3 ms·

> They don't profit from what is created at the client Palantir does indirectly profit from what's created at the client, by reselling the code created at one

> They don't profit from what is created at the client Palantir does indirectly profit from what's created at the client, by reselling the code created at one client to other clients later.

user5994461 10y ago
Software companies benefit from code re-use and quality by reselling the same software to every client, then getting all the returns. Consulting companies don't. The reason they are called in the first place is to make highly customized software. Most consulting companies will pretend to re-use things across clients. In practise however, it cannot be achieved because it's going against their business model (yet they'll still pretend they do).
- Anderkent 10y ago
  Consulting companies very often do not own the software they build at a clients, and so can't really reuse it. That's not what Palantir does. I'm not sure what you think the business model is that would go against code reuse across sites. If you can afford to negotiate for ownership of what you build at a client site, why wouldn't you reuse things that are common? Like, the reuse thing isn't binary. There's a whole spectrum between 'give everyone exactly the same thing', and 'give ever y single client something built for them from scratch'. And if you can build something from scratch at one client site, take half of that to another client, take 3/4 of that to yet another, and eventually end up only having to build 2-3% of the thing at every place, that's building a product while already getting paid for it.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    >>> I'm not sure what you think the business model is that would go against code reuse across sites. If you can afford to negotiate for ownership of what you build at a client site, why wouldn't you reuse things that are common? Because there isn't much that is common. You're called to craft customised software, with special customization for the client needs and tight integration with the client systems. Anyway, none of this matters. At the end of the day. A consulting shop doesn't bill software, it bills the hours*men. Whatever spectrum you think you can achieve, your actual business model always push back to its extreme side. I've worked at consulting shops trying to bill software as software. I've never seen it goes very well.
  - burntrelish1273 10y ago
    Palantir is more consultingish-convert-to-subscription/product model where possible... they make money anyway they can and keep looking to build new business opportunities with consultingish svcs. In general, strict consultancies are inherently unscalable and expensive, whereas SaaS has a unit cost of nearly $0. The benefits of consultingish, unscalable behaviors are known, in order to get to, and create new, scalable products. http://paulgraham.com/ds.html http://paulgraham.com/ds.html
burntrelish1273 10y ago
Palantir runs a shit-ton of RHEL boxes for clients include a dozen TLA (three-letter agencies). I know because they tried to hire me to do just that.

> They don't profit from what is created at the client Palantir does indirectly profit from what's created at the client, by reselling the code created at one client to other clients later.

user5994461 10y ago

Software companies benefit from code re-use and quality by reselling the same software to every client, then getting all the returns. Consulting companies don't. The reason they are called in the first place is to make highly customized software. Most consulting companies will pretend to re-use things across clients. In practise however, it cannot be achieved because it's going against their business model (yet they'll still pretend they do).

Anderkent 10y ago
Consulting companies very often do not own the software they build at a clients, and so can't really reuse it. That's not what Palantir does. I'm not sure what you think the business model is that would go against code reuse across sites. If you can afford to negotiate for ownership of what you build at a client site, why wouldn't you reuse things that are common? Like, the reuse thing isn't binary. There's a whole spectrum between 'give everyone exactly the same thing', and 'give ever y single client something built for them from scratch'. And if you can build something from scratch at one client site, take half of that to another client, take 3/4 of that to yet another, and eventually end up only having to build 2-3% of the thing at every place, that's building a product while already getting paid for it.
- user5994461 10y ago
  >>> I'm not sure what you think the business model is that would go against code reuse across sites. If you can afford to negotiate for ownership of what you build at a client site, why wouldn't you reuse things that are common? Because there isn't much that is common. You're called to craft customised software, with special customization for the client needs and tight integration with the client systems. Anyway, none of this matters. At the end of the day. A consulting shop doesn't bill software, it bills the hours*men. Whatever spectrum you think you can achieve, your actual business model always push back to its extreme side. I've worked at consulting shops trying to bill software as software. I've never seen it goes very well.
- burntrelish1273 10y ago
  Palantir is more consultingish-convert-to-subscription/product model where possible... they make money anyway they can and keep looking to build new business opportunities with consultingish svcs. In general, strict consultancies are inherently unscalable and expensive, whereas SaaS has a unit cost of nearly $0. The benefits of consultingish, unscalable behaviors are known, in order to get to, and create new, scalable products. http://paulgraham.com/ds.html http://paulgraham.com/ds.html

burntrelish1273 10y ago

Palantir runs a shit-ton of RHEL boxes for clients include a dozen TLA (three-letter agencies). I know because they tried to hire me to do just that.