4 ms·
Am I correct that if this does not get fixed, it's a huge boon for dev agencies as paying them is an immediate expense for the startup, while paying in-house de
by 55555 3y ago
Am I correct that if this does not get fixed, it's a huge boon for dev agencies as paying them is an immediate expense for the startup, while paying in-house devs is not?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- moron4hire 3y agoFrom my reading, that would be an expense directly related to the development of the software, which also must be amortized. What I haven't figured out is what the Dev agency has to do. They don't own the software being developed. Unless they have in-house libraries they develop... And how does this work for open source projects that have corporate support to be developed on during company time? If you amortized the "R&D excited" of the developer's salary on the premise that the software will make long-term, recurring income, what does that mean for software that isn't being sold? My previous job, I was the only software developer, making a tool that employees and customers in the company used together. We didn't sell the software, we sold a service completely unrelated to the software, the software was just a supplement to the service.
- mjwhansen 3y agoThe agency gets to expense it, as they do not bear the risks and benefits of commercialization. Their client has to amortize it, though.
- mjwhansen 3y agoThat’s incorrect - client would still have to amortize the work