology a growing part of childhood education and leisure, how do parents stay on top of it all? For over 40%, not as well as they would like. The Pew Research Center examined “How Parents Manage Screen Time for Kids.” The organization surveyed US parents of kids 12 and under about the use of tablets, smartphones, smartwatches, gaming devices, and computers in their daily lives. Some highlights include:
“Tablets and smartphones are common – TV even more so.
[a] Nine-in-ten parents of kids ages 12 and younger say their child ever watches TV, 68% say they use a tablet and 61% say they use a smartphone.
[b] Half say their child uses gaming devices. About four-in-ten say they use desktops or laptops.
AI is part of the mix.
[c] About one-in-ten parents say their 5- to 12-year-old ever uses artificial intelligence chatbots like ChatGPT or Gemini.
[c] Roughly four-in-ten parents with a kid 12 or younger say their child uses a voice assistant like Siri or Alexa. And 11% say their child uses a smartwatch.
Screens start young.
[e] Some of the biggest debates around screen time center on the question: How young is too young?
[f] It’s not just older kids on screens: Vast majorities of parents say their kids ever watch TV – including 82% who say so about a child under 2.
[g] Smartphone use also starts young for some, but how common this is varies by age. About three-quarters of parents say their 11- or 12-year-old ever uses one. A slightly smaller share, roughly two-thirds, say their child age 8 to 10 does so. Majorities say so for kids ages 5 to 7 and ages 2 to 4.
[h] And fewer – but still about four-in-ten – say their child under 2 ever uses or interacts with one.”
YouTube is a big part of kids’ lives, presumably because it is free and provides a “contained environment for kids.” Despite this show of a “child-safe” platform, many have voiced concerns about both child-targeted ads and questionable content. TikTok and other social media are also represented, of course, though a whopping 80% of parents believe those platforms do more harm than good for children.
Parents cite several reasons they allow kids to access screens. Most do so for entertainment and learning. For children under five, keeping them calm is also a motivation. Those who have provided kids with their own phones overwhelmingly did so for ease of contact. On the other hand, those who do not allow smartphones cite safety, developmental concerns, and screen time limits. Their most common reason, though, is concern about inappropriate content. (See this NPR article for a more in-depth discussion of how and why to protect kids from seeing porn online, including ways porn is more harmful than it used to be. Also, your router is your first line of defense.)
It seems parents are not blind to the potential harms of technology. Almost all say managing screen time is a priority, though for most it is not in the top three. See the write-up for more details, including some handy graphs. Bottomline: Parents are fighting a losing battle in many US households.
Cynthia Murrell, October 22. 2025
GenX, GenY, and Probably GenAI: Hopeless Is Not a Positive
October 13, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Generation Z is the first generation in a long time that is worse off than their predecessors. Millennials also have their own problems too, because they came of age in a giant recession that could have been avoided. Millennials might have been teased about their lack of work ethic, but Generation Z is much worse. The prior generations had some problem solving skills, this younger sect (not all of them) lack the ability to even attempt to solve their problems.
Fortune embodied the mantra of the current generation in the article: “Suzy Welch Says Gen Z and Millennials Are Burnt Out Because Older Generations Worked Just As Hard, But They ‘Had Hope.’” Suzy Welch holds a MBA, served as a management consultant, and is the editor in chief of the Harvard Business Review. She makes the acute observation that younger generations are working the same demanding schedules as prior generations, but they lack hope that hard work will lead to meaningful advancement. Young workers of today are burnt out:
The sense of powerlessness—to push back against climate change, to deal with grapple with effects of the political environment like diminished public health and gun violence, and most notably to make enough money to support lifestyles, family, housing, and a future—has led to an erosion of institutional trust. Unlike baby boomers who embraced existing institutions to get rich and live a comfortable life, the younger generations do not feel that institutions—which are perceived as cumbersome, hierarchical, and a source of inequality and discrimination—can improve their situation. When combined with the economic realities Welch identified, where hard work no longer guarantees advancement, this helps explain why more than 50% of young people fear they will be poorer than their parents during their lifetime, according to Leger’s annual Youth Study.”
