4 ms·
> The people who make those decisions aren't paid for quality, they are paid to cut costs. This exists because not every product carries same gross profit mar
by splintercell 10y ago
> The people who make those decisions aren't paid for quality, they are paid to cut costs.
This exists because not every product carries same gross profit margin.
Apple launched iWatch, but it fails miserably, so Apple in an attempt to recuperate some costs, wants to produce the watch cheaply. Enter the people who can produce it cheaply. Of course the quality won't be the same, but apparently there isn't a market for high quality steel smart watches, but for lower quality plasticky smart watches.
- Clubber 10y agoWe're talking about labor, specifically programming, not cost of materials.
- splintercell 10y agoAnd labor is a cost to produce something. When Blue Apron built their product, they had to spend on the development time for it. If people are willing to subscribe to Blue Apron for $175 per week, then Blue Apron can build the product by hiring the best individuals, in the shortest amount of time. But if Blue Apron's customers are only willing to use a service like that for $60 per month, then BA must hire and deliver accordingly.
- Clubber 10y agoIt doesn't really work that way. You can hire 1 top notch guy for $200K a year and produce a better product faster than 10 guys at $50,000 a year. You are assuming that developers are cogs. They are not assembly line workers, they are more like authors. Programming is a creative endeavor. The issue is really two fold: 1. Execs think that programmers are cogs and one is just as good as the other. 2. Many companies can't keep good developers because they are hell holes and the culture doesn't even know how to promote creativity.