4 ms·

It's told to be not like that and a bad example, but then we learn how it is exactly like that and how it is great example... Intriguing.

tsimionescu 2y ago
The point is that you do need explicit integration and cooperation. And you often have way more than 4-8 people working on one of these contracts to even define the terms. And again, most real companies own most of their supply chain, they don't depend on a hundred different suppliers at every level like you seem to be suggesting. And they do this because it's FAR more efficient to have a large monolithic team build something together than to rely on dozens of small teams competing in a market to build the same thing.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > The point is that you do need explicit integration and cooperation. Obviously. Like we said, no 4-8 person team is building anything by themselves. For one, most obviously, they'd starve to death if they even tried. Integration and cooperation are literally what defines an economy. > most real companies own most of their supply chain As opposed to fake companies, that have no supply chain, with them being fake and all? > because it's FAR more efficient to have a large monolithic team build something together How can you know? The problems needed to be solved to see that through were stated to be unsolved. Was there some breakthrough in the past 10 hours that you haven't mentioned and the rest of us missed?
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    > As opposed to fake companies, that have no supply chain, with them being fake and all? I should have said "companies that can afford to". > How can you know? The problems needed to be solved to see that through were stated to be unsolved. Was there some breakthrough in the past 10 hours that you haven't mentioned and the rest of us missed? Because I can look at the price of goods versus their cost. A company that owns the production chain for a sub-component is paying the cost of that component, while a company that doesn't pays the market price. Also, markets only work if you have competing suppliers for the same product. This in itself is extremely wasteful for software, so trying to maintain an internal market of software where multiple teams build the same service and compete with each other on who has a better version is crazy when there is any alternative. Again we can see this from the software market: most companies not only don't build an internal market in house to have, say, the best OS, but they actually found that even supporting an external market is wasteful. Instead of buying Solaris or Windows or OS/2, they started collaborating on Linux (and clang, and MySQL, and Kubernetes and others). But these are not built as a marketplace of microservices. They are built as monoliths with large teams working to add features and collaborating relying on a hierarchy of maintainers to merge them together in a cohesive whole, or on a more elaborate committee system. So again, I don't see any proof whatsoever that building a company or a product in general out of a marketplace of dozens or hundreds of very small teams has ever worked beyond maybe some niche cases.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > Because I can look at the price of goods versus their cost. A company that owns the production chain for a sub-component is paying the cost of that component, while a company that doesn't pays the market price. I'm not sure I follow. Let's say Acme Inc. produces a widget that is a subcomponent of their larger product. When that subcomponent is within the control of a team of four who works for Acme Inc., the company has to pay the market price (meaning a markup margin?), but when that team is joined with another team who also works for Acme Inc., then they only have to pay the cost? 1. What difference does that make? Even if a markup really was paid on paper, it's just to Acme Inc. itself. You haven't changed anything, practically speaking. 2. If an external entity is willing to pay more for the component, which is what I think you are trying to suggest with market price, Acme Inc. is paying the opportunity cost when keeping it internally and thus is still paying the market price. Are you under the impression that there is a free lunch here? There is not. > trying to maintain an internal market of software where multiple teams build the same service and compete with each other on who has a better version is crazy Just as it would be crazy in the macroeconomy. The idea that competition is necessary for markets to work is misguided. You don't need a second road running parallel to the first. One road is just fine. Competition only comes into being when someone thinks they can serve the customer better by doing things differently. Which is a useful property of human dynamics, to be sure, but sometimes things are already as good as anyone is able to imagine. > they started collaborating on Linux As individual teams, with another team headed by Linus who accepts the services of those other teams as seen fit. Another great example of the service economy in action. No need for a monolith – if such a thing were even possible, but as pointed out at the beginning of this, of which I agree, we don't actually know how to build monoliths, no matter how great they sound in theory. