3 ms·
I have seen such companies fail as they struggle to hire and it becomes more difficult to adapt quickly to more spry competition. If they are in a market withou
by sanderjd 4y ago
I have seen such companies fail as they struggle to hire and it becomes more difficult to adapt quickly to more spry competition. If they are in a market without spry competition then it works fine. For instance, for internal applications where there is a top-down forbiddance of experimentation with new things. But even for internal apps, if experimentation is not forbidden, a forward-looking team might start effectively using (and hiring for) newer technologies and eventually get all the budget.
- devonkim 4y agoThe other part of the problem is that in a limited hiring pool your competition's labor pool overlaps quite directly with yours and now you need to have compensation packages similar to theirs potentially. I've seen companies have what amounts to the same stack as a large F500 enterprise (Java, Spring, AWS, etc.) and have massive hiring problems, turnover, and especially velocity of features to keep ahead of the big companies. Essentially, if you cannot iterate faster than your competitors sufficiently from the same customer market and hiring pool, you are designed to fail or in best case be acquired by your competition. There is a balance to be achieved between boring technology, boring customer market, boring hiring pool, and so forth when it comes to any company. You need at least two such major advantages to even bother starting a company IMO.