5 ms·
> You have a good point but software that exists with no one to sell it is more valuable than salesman with nothing to sell. I would argue that software that e
by dumpsterdiver 3y ago
> You have a good point but software that exists with no one to sell it is more valuable than salesman with nothing to sell.
I would argue that software that exists with no one to sell it is actually MUCH less valuable than a salesman with nothing to sell, because someone has poured countless hours of blood, sweat and tears into that code, and without a salesperson that developer will receive a terrible return on their investment.
A salesperson with nothing to sell on the other hand is simply a salesperson looking for a job. They have not expended the hours creating a product that will never sell.
- cudgy 3y agoSunk cost fallacy. The developer has a product to sell regardless of how much effort was spent getting there; they own it and only need to sell it or even license it. The salesperson hasn’t demonstrated they can sell and has nothing of value other than their potential; just like all the other salespeople looking for jobs. A pretty easy class of people to join.
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago> Sunk cost fallacy. The developer has a product to sell regardless of how much effort was spent getting there; they own it and only need to sell it or even license it. How is "the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it" relevant? When a developer spends time on code that no one ever pays money for, whoever is employing that developer has lost money, probably a lot of it. When a salesperson sits at home unemployed, it costs the company who will eventually employ them nothing. How in the world are you trying to claim a sunken cost fallacy in this case? Did you respond to the wrong post? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.