Not at all. Let me quote the article then if you can't see it. > Finally, I increasingly wonder where else diseconomies of scale rule? They can’t be unique to

Not at all. Let me quote the article then if you can't see it. > Finally, I increasingly wonder where else diseconomies of scale rule? They can’t be unique to software development. In my more fanciful moments I wonder if diseconomies of scale are the norm in all knowledge work. They apply to every known form of manufacturing, such as vehicles or genetic engineering of vegetables (the more parts of a vegetable you try to engineer, the more difficult it gets). The author seems to have missed this, which is what I was pointing out. And on the idea that even developing software does not have economies of scale, I present the following: Linux. Linux is what we build everything on top of. Without Linux, we'd have to start from scratch. Linux is just code. Databases are the same way. We build our applications on top of thousands of lines of code and we utilize the economies of scale of everyone building off the same code to make our code easier to create. So I'd say that not only does software have economies of scale in distribution, it must have economies of scale in production or we would not have operating systems or databases. The issue he is dealing with is a simpler one - complexity is hard to manage. If you manage your complexity well and create a Linux or an Apache web server, then you have economies of scale. If you create a ball of mud, you have diseconomies of scale. If you build your 1km long truck out of well designed modular blocks, you have economies of scale in transporting massive amounts of goods along flat roads. If you try to custom build the whole 1km of truck, it will be a disaster. Nothing unique to software here, and diseconomies of scale are a failure of software design, not an inherent property.