Okay. The older generations had hope while the younger ones are hopeless. Maybe if there was a decrease in inflation and a rise in wages the younger people wouldn’t be so morbid. Fire up the mobile. Grab a coffee. Doomscroll. Life will work out.
Whitney Grace, October 13, 2025
Forget AI. The Real Game Is Control by Tech Wizards
October 6, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The weird orange newspaper ran an opinion-news story titled “How Tech Lords and Populists Changed the Rules of Power.” The author is Giuliano da Empoli. Now he writes. He has worked in the Italian government. He was the Deputy Mayor for Culture in the city of Florence. Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) lived in Florence. That Florentine’s ideas may have influenced Giuliano.
What are the tech bros doing? M. da Empoli writes:
The new technological elites, the Musks, Mark Zuckerbergs and Sam Altmans of this world, have nothing in common with the technocrats of Davos. Their philosophy of life is not based on the competent management of the existing order but, on the contrary, on an irrepressible desire to throw everything up in the air. Order, prudence and respect for the rules are anathema to those who have made a name for themselves by moving fast and breaking things, in accordance with Facebook’s famous first motto. In this context, Musk’s words are just the tip of the iceberg and reveal something much deeper: a battle between power elites for control of the future.
In the US, the current pride of tech lions have revealed their agenda and their battle steed, Donald J. Trump. The “governing elite” are on their collective back feet. M. da Empoli points the finger at social media and online services as the magic carpet the tech elites ride even though these look like private jets. In the online world, M. da Empoli says:
On the internet, a campaign of aggression or disinformation costs nothing, while defending against it is almost impossible. As a result, our republics, our large and small liberal democracies, risk being swept away like the tiny Italian republics of the early 16th century. And taking center stage are characters who seem to have stepped out of Machiavelli’s The Prince to follow his teachings. In a situation of uncertainty, when the legitimacy of power is precarious and can be called into question at any moment, those who fail to act can be certain that changes will occur to their disadvantage.
What’s the end game? M. da Empoli asserts:
Together, political predators and digital conquistadors have decided to wipe out the old elites and their rules. If they succeed in achieving this goal, it will not only be the parties of lawyers and technocrats that will be swept away, but also liberal democracy as we have known it until today.
Several observations:
- The tech elites are in a race which they have to win. Dumb phones and GenAI limiting their online activities are two indications that in the US some behavioral changes can be identified. Will the “spirit of log off” spread?
- The tech elites want AI to win. The reason is that control of information streams translates into power. With power comes opportunities to increase the wealth of those who manage the AI systems. A government cannot do this, but the tech elites can. If AI doesn’t work, lots of money evaporates. The tech elites do not want that to happen.
- Online tears down and leads inevitably to monopolistic or oligopolistic control of markets. The end game does not interest the tech elite. Power and money do.
Net net: What’s the fix? M. da Empoli does not say. He knows what’s coming is bad. What happens to those who deliver bad news? Clever people like Machiavelli write leadership how-to books.
Stephen E Arnold, October 6, 2025
What a Hoot? First, Snow White and Now This
October 3, 2025
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/green-dino_thumb_thumb3.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Disney+ Cancellation Page Crashes As Customers Rush to Quit after Kimmel Suspension.” I don’t think too much about Disney, the cost of going to a theme park, or the allegedly chill Walt Disney. Now it is Disney, Disney, Disney. The chant is almost displacing Epstein, Epstein, Epstein.
Somehow the Disney company muffed the bunny with Snow White. I think the film hit my radar when certain short human actors were going to be in a remake of the 1930s’ cartoon “Snow White.” Then then I noted some stories about a new president and an old president who wanted to be the president again or whatever. Most recently, Disney hit the pause button for a late night comedy show. Some people were not happy.
The write up informed me:
With cancellations surging, many subscribers reported technical issues. On Reddit’s r/Fauxmoi, one post read, “The page to cancel your Hulu/Disney+ subscription keeps crashing.”
As a practical matter, the way to stop cancellations is to dial back the resources available to the Web site. Presto. No more cancellations until the server is slowly restored to functionality so it can fall over again.
