4 ms·

> 1.) I am surprised this doesn't happen more. You find a company that's excited to build it, let them run with it, then if it ever becomes a target you acquihi

> 1.) I am surprised this doesn't happen more. You find a company that's excited to build it, let them run with it, then if it ever becomes a target you acquihire. That's a valid strategy for why you would want an open platform, but it doesn't really apply to outsourcing. It's not the agency's product and you're handing over cold hard cash for their time. You're not going to acquire the agency if the app takes off... you already own the IP. Really the only reason that you should outsource is if an area is not in your core competencies. If developing software for a major platform isn't one of Twitter's competencies any more, that bodes ill.

rubyn00bie 11y ago
> You're not going to acquire the agency if the app takes off... you already own the IP. Well I think you're discounting the value of their domain knowledge and their contribution vastly too much. It will take time and resources to bring a new team online. Often times, that time is greater than the business can allow. The cost of simply acquiring the company isn't going to be sufficiently high enough for the corp to even worry. As you said, they (Twitter) own the IP.
- morgante 11y ago
  I think you're significantly downplaying the cost which could potentially come from acquiring an agency. It would be quite different if this was done by a startup whose sole or primary purpose was making a Twitter app. But an agency has dozens of different projects and clients (up to hundreds) and most of their team probably wasn't even involved in the Twitter app. If Twitter wants to refocus on Mac, they'll just hire a Mac developer or two and pay the agency to train them on the app.
  - rubyn00bie 11y ago
    I just don't think a company the size of Twitter would worry about a $5-$15 million expenditure to get access to the talent they want/need right then. Then have the rest of the company, which I am assuming (quite ignorantly) isn't that many people, finish out the rest of their contracts before giving 'em some golden handcuffs. I could definitely be wrong, and perhaps the app just doesn't require that level of expertise. If you have any data, I'd be happy to look at it-- knowledge is power.
    - morgante 11y ago
      > I could definitely be wrong, and perhaps the app just doesn't require that level of expertise. There are three categories of expertise required for this app: 1. Expertise with the Twitter "domain." Twitter obviously already has this more than any outside consultant. 2. Expertise with writing Mac apps. Twitter can easily hire for this if they need to spin up in the future. 3. Expertise at the intersection of the two, which is pretty minimal. At the end of the day, it's a pretty simple CRUD app. It's definitely not worth paying $5M to get the developer who made it, especially when you consider that Twitter probably provided most of the product direction. > I just don't think a company the size of Twitter would worry about a $5-$15 million expenditure to get access to the talent they want/need right then. First off, I suspect an acquisition of a successful studio like Black Pixel might be well out of that range. They have their own products, including NetNewsWire, as well as a healthy client roster. According to LinkedIn, they have 50-200 employees. Not a trivial or cost effective acquisition. [0] > I could definitely be wrong, and perhaps the app just doesn't require that level of expertise. I don't have the data on hand, but I'm sure you could find it in Crunchbase. In general, it's rare to see established design studios being bought by their clients. [0] https://www.linkedin.com/company/black-pixel?trk=extra_biz_viewers_viewed https://www.linkedin.com/company/black-pixel?trk=extra_biz_v...
golergka 11y ago
> If developing software for a major platform isn't one of Twitter's competencies any more, that bodes ill. Why? They aren't desktop software company. They're huge-scale services, social interaction and growth company. "Software development" is too broad a field for even Twitter to specialize in. They don't write firmware for hard drives that spin in their servers either — and I'd say that skill of writing firmeare is as far from skill of writing high-load servers as skill of writing desktop software.
- morgante 11y ago
  > Why? They aren't desktop software company. They might not be a desktop software company, but they're also not really just a "services" company. If they were, I wouldn't have expected them to invest so heavily in developing and owning the mobile client experience. In fact, they directly sabotaged people from building third-party API clients. Considering how close Mac app development is to iOS development (which remains, supposedly, a key strategic area) I'm surprised.
HillRat 11y ago
It happens all the time, though, especially when it's an off-label channel (Windows Phone, for example). It's not unusual for a company to decide that it's cheaper to fund CAPEX for a product than to spin up the managerial infrastructure necessary to handle what they see as a less-important area of development. Just fund the project and bring the vendor back in to keep it updated. (Other reasons: internal politics; belief that an outside vendor can innovate more effectively; multiple failed internal attempts; have some EOFY cash to burn; really really like the vendor's logo.) When the project works out, no one's (usually) the wiser. When it doesn't, you throw the vendor under the bus and let the media back over them -- part of their job is to be a flak jacket for the client. Black Pixel is a very good studio, and it's too bad they have to take their lumps on this. Everyone has a bad project: political infighting, technical constraints, lowballed estimates, unfunded scope creep, failure to vet or make explicit all the necessary assumptions. Or maybe their architect got religion, decamped to a Moldovan monastary, and now refuses to communicate except by illustrated vellum attached to a carrier pigeon. All sorts of stuff can go wrong, but it's still your baby.
- morgante 11y ago
  > It happens all the time, though, especially when it's an off-label channel Yes, I know that. I guess I'm more surprised that Twitter now considers OS X off-channel enough to not keep a dev on it. It's pretty close to iOS development and seems like a good skill to keep in-house, if only as a testbed for new UX ideas. > Black Pixel is a very good studio Yes, they've done some great work in the past. I definitely don't hold this against them, especially when project failures can be just as much a problem of client communication.

