5 ms·

Constructive criticism from someone who has experience as both a buyer and seller of software development services: 1. Many clients prefer fixed price engageme

Constructive criticism from someone who has experience as both a buyer and seller of software development services: 1. Many clients prefer fixed price engagements, but savvy clients know that "prototype in 2 weeks for $5,000" isn't as good a proposition as it seems. What happens when I send you dozens of wireframes for a complex web app that would realistically take an experienced programmer a month to prototype well? Answer: I'm going to get what I paid for in real terms, but not what your offer really "promised" in spirit. Experienced clients tend to avoid one-size-fits-all offerings for this very reason, so you're left with the inexperienced clients who may wind up disappointed. These clients are easy prey, but can also cause real headaches as well. 2. Your Q&A section isn't very client-oriented. Yes, you're targeting the HN/"startup entrepreneur" set, which is comprised of people who might not think anything of answers like "That's not a question and this is also a prototype", but great service providers exhibit respect and humility. If you're interested in building prototypes and probably aren't going to want to go beyond that, "My primary focus is on building fantastic prototypes. Please inquire about non-prototype projects" would reflect a lot better on your attitude than "That depends on how interested I am in the project." Your clients pay you; you're not doing them any favors. 3. The idea "it shouldn't matter what language this is written in" sounds good on paper, but it is actually quite flimsy. Prototype code may be scrapped relatively quickly, but the idea that a client will build a prototype in two weeks and not want/need to iterate on it before building a production app is absolutely naive. You're basically saying that every assumption and use case that went into producing designs/wireframes will be dead on, and validation won't require any tweaks. If the client isn't willing to invest in Clojure and you're (likely) gone after $5,000 and 2 weeks, where does that leave the client? The better approach: if you're sticking exclusively with Clojure, sell the benefits of Clojure and leave it at that; don't try to fool the client into believing that "it shouldn't matter" because your code is supposed to be written once and then disposed of. Bottom line: I don't know Chris and he may have great skill and experience, but this offering seems like little more than an angle for the developer to drum up $10,000+ monthly while making sure that he really doesn't have to align his interests with those of his clients. Wham bam thank you ma'am...

swannodette 15y ago
> What happens when I send you dozens of wireframes for a complex web app that would realistically take an experienced programmer a month to prototype well? An experienced programmer working with slow tools will work slowly. That's why languages like Clojure were invented - Rich Hickey is an experienced C++, Java dev. > Your clients pay you; you're not doing them any favors. Clients pick you because you bring something to the table they can't get anywhere else. If you're as good as you say you are, you are doing the client a favor. > If the client isn't willing to invest in Clojure and you're (likely) gone after $5,000 and 2 weeks, where does that leave the client? With their money's worth of a prototype that demonstrates whether the idea is or isn't total shit. You don't see the value proposition. Somebody else will. If Chris is as talented as he says he is, your loss.
ibdknox 15y ago
You make some fair, though invalid, assumptions. 1) It's true, I cannot magically produce an entire photo-editing app in two weeks, but this makes the assumption that I won't be very frank with what I will deliver. It also makes the assumption that I can't work with people multiple times. The point here is to define a unit of work. My unit of work in this endeavor is two weeks at a fixed cost. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I'm not here to prey on clients and if what I offer isn't a good fit for them, they'll know in our first conversation. 2) This makes two assumptions: that I am doing this to build a client-based business and that I'm in this primarily for the money. I'm not really trying to build a client-based business that works for everyone. I've been a part of such businesses and I really disliked my time there. As such, I don't mind my frankness being a filter for who I do or do not hear from. Which brings me to the second assumption; I'm doing this for the fun of working with other people to bring ideas to life, not to make money. So while my clients pay me, they're getting a good deal and it really is up to me whether or not I wish to continue working on their project. That's not me expressing attitude, that's me being honest right up front. :) Moreover, I believe service is exemplified in action and while you seem to think otherwise, if I take someone on, I'm there to help them the best I can. 3) This hits the same point I made before, if the idea changes, there's no reason I can't work something out with my clients. There's also no reason that we can't set up another two week iteration. While I understand your points, they seem tinted by negative experiences and though it may sound trite, part of why I'm doing this is because of my own poor experiences in client work.

swannodette 15y ago

> What happens when I send you dozens of wireframes for a complex web app that would realistically take an experienced programmer a month to prototype well? An experienced programmer working with slow tools will work slowly. That's why languages like Clojure were invented - Rich Hickey is an experienced C++, Java dev. > Your clients pay you; you're not doing them any favors. Clients pick you because you bring something to the table they can't get anywhere else. If you're as good as you say you are, you are doing the client a favor. > If the client isn't willing to invest in Clojure and you're (likely) gone after $5,000 and 2 weeks, where does that leave the client? With their money's worth of a prototype that demonstrates whether the idea is or isn't total shit. You don't see the value proposition. Somebody else will. If Chris is as talented as he says he is, your loss.

ibdknox 15y ago

You make some fair, though invalid, assumptions. 1) It's true, I cannot magically produce an entire photo-editing app in two weeks, but this makes the assumption that I won't be very frank with what I will deliver. It also makes the assumption that I can't work with people multiple times. The point here is to define a unit of work. My unit of work in this endeavor is two weeks at a fixed cost. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I'm not here to prey on clients and if what I offer isn't a good fit for them, they'll know in our first conversation. 2) This makes two assumptions: that I am doing this to build a client-based business and that I'm in this primarily for the money. I'm not really trying to build a client-based business that works for everyone. I've been a part of such businesses and I really disliked my time there. As such, I don't mind my frankness being a filter for who I do or do not hear from. Which brings me to the second assumption; I'm doing this for the fun of working with other people to bring ideas to life, not to make money. So while my clients pay me, they're getting a good deal and it really is up to me whether or not I wish to continue working on their project. That's not me expressing attitude, that's me being honest right up front. :) Moreover, I believe service is exemplified in action and while you seem to think otherwise, if I take someone on, I'm there to help them the best I can. 3) This hits the same point I made before, if the idea changes, there's no reason I can't work something out with my clients. There's also no reason that we can't set up another two week iteration. While I understand your points, they seem tinted by negative experiences and though it may sound trite, part of why I'm doing this is because of my own poor experiences in client work.