5 ms·
I think the article is quite right, and David Graeber made a similar observation when he talks about bullshit jobs (companies would rather hire someone to taped
by js8 8y ago
I think the article is quite right, and David Graeber made a similar observation when he talks about bullshit jobs (companies would rather hire someone to tapeduct the system rather than redesign it).
But I feel part of the problem is that the companies want to rather hire a plumber (I mean, software engineer) than to buy an off-the-shelf solution. It seems to me that off-the-shelf solutions are very costly and many companies think they can do it cheaper if they build it themselves. Which to me sounds like that the market is not functioning properly, for whatever reason.
- maltalex 8y ago> But I feel part of the problem is that the companies want to rather hire a plumber (I mean, software engineer) than to buy an off-the-shelf solution. Consider Rosenberg’s Law: Software is easy to make, except when you want it to do something new. The corollary is, The only software that’s worth making is software that does something new.
- kornish 8y agoNever heard this before, and a quick Google around doesn't turn up anything - what's the origin of this? I dig it.
- jstimpfle 8y agoIn many cases, for an off-the-shelf solution to work for you, you need control over it. You need to be able to change it. So it is required to be open source. I guess most off-the-shelf solutions aren't. Also, to be able to change the solution, you need to find one with just about the required feature set. In other words, you need a solution with minimal complexity that fulfills your needs. Because otherwise changing quickly becomes too painful. On top of that, trying existing solutions and finding out why they don't work for you is not fun. It's much more fun to explore the solution space on your own.
- Bahamut 8y agoOpen source isn’t a silver bullet - if the library isn’t updated frequently, or has some bugs in design, it can be tough to get them fixed. Maintainers tend to be very protective of the codebases they steward too.
- bigger_cheese 8y agoSupport is a big thing as well for business software. When you buy "off the shelf" package from commercial vendor a large chunk of the cost is usually in support contracts. If you have a bespoke system built from open source components it can be difficult to find people able to support it. I think there are pros and cons to both approaches. Sometimes it can be frustrating trying to shoehorn the vendor supplied peg into your business's particular hole. I've heard a lot of people over the years complain to my manager "XYZ is crap I could write a better solution using ABC" the reply is usually along the lines of "Yeah but are you willing to spent the next 10 years supporting it."
- jdbernard 8y agoYes, I agree with GP that open source is often necessary. I agree with you that it is also not always sufficient. So companies do what they can to have the necessary control and also sufficient support: build it themselves.
- wolco 8y agoI see this a lot. Large companies buying large expensive solutions that do very little of what they need. Many would be better off building themselves. Smaller companies leveraging existing products makes more sense in terms of budget and team size.
- swills 8y ago> many companies think they can do it cheaper if they build it themselves. Sometimes it seems this is because someone who is more interested in building it themselves than doing more mundane work tells them so. They have no way to know for sure if it will be, and often it isn't, but the prospect of cheaper sounds good.
- dyeje 8y agoThis is exactly the trap companies fall into. They see a solution ready to buy and think, "Oh we can build that ourselves for cheaper." The thing is, they can't. I worked in a niche of the medical industry and we saw this so much we made a white paper on it. The number of times people decided to build something themselves and came back to us in a year was amusing. They don't realize: 1. The amount of man hours necessary to build a reliable, effective system. 2. The expertise and insight needed to make it actually solve the problem. 3. The ongoing costs of maintenance, adding features, and support. So, in my opinion, it's not that the market isn't functioning it's just that most companies are delusional about what it costs to build a complex software tool.
- F_J_H 8y agoIn the area I'm most family with, (business applications), many, many systems/applications are basically relatively simple CRUD apps with reporting and dashboard features, and maybe a bit of work flow management. With the rise of low-code tools/platforms, building such apps is almost trivial. So, the make versus buy decision is not as straightforward as it once might have been, especially for companies who already might have developers on staff. *Edit: typo and clarity
- pbecotte 8y agoWell...yes and no. For example, page scraping is something I have been pricing recently. The companies I have spoken to cost WAY more than it would cost me to build...because I need one simple solution with limited accuracy...but their company is built around an advanced high accuracy solution. The off the shelf thing is rarely the simplest thing possible, because once they built that they had to keep adding features and engineers and costs :)