rubyn00bie 11y ago

> You're not going to acquire the agency if the app takes off... you already own the IP. Well I think you're discounting the value of their domain knowledge and their contribution vastly too much. It will take time and resources to bring a new team online. Often times, that time is greater than the business can allow. The cost of simply acquiring the company isn't going to be sufficiently high enough for the corp to even worry. As you said, they (Twitter) own the IP.

morgante 11y ago
I think you're significantly downplaying the cost which could potentially come from acquiring an agency. It would be quite different if this was done by a startup whose sole or primary purpose was making a Twitter app. But an agency has dozens of different projects and clients (up to hundreds) and most of their team probably wasn't even involved in the Twitter app. If Twitter wants to refocus on Mac, they'll just hire a Mac developer or two and pay the agency to train them on the app.
- rubyn00bie 11y ago
  I just don't think a company the size of Twitter would worry about a $5-$15 million expenditure to get access to the talent they want/need right then. Then have the rest of the company, which I am assuming (quite ignorantly) isn't that many people, finish out the rest of their contracts before giving 'em some golden handcuffs. I could definitely be wrong, and perhaps the app just doesn't require that level of expertise. If you have any data, I'd be happy to look at it-- knowledge is power.
  - morgante 11y ago
    > I could definitely be wrong, and perhaps the app just doesn't require that level of expertise. There are three categories of expertise required for this app: 1. Expertise with the Twitter "domain." Twitter obviously already has this more than any outside consultant. 2. Expertise with writing Mac apps. Twitter can easily hire for this if they need to spin up in the future. 3. Expertise at the intersection of the two, which is pretty minimal. At the end of the day, it's a pretty simple CRUD app. It's definitely not worth paying $5M to get the developer who made it, especially when you consider that Twitter probably provided most of the product direction. > I just don't think a company the size of Twitter would worry about a $5-$15 million expenditure to get access to the talent they want/need right then. First off, I suspect an acquisition of a successful studio like Black Pixel might be well out of that range. They have their own products, including NetNewsWire, as well as a healthy client roster. According to LinkedIn, they have 50-200 employees. Not a trivial or cost effective acquisition. [0] > I could definitely be wrong, and perhaps the app just doesn't require that level of expertise. I don't have the data on hand, but I'm sure you could find it in Crunchbase. In general, it's rare to see established design studios being bought by their clients. [0] https://www.linkedin.com/company/black-pixel?trk=extra_biz_viewers_viewed https://www.linkedin.com/company/black-pixel?trk=extra_biz_v...

golergka 11y ago

> If developing software for a major platform isn't one of Twitter's competencies any more, that bodes ill. Why? They aren't desktop software company. They're huge-scale services, social interaction and growth company. "Software development" is too broad a field for even Twitter to specialize in. They don't write firmware for hard drives that spin in their servers either — and I'd say that skill of writing firmeare is as far from skill of writing high-load servers as skill of writing desktop software.

morgante 11y ago
> Why? They aren't desktop software company. They might not be a desktop software company, but they're also not really just a "services" company. If they were, I wouldn't have expected them to invest so heavily in developing and owning the mobile client experience. In fact, they directly sabotaged people from building third-party API clients. Considering how close Mac app development is to iOS development (which remains, supposedly, a key strategic area) I'm surprised.

HillRat 11y ago

It happens all the time, though, especially when it's an off-label channel (Windows Phone, for example). It's not unusual for a company to decide that it's cheaper to fund CAPEX for a product than to spin up the managerial infrastructure necessary to handle what they see as a less-important area of development. Just fund the project and bring the vendor back in to keep it updated. (Other reasons: internal politics; belief that an outside vendor can innovate more effectively; multiple failed internal attempts; have some EOFY cash to burn; really really like the vendor's logo.) When the project works out, no one's (usually) the wiser. When it doesn't, you throw the vendor under the bus and let the media back over them -- part of their job is to be a flak jacket for the client. Black Pixel is a very good studio, and it's too bad they have to take their lumps on this. Everyone has a bad project: political infighting, technical constraints, lowballed estimates, unfunded scope creep, failure to vet or make explicit all the necessary assumptions. Or maybe their architect got religion, decamped to a Moldovan monastary, and now refuses to communicate except by illustrated vellum attached to a carrier pigeon. All sorts of stuff can go wrong, but it's still your baby.

morgante 11y ago
> It happens all the time, though, especially when it's an off-label channel Yes, I know that. I guess I'm more surprised that Twitter now considers OS X off-channel enough to not keep a dev on it. It's pretty close to iOS development and seems like a good skill to keep in-house, if only as a testbed for new UX ideas. > Black Pixel is a very good studio Yes, they've done some great work in the past. I definitely don't hold this against them, especially when project failures can be just as much a problem of client communication.