3 ms·

Meetings are a result of having a large team (or many teams) which require work/information to be synced periodically. I have not seen a software product that c

Meetings are a result of having a large team (or many teams) which require work/information to be synced periodically. I have not seen a software product that can tackle this problem: I only want to see progress on team Y for delivery 1 that my team needs for delivery Gamma. Also, strong, small teams usually don't scale well - which is why they sell themselves to megacorps who can (e.g. megacorps are much better when it's time to localize to 20 countries on 3 continents and navigate the legal labyrinth necessitated. All that work requires meetings to coordinate, even if legal ends up only asking the engineer a single question)

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
All of those things are true of established industries with mature products. But that's also why established industries with mature products don't innovate and die. There's too much bureaucracy to innovate. A potentially great idea could be snuffed out because it threatens the internal ambition of a middle manager, or the silos required to overcome results in burnout and good devs leaving. Even if a good idea is approved, you need 20 different teams, requiring 20 different meetings, and overall meetings, and then you need status meetings to watch the budget, etc etc. > Also, strong, small teams usually don't scale well - which is why they sell themselves to megacorps who can They sell to megacorps to make money, not to scale their product.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  > They sell to megacorps to make money, not to scale their product I should have been more explicit. Scale is the arbitrage opportunity exploited by megacorps: Buying an upstart at $X means they project that they can make a multiple of $X out of the transaction, based on their ability to scale (or integration with other products). If smaller team could easily make the same multiple of $X, then they wouldn't sell at $X.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

All of those things are true of established industries with mature products. But that's also why established industries with mature products don't innovate and die. There's too much bureaucracy to innovate. A potentially great idea could be snuffed out because it threatens the internal ambition of a middle manager, or the silos required to overcome results in burnout and good devs leaving. Even if a good idea is approved, you need 20 different teams, requiring 20 different meetings, and overall meetings, and then you need status meetings to watch the budget, etc etc. > Also, strong, small teams usually don't scale well - which is why they sell themselves to megacorps who can They sell to megacorps to make money, not to scale their product.

sangnoir 6y ago
> They sell to megacorps to make money, not to scale their product I should have been more explicit. Scale is the arbitrage opportunity exploited by megacorps: Buying an upstart at $X means they project that they can make a multiple of $X out of the transaction, based on their ability to scale (or integration with other products). If smaller team could easily make the same multiple of $X, then they wouldn't sell at $X.