4 ms·

1,000? You can't be serious.

• nostrademons 10y ago
  I wonder about that. Craigslist operated with 28 people (in 2009) and served 20 billion pageviews a month. Whatsapp had 50 staff for 200 million active users when it was bought. PlentyOfFish for many years operated off one person, making a million or two in revenue off tens of millions of users. I kinda suspect that most tech businesses hire employees because they have money, not because they need them. Obviously there's some operational cost, particularly when you're charging money from a customer. But for consumer or small-business products that offer a well-defined product in exchange for either advertisements or a small monthly fee, there's really not all that much work needed to serve a marginal customer.
  • moondev 10y ago
    I think we as engineers tend to unconsciously disvalue non-technical roles. The fact of the matter is that there is an incredible amount of work that goes into the sales and marketing pieces of a business. To even suggest that a "major" tech company could exist without is laughable and out of touch.
    • tbrowbdidnso 10y ago
      I don't think I've ever worked at a large company that wouldn't do just fine with a third of their workforce. Of course most of these companies are big, older, and full of technical and human cruft. It's astounding the number of people that aren't really needed. I worked at one company that was close to optimal once. A lot of automation and only a few employees kept around for various political reasons. The company has a revenue of 4 million from less than 20 people
      • moondev 10y ago
        My reaction was the suggestion that google could get by with with less than 2% of their current employees.