4 ms·

All this work and you don't earn money with your style of engineering. Have you maybe stopped and wondered why you don't?

gavinhoward 3y ago
I know exactly why: I haven't started marketing yet. :) After I get to MVP and actually try marketing, we'll see what happens.
- danenania 3y ago
  Not to pick on you—this is something I and most other engineers also struggle with—but I think this sums up the reason for most of the complaints in this thread. That is: builders who prioritize marketing outcompete those who prioritize engineering quality. Making something people want enough to pay for is very difficult; if you are trying to do that while also imposing a bunch of other constraints on yourself that have no clear marketing benefits, your odds of success go down a lot. Engineering excellence can sometimes be used successfully as a form of marketing in itself and you could well pull this off, as your content is super engaging and well-written. But I would suggest to every engineer to consider Chesterton’s fence. Why is all the winning software in every category slow and bloated and seemingly unconcerned with engineering excellence? Is it because everyone involved, the engineers that build it and the customers that buy it, are all technical philistine morons? Or is it because the products that win in the market prioritize… winning in the market, and all their competitors that don’t prioritize that for whatever reason fall by the wayside?
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Here is how the main factor incentivizing this sloppy engineering behavior is justified: everything is cast in terms of making money. Revenue is good -- fine. Therefore no revenue is bad -- doesn't follow and you need to justify that somehow.
    - danenania 3y ago
      No revenue generally means the project eventually gets abandoned or relegated to spare time because people gotta eat. So yeah I'd say it's a bad thing. I'm all for quality engineering. I'm just saying that if your whole plan for a new product is "quality engineering", then you have no plan at all. The horse needs to come before the cart.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        Even couching the output as a "product" begs the question. It comes with a whole set of connotations around what's expected in and from such an effort. What you're describing is a tragedy of the commons from the perspective of social and civilizational benefit. I agree that's what it is, but I think we should be more careful before justifying it.
        danenania 3y ago
        That's fine for theoretical discussions. The poster I was replying to implies that their goal is to sell a product and make money, so I was speaking to that.
  - gavinhoward 3y ago
    You are right on many levels, and I know it. > But I would suggest to every engineer to consider Chesterton’s fence. I agree. In fact, I believe I have considered Chesterton's Fence; I have a plan. I'd like your opinion on my plan. > Making something people want enough to pay for is very difficult. Yes, absolutely. To fight this, I have spent years, 3.5 years, figuring out what people hate about build systems, and I have designed mine to address those. While that doesn't guarantee success, I think it may improve my odds. Do you agree? > That is: builders who prioritize marketing outcompete those who prioritize engineering quality. Yes, and it sucks. I hate marketers. I hate marketing. I hate the fact that I'm going to do it. But I have to. So my marketing with be focused on giving people something for just paying attention. > Engineering excellence can sometimes be used successfully as a form of marketing in itself and you could well pull this off, as your content is super engaging and well-written. Thank you for your compliment! I hope so, and my plan is to emphasize this. I'm going to post four articles on HN, each a week apart, and each will be designed to give readers something substantial, with a blurb about marketing at the end that will be clearly marked as marketing. * The first will be new FOSS licenses designed to better protect contributors from legal liability. * The second will be a post on language design and psychology. * The third will be a deep dive into Turing-completeness and what it means. * The fourth will be the source code as a Show HN, along with an offer for early adopters. > Or is it because the products that win in the market prioritize… winning in the market, and all their competitors that don’t prioritize that for whatever reason fall by the wayside? It's awful, but you are right. So this marketing push is all I will do for four weeks: preparing and posting, and responding to comments. This is when I will "prioritize winning in the market." Does this have a chance of working?
    - danenania 3y ago
      "Does this have a chance of working?" It's a start for sure. But personally I'd suggest changing your mindset a bit from the idea that you'll come out of the code cave for a month to grit your teeth and do marketing. Granted, this is much better than just staying in the cave. But really to run a successful business I think you need to accept at a deep level that marketing, making money, and growing the business is now your main job, and you will permanently need to spend at least as many thought cycles on that as you do on programming. To wit, while posting those articles and a Show HN sounds like a good plan and you should definitely do that, what will you do if they all fall flat and get no traction? It's a distinct possibility, and I hope you won't just give up. I'd think more about what you're going to do every week for the next year to get users rather than putting all your chips on an HN launch that may or may not pan out. Even if you do rock the HN launch, you're probably going to have the "trough of sorrow"[1] to contend with after, so I'd think more about how you can make marketing a repeatable part of your rhythm in the long run. 1 - https://andrewchen.com/after-the-techcrunch-bump-life-in-the-trough-of-sorrow/ https://andrewchen.com/after-the-techcrunch-bump-life-in-the...
  - pdimitar 3y ago
    > Why is all the winning software in every category slow and bloated and seemingly unconcerned with engineering excellence? 1. They are extremely aggressive about coming to market fast. That's a good thing, yes. 2. They then let the project ossify because they view development as a cost center. Which is a bad thing. 3. Their endgame after being successful enough and can afford enough lawyers, they start proactively buying or shutting down potential competitors. The "marketing wins over quality (and slower) engineering" does apply, yes, but not throughout the entire lifecycle. It applies only in the very first phase.
dangrigsby 3y ago
I would find it very satisfying to do what he’s doing. I’m not sure it needs be judged against making money.

