5 ms·

>because the Primes will come muscle them out. Over and over people mention this phenomena. I am not sure why its okay, or that people even suggest giving thes

>because the Primes will come muscle them out. Over and over people mention this phenomena. I am not sure why its okay, or that people even suggest giving these organizations more money.

zdragnar 7y ago
Regulation- the kind that creates red tape- favors the biggest companies. One of my favorite clients had a software product that their contacts in the military said stood head and shoulders above what they were currently using. Unfortunately, they were not the people in charge of procurement, and didn't have the clout necessary to make inroads enough to land a contract that would keep the company afloat. In the end, they pivoted to market their software to commercial enterprise clients (think data analytics) and they've been going ever since. It's a shame, really. The flip side, of course, is that a lot of the same regulations I bemoan as red tape exist because someone, somewhere, bought something that either completely failed, or the supplier wasn't big enough to support the military's scale. I've seen businesses make similar reactions- every time there's a mistake, layer on another new process or documentation requirement. There's got to be a middle ground somewhere between the needs of auditing, accountability and avoiding regulatory capture, but I don't really have a good answer for what it is.
- ngold 7y ago
  I always think of the two kids that got rich gaming the new Internet bidding process to buy tons of ammo that went to the military in george jrs. Iraq war that was completely useless.
peteretep 7y ago
> I am not sure why its okay, or that people even suggest giving these organizations more money Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM
- raverbashing 7y ago
  They better start doing that then
  - freehunter 7y ago
    The reason "no one gets fired for buying IBM" is because big players (IBM, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc) are known quantities (so you don't need to answer questions around "why would you choose that fly-by-night company, you must have some financial interest!") and critically, if something goes wrong they're big enough to sue. If you pick a small company and something goes wrong, they might go out of business and leave you with nothing. If they stay in business, you might try to sue them but the company isn't worth enough to make a lawsuit worthwhile. IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc, they're big enough to sue. Which is kind of an insurance policy against something going wrong in the contract.
    - raverbashing 7y ago
      Except IBMs products are a contract, maintenance and usability nightmare, much worse than the other options
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

>because the Primes will come muscle them out. Over and over people mention this phenomena. I am not sure why its okay, or that people even suggest giving these organizations more money.

zdragnar 7y ago

Regulation- the kind that creates red tape- favors the biggest companies. One of my favorite clients had a software product that their contacts in the military said stood head and shoulders above what they were currently using. Unfortunately, they were not the people in charge of procurement, and didn't have the clout necessary to make inroads enough to land a contract that would keep the company afloat. In the end, they pivoted to market their software to commercial enterprise clients (think data analytics) and they've been going ever since. It's a shame, really. The flip side, of course, is that a lot of the same regulations I bemoan as red tape exist because someone, somewhere, bought something that either completely failed, or the supplier wasn't big enough to support the military's scale. I've seen businesses make similar reactions- every time there's a mistake, layer on another new process or documentation requirement. There's got to be a middle ground somewhere between the needs of auditing, accountability and avoiding regulatory capture, but I don't really have a good answer for what it is.

ngold 7y ago
I always think of the two kids that got rich gaming the new Internet bidding process to buy tons of ammo that went to the military in george jrs. Iraq war that was completely useless.

peteretep 7y ago

> I am not sure why its okay, or that people even suggest giving these organizations more money Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM

raverbashing 7y ago
They better start doing that then
- freehunter 7y ago
  The reason "no one gets fired for buying IBM" is because big players (IBM, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc) are known quantities (so you don't need to answer questions around "why would you choose that fly-by-night company, you must have some financial interest!") and critically, if something goes wrong they're big enough to sue. If you pick a small company and something goes wrong, they might go out of business and leave you with nothing. If they stay in business, you might try to sue them but the company isn't worth enough to make a lawsuit worthwhile. IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc, they're big enough to sue. Which is kind of an insurance policy against something going wrong in the contract.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    Except IBMs products are a contract, maintenance and usability nightmare, much worse than the other options

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]