I am pragmatic. I don’t like to think that information technology professionals (either full time “cast” or part-timers) can’t keep a Web site online. It is 2025. A phone call to a service provider can solve most reliability problems as quickly as the data can be copied to a different data center.
Let me step back. I see several signals in what I will call the cartoon collapse.
- The leadership of Disney cannot rely on the people in the company; for example, the new Snow White and the Web server fell over.
- The judgment of those involved in specific decisions seems to be out of sync with the customers and the stakeholders in the company. Walt had Mickey Mouse aligned with what movie goers wanted to see and what stakeholders expected the enterprise to deliver.
- The technical infrastructure seems flawed. Well, not “seems.” The cancellation server failed.
Disney is an example of what happens when “leadership” has not set up an organization to succeed. Furthermore, the Disney case raises this question, “How many other big, well-known companies will follow this Disney trajectory?” My thought is that the disconnect between “management” staff, customers, stakeholders, and technology is similar to Disney in a number of outfits.
What will be these firms’ Snow White and late night comedian moment?
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2025
PS. Disney appears to have raised prices and then offered my wife a $2.99 per month “deal.” Slick stuff.
Musky Odor? Get Rid of Stinkies
September 29, 2025
Elon Musk cleaned house at xAI, the parent company of Grok. He fired five hundred employees followed by another hundred. That’s not the only thing he according to Futurism’s article, “Elon Musk Fires 500 Staff At xAI, Puts College Kid In Charge of Training Grok.” The biggest change Musk made to xAI was placing a kid who graduated high school in 2023 in charge of Grok. Grok is the AI chatbot and gets its name from Robert A. Heinlein’s book, Stranger in a Strange Land. Grok that, humanoid!
The name of the kid is Diego Pasini, who is currently a college student as well as Grok’s new leadership icon. Grok is currently going through a training period of data annotation, where humans manually go in and correct information in the AI’s LLMs. Grok is a wild card when it comes to the wild world of smart software. In addition to hallucinations, AI systems burn money like coal going into the Union Pacific’s Big Boy. The write up says:
“And the AI model in question in this case is Grok, which is integrated into X-formerly-Twitter, where its users frequently summon the chatbot to explain current events. Grok has a history of wildly going off the rails, including espousing claims of “white genocide” in unrelated discussions, and in one of the most spectacular meltdowns in the AI industry, going around styling itself as “MechaHitler.” Meanwhile, its creator Musk has repeatedly spoken about “fixing” Grok after instances of the AI citing sources that contradict his worldview.”
Musk is surrounding himself with young-at-heart wizards yes-men and will defend his companies as well as follow his informed vision which converts ordinary Teslas into self-driving vehicles and smart software into clay for the wizardish Diego Pasini. Mr. Musk wants to enter a building and not be distracted by those who do not give off the sweet scent of true believers. Thus, Musky Management means using the same outstanding methods he deployed when improving government effciency. (How is that working out for Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Labor?)
Mr. Musk appears to embrace meritocracy, not age, experience, or academic credentials. Will Grok grow? Yes, it will manifest just as self-driving Teslas have. Ah, the sweet smell of success.
Whitney Grace, September 29, 2025
Telegram Does Content. OpenAI Plants a Grove
September 25, 2025
Written by an unteachable dinobaby. Live with it.
Telegram uses contests to identify smart people who are into Telegram apps. For the last decade, Telegram’s approach has worked reasonably well. The method eliminates much of the bureaucracy and cost of a traditional human resources operation.
OpenAI has a different approach. “OpenAI Announces Grove, a Cohort for ‘Pre-Idea Individuals’ to Build in AI” reports:
OpenAI announced a new program called Grove on September 12, which is aimed at assisting technical talent at the very start of their journey in building startups and companies. The ChatGPT maker says that it isn’t a traditional startup accelerator program, and offers ‘pre-idea’ individuals access to a dense talent network, which includes OpenAI’s researchers, and other resources to build their ideas in the AI space.
OpenAI’s big dog is not emulating the YCombinator approach, nor is he knocking off a copy of the Telegram contests. He is looking for talented people who can create viable applications.
The approach, according to the cited article, is:
The program will begin with five weeks of content hosted in OpenAI’s headquarters in San Francisco, United States. This includes in-person workshops, weekly office hours, and mentorship with OpenAI’s leaders. The first Grove cohort will consist of approximately 15 participants, and OpenAI is recommending individuals from all domains and disciplines across various experience levels.
Will the approach work? Who knows. Telegram’s approach casts a wide net, and it is supported by the evangelism with cash approach of Telegram’s proxy, the TON Foundation. OpenAI is starting small. Telegram reviews “solutions” to coding problems. OpenAI’s Grove is more like a window box with some petunias and maybe a periwinkle or two.
The Telegram and OpenAI approaches illustrate how some high profile organizations are trying to arrive at personnel and partner solutions in a way different from that taken by Salesforce or similar quasi-new era outfits.
What other ideas will Mr. Altman implement? Is Telegram a source of inspiration to him?
Stephen E Arnold, September 25, 2025
Modern Management Method and Modern Pricing Plan
September 25, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.
Despite the sudden drop in quantity and quality in my newsfeed outputs, one of my team spotted a blog post titled “Slack Is Extorting Us with a $195K/Year Bill Increase.” Slack is, I believe, a unit of Salesforce. That firm is in the digital Rolodex business. Over the years, Salesforce has dabbled with software to help sales professionals focus. The effort was part of Salesforce’s attention retention push. Now Salesforce is into collaborative tools for professionals engaged in other organizational functions. The pointy end of the “force” is smart software. The leadership of Salesforce has spoken about the importance of AI and suggested that other firms’ collaboration software is not keeping up with Slack.
A forward-leaning team of deciders reaches agreement about pricing. The alpha dog is thrilled with the idea of a price hike. The beta buddies are less enthusiastic. But it is accounting job to collect on booked but unpaid revenue. The AI system called Venice produced this illustration.
The write up says:
For nearly 11 years, Hack Club – a nonprofit that provides coding education and community to teenagers worldwide – has used Slack as the tool for communication. We weren’t freeloaders. A few years ago, when Slack transitioned us from their free nonprofit plan to a $5,000/year arrangement, we happily paid. It was reasonable, and we valued the service they provided to our community.
The “attention” grabber in this blog post is this paragraph:
However, two days ago, Slack reached out to us and said that if we don’t agree to pay an extra $50k this week and $200k a year, they’ll deactivate our Slack workspace and delete all of our message history.
I think there is a hint of a threat to the Salesforce customer. I am probably incorrect. Salesforce is popular, and it is owned by a high profile outfit embracing attention and AI. Assume that the cited passage reflects how the customer understood the invoice and its 3,000 percent plus increase and the possible threat. My question is, “What type of management process is at work at Salesforce / Slack?”
Here are my thoughts. Please, remember that I am a dinobaby and generally clueless about modern management methods used to establish pricing.
- Salesforce has put pressure on Slack to improve its revenue quickly. The Slack professionals knee jerked and boosted bills to outfits likely to pay up and keep quiet. Thus, the Hack Club received a big bill. Do this enough times and you can demonstrate more revenue, even though it may be unpaid. Let the bean counters work to get the money. I wonder if this is passive resistance from Slack toward Salesforce’s leadership? Oh, of course not.
- Salesforce’s pushes for attention and AI are not pumping the big bucks Salesforce needs to avoid the negative consequences of missing financial projections. Bad things happen when this occurs.
- Salesforce / Slack are operating in a fog of unknowing. The hope for big payoffs from attention and AI are slow to materialize. The spreadsheet fever that justifies massive investments in AI is yielding to some basic financial realities: Customers are buying. Sticking AI into communications is not a home run for Slack users, and it may not be for the lucky bean counters who have to collect on the invoices for booked but unpaid revenue.
The write up states:
Anyway, we’re moving to Mattermost. This experience has taught us that owning your data is incredibly important, and if you’re a small business especially, then I’d advise you move away too.
Salesforce / Slack loses a customer and the costs associated with handling data for what appears to be a lower priority and lower value customer.
Modern management methods are logical and effective. Never has a dinobaby learned so much about today’s corporate tactics than I have from my reading about outfits like Salesforce / and Slack.
Stephen E Arnold, September 25, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