gavinhoward 3y ago

I know exactly why: I haven't started marketing yet. :) After I get to MVP and actually try marketing, we'll see what happens.

danenania 3y ago
Not to pick on you—this is something I and most other engineers also struggle with—but I think this sums up the reason for most of the complaints in this thread. That is: builders who prioritize marketing outcompete those who prioritize engineering quality. Making something people want enough to pay for is very difficult; if you are trying to do that while also imposing a bunch of other constraints on yourself that have no clear marketing benefits, your odds of success go down a lot. Engineering excellence can sometimes be used successfully as a form of marketing in itself and you could well pull this off, as your content is super engaging and well-written. But I would suggest to every engineer to consider Chesterton’s fence. Why is all the winning software in every category slow and bloated and seemingly unconcerned with engineering excellence? Is it because everyone involved, the engineers that build it and the customers that buy it, are all technical philistine morons? Or is it because the products that win in the market prioritize… winning in the market, and all their competitors that don’t prioritize that for whatever reason fall by the wayside?
- uoaei 3y ago
  Here is how the main factor incentivizing this sloppy engineering behavior is justified: everything is cast in terms of making money. Revenue is good -- fine. Therefore no revenue is bad -- doesn't follow and you need to justify that somehow.
  - danenania 3y ago
    No revenue generally means the project eventually gets abandoned or relegated to spare time because people gotta eat. So yeah I'd say it's a bad thing. I'm all for quality engineering. I'm just saying that if your whole plan for a new product is "quality engineering", then you have no plan at all. The horse needs to come before the cart.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Even couching the output as a "product" begs the question. It comes with a whole set of connotations around what's expected in and from such an effort. What you're describing is a tragedy of the commons from the perspective of social and civilizational benefit. I agree that's what it is, but I think we should be more careful before justifying it.
      - danenania 3y ago
        That's fine for theoretical discussions. The poster I was replying to implies that their goal is to sell a product and make money, so I was speaking to that.
- gavinhoward 3y ago
  You are right on many levels, and I know it. > But I would suggest to every engineer to consider Chesterton’s fence. I agree. In fact, I believe I have considered Chesterton's Fence; I have a plan. I'd like your opinion on my plan. > Making something people want enough to pay for is very difficult. Yes, absolutely. To fight this, I have spent years, 3.5 years, figuring out what people hate about build systems, and I have designed mine to address those. While that doesn't guarantee success, I think it may improve my odds. Do you agree? > That is: builders who prioritize marketing outcompete those who prioritize engineering quality. Yes, and it sucks. I hate marketers. I hate marketing. I hate the fact that I'm going to do it. But I have to. So my marketing with be focused on giving people something for just paying attention. > Engineering excellence can sometimes be used successfully as a form of marketing in itself and you could well pull this off, as your content is super engaging and well-written. Thank you for your compliment! I hope so, and my plan is to emphasize this. I'm going to post four articles on HN, each a week apart, and each will be designed to give readers something substantial, with a blurb about marketing at the end that will be clearly marked as marketing. * The first will be new FOSS licenses designed to better protect contributors from legal liability. * The second will be a post on language design and psychology. * The third will be a deep dive into Turing-completeness and what it means. * The fourth will be the source code as a Show HN, along with an offer for early adopters. > Or is it because the products that win in the market prioritize… winning in the market, and all their competitors that don’t prioritize that for whatever reason fall by the wayside? It's awful, but you are right. So this marketing push is all I will do for four weeks: preparing and posting, and responding to comments. This is when I will "prioritize winning in the market." Does this have a chance of working?
  - danenania 3y ago
    "Does this have a chance of working?" It's a start for sure. But personally I'd suggest changing your mindset a bit from the idea that you'll come out of the code cave for a month to grit your teeth and do marketing. Granted, this is much better than just staying in the cave. But really to run a successful business I think you need to accept at a deep level that marketing, making money, and growing the business is now your main job, and you will permanently need to spend at least as many thought cycles on that as you do on programming. To wit, while posting those articles and a Show HN sounds like a good plan and you should definitely do that, what will you do if they all fall flat and get no traction? It's a distinct possibility, and I hope you won't just give up. I'd think more about what you're going to do every week for the next year to get users rather than putting all your chips on an HN launch that may or may not pan out. Even if you do rock the HN launch, you're probably going to have the "trough of sorrow"[1] to contend with after, so I'd think more about how you can make marketing a repeatable part of your rhythm in the long run. 1 - https://andrewchen.com/after-the-techcrunch-bump-life-in-the-trough-of-sorrow/ https://andrewchen.com/after-the-techcrunch-bump-life-in-the...
- pdimitar 3y ago
  > Why is all the winning software in every category slow and bloated and seemingly unconcerned with engineering excellence? 1. They are extremely aggressive about coming to market fast. That's a good thing, yes. 2. They then let the project ossify because they view development as a cost center. Which is a bad thing. 3. Their endgame after being successful enough and can afford enough lawyers, they start proactively buying or shutting down potential competitors. The "marketing wins over quality (and slower) engineering" does apply, yes, but not throughout the entire lifecycle. It applies only in the very first phase.

dangrigsby 3y ago

I would find it very satisfying to do what he’s doing. I’m not sure it needs be judged against making money.