3 ms·

That's not evidence that's speculation. They could be using really good tools. Or each of those 50 programmers are 10x more productive than regular programmer

That's not evidence that's speculation. They could be using really good tools. Or each of those 50 programmers are 10x more productive than regular programmer (I don't believe in this imo).

nilkn 11y ago
The evidence in this case is the fact that they built the company and product with 50 developers. Whether that evidence implies anything about the product's complexity is the speculative part. If the explanation is that every single programmer at WhatsApp is 10x more productive than programmers at similar top companies, then my first question is how did WhatsApp manage to hire such people but Google, Facebook, etc., did not?
- jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
  Would you rather be one of 25,000 engineers at google, or one of 50 at whatsapp? A ton of people would chose the latter just to be in a more important core role. And if we use the acquisition price as a proxy for current market value, the per engineer capita is 20 times better at WhatsApp. I don't have any inside info, but I'm betting any of those engineers that had options are very very happy with their current job.
  - nilkn 11y ago
    That's very handwavy and not rigorous. > A ton of people would chose the latter just to be in a more important core role. Yeah, and a ton of people would choose the former just to be in a bigger company with more perks or because they want to work on something other than an IM app. Who knows? This isn't nearly strong enough to form a conclusion either way. > the per engineer capita is 20 times better at WhatsApp Perhaps, but why? You can't say that they got better talent just because they were a startup, because then I can point out all the other startups that don't have such talent. > I'm betting any of those engineers that had options are very very happy with their current job. I'm sure they are. I'm also sure they're not oracles who can predict the future. So they couldn't have known when joining that WhatsApp would be acquired for such a spectacular amount. So why WhatsApp over all the other startups? What did WhatsApp do to attract such world-class talent? I'm looking for a real, concrete answer that couldn't equally be applied to every other startup out there. The alternative explanation, of course, is that WhatsApp just isn't as complex as some here are proposing it to be. Then we don't have the mystery of how they beat every other company in the world at hiring the greatest unknown talent. Rather, they simply timed the market perfectly, probably partially through luck.

That's not evidence that's speculation. They could be using really good tools. Or each of those 50 programmers are 10x more productive than regular programmer (I don't believe in this imo).

nilkn 11y ago

The evidence in this case is the fact that they built the company and product with 50 developers. Whether that evidence implies anything about the product's complexity is the speculative part. If the explanation is that every single programmer at WhatsApp is 10x more productive than programmers at similar top companies, then my first question is how did WhatsApp manage to hire such people but Google, Facebook, etc., did not?

jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
Would you rather be one of 25,000 engineers at google, or one of 50 at whatsapp? A ton of people would chose the latter just to be in a more important core role. And if we use the acquisition price as a proxy for current market value, the per engineer capita is 20 times better at WhatsApp. I don't have any inside info, but I'm betting any of those engineers that had options are very very happy with their current job.
- nilkn 11y ago
  That's very handwavy and not rigorous. > A ton of people would chose the latter just to be in a more important core role. Yeah, and a ton of people would choose the former just to be in a bigger company with more perks or because they want to work on something other than an IM app. Who knows? This isn't nearly strong enough to form a conclusion either way. > the per engineer capita is 20 times better at WhatsApp Perhaps, but why? You can't say that they got better talent just because they were a startup, because then I can point out all the other startups that don't have such talent. > I'm betting any of those engineers that had options are very very happy with their current job. I'm sure they are. I'm also sure they're not oracles who can predict the future. So they couldn't have known when joining that WhatsApp would be acquired for such a spectacular amount. So why WhatsApp over all the other startups? What did WhatsApp do to attract such world-class talent? I'm looking for a real, concrete answer that couldn't equally be applied to every other startup out there. The alternative explanation, of course, is that WhatsApp just isn't as complex as some here are proposing it to be. Then we don't have the mystery of how they beat every other company in the world at hiring the greatest unknown talent. Rather, they simply timed the market perfectly, probably partially through luck.