What are you getting at, exactly? Are you implying they don't need to fire these people, they just want to? Or are you saying they think they need it, but they really don't?
Firing a bunch of people impacts morale, PR, etc. So there may be a bunch of people they'd like to fire but not badly enough to deal with those consequences. But a public narrative of "it's the economy" or "layoffs are just going around" can shield them from those consequences and give them an opportunity.
What I took from it – and I think they might be on to something – is that it's opportunistic firing.
Firing people at this scale would have been pretty expensive just a few month back, PR wise. Right now, a lot less so. So you might be tempted to think of the current climate as a good opportunity to shed some fat, to the point where you go into it with the idea of hiring back right away and being able to do so at better conditions. The market has relaxed.
Compare it to a few month back, where switching jobs (= firing your employer) was a great way to automagically increase your pay. It works both ways.
PR wise to who though? I don't think any of Microsoft's customers actually care. For developer hiring yeah it will hurt their PR, but at the end of the day sorry to say devs tend to go where the pay is highest irrespective of PR.
To give an example in microcosm, this news about layoffs is affecting my decision of what UI framework to use with .NET projects. .NET MAUI was already low on my list because I don't trust Microsoft to commit to supporting a UI framework long-term, but if any of these cuts are to the MAUI team then it will put it out of the running completely for me. I'm sure there are other devs in similar circumstances (and who likely rank MAUI much higher as a candidate than I do) who will weigh this layoff announcement into their decision. And there will be some who ignore it because they see it as a general symptom of the economy, not a sign of trouble at Microsoft etc.
> at the end of the day sorry to say devs tend to go where the pay is highest irrespective of PR.
I have to assume that, in the same way that glass palace FANG offices and around the clock full-service employee pampering are doing something for (potential) employees, the idea of large scale firings will move the needle in the opposite direction. Clearly, it's not only about who pays most.
He's implying that the company has some kind of duty to treat its employees like humans who would be adversely affected by being fired - or the company would perhaps suffer some PR damage from mass firings. But if everyone's doing it, it's a necessity.
I think he's suggesting that they want to do periodic layoffs regardless but that there may be a more negative perception of doing so in isolation rather than the current situation of multiple other big tech companies doing it.