7 ms·

IMHO most (if not all) of the problems described in the article (talking about other companies) started when the stakeholders sold their companies for the highe

IMHO most (if not all) of the problems described in the article (talking about other companies) started when the stakeholders sold their companies for the highest bidder. Is it a surprise that this money would corrupt the company? It's just like when WhatsApp founders sold the company to Facebook. They got billions of dollars but eventually became disappointed with Facebook plans to shove ads into it (eventually). The same idea applies to core developers accepting cushy high-paying jobs in huge companies. The root cause is people become greedy. That's what happens when people optimize just for money. And these are exactly the cases that appear in the news, which further influences other people facing a similar choice...

AndyKelley 6y ago
Is that the root cause? Individuals being greedy? I think we can traverse up a few more parents to find the actual root of the tree. There's an entire economic system here actively encouraging and rewarding this cycle. Blaming individuals is not an effective strategy to improve society. We need to examine the system that is influencing the behavior of many individuals.
- kristoff_it 6y ago
  This is actually a discussion that has been explored here on HN too. YC has as a sort of a motto "build something people want", or something along those lines, and I doubt that founders are all equally happy to see their ideas become a garbage can of hamfisted revenue streams, but that's where you end up when you get VC money, give up board seats, and can't show "sufficient" growth. On this last topic there was an interesting discussion a while ago about where VCs and founder interest is misaligned. https://medium.com/@jodij/why-is-venture-capital-so-misaligned-395bb9434ffc https://medium.com/@jodij/why-is-venture-capital-so-misalign... https://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/vcHwylgEDmCC9JatZ0kTQM/A-misaligned-founderVC-relationship.html https://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/vcHwylgEDmCC9JatZ0kTQM/A-... This problem alone is probably at the root (or very close to) a disproportionate amount of dissatisfaction when it comes to startup software. That said, there's surely more to this story, but this is already a great point to discuss, especially in a place like HN.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    The picture of software dev you paint in the article (great read btw) is of a dichotomy: it's either a Big Tech corporate-politics nightmare, or a startup doomed to be that. I think there is another option. There are thousands of small software companies that don't have the growth or traction to get bought out, are happily making relatively small amounts of money in their niche (but still enough to pay decent salaries - not SV salaries, but enough to live on comfortably), and care about both their customers and their code. They tend to employ relatively few engineers, who stay for a long time, and have founders who know their market niche really well. You won't hear of them, because you're not in their specialised niche and they don't market outside their niche because they don't need investment. They're not really interested in going public, or being acquihired, or even gaining a trade sale, though that is the ultimate destination for most of them (when the founder decides to retire). They're not "sexy", except if you like actually practising your craft and building rock-solid products ("software you can love" - good phrase).
    - kristoff_it 6y ago
      That sounds like non-big tech, so normal tech jobs? Sure, but the section with the dichotomy (which admittedly is a simplification, true) was specifically about big tech. It's a counter argument to the idea that if you're a good developer then working for google or a hot startup is the best possible job for you.
      - marcus_holmes 6y ago
        Ah yeah, re-reading it it's clear you were talking about Big Tech, I missed that on the first go. Though I kinda resent the industry's focus on Big Tech, like all we can talk about is these few mammoth dysfunctional nightmares that take up all the room. There's lots of good tech work out there too!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

AndyKelley 6y ago

Is that the root cause? Individuals being greedy? I think we can traverse up a few more parents to find the actual root of the tree. There's an entire economic system here actively encouraging and rewarding this cycle. Blaming individuals is not an effective strategy to improve society. We need to examine the system that is influencing the behavior of many individuals.

kristoff_it 6y ago
This is actually a discussion that has been explored here on HN too. YC has as a sort of a motto "build something people want", or something along those lines, and I doubt that founders are all equally happy to see their ideas become a garbage can of hamfisted revenue streams, but that's where you end up when you get VC money, give up board seats, and can't show "sufficient" growth. On this last topic there was an interesting discussion a while ago about where VCs and founder interest is misaligned. https://medium.com/@jodij/why-is-venture-capital-so-misaligned-395bb9434ffc https://medium.com/@jodij/why-is-venture-capital-so-misalign... https://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/vcHwylgEDmCC9JatZ0kTQM/A-misaligned-founderVC-relationship.html https://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/vcHwylgEDmCC9JatZ0kTQM/A-... This problem alone is probably at the root (or very close to) a disproportionate amount of dissatisfaction when it comes to startup software. That said, there's surely more to this story, but this is already a great point to discuss, especially in a place like HN.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  The picture of software dev you paint in the article (great read btw) is of a dichotomy: it's either a Big Tech corporate-politics nightmare, or a startup doomed to be that. I think there is another option. There are thousands of small software companies that don't have the growth or traction to get bought out, are happily making relatively small amounts of money in their niche (but still enough to pay decent salaries - not SV salaries, but enough to live on comfortably), and care about both their customers and their code. They tend to employ relatively few engineers, who stay for a long time, and have founders who know their market niche really well. You won't hear of them, because you're not in their specialised niche and they don't market outside their niche because they don't need investment. They're not really interested in going public, or being acquihired, or even gaining a trade sale, though that is the ultimate destination for most of them (when the founder decides to retire). They're not "sexy", except if you like actually practising your craft and building rock-solid products ("software you can love" - good phrase).
  - kristoff_it 6y ago
    That sounds like non-big tech, so normal tech jobs? Sure, but the section with the dichotomy (which admittedly is a simplification, true) was specifically about big tech. It's a counter argument to the idea that if you're a good developer then working for google or a hot startup is the best possible job for you.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      Ah yeah, re-reading it it's clear you were talking about Big Tech, I missed that on the first go. Though I kinda resent the industry's focus on Big Tech, like all we can talk about is these few mammoth dysfunctional nightmares that take up all the room. There's lots of good tech work out there too!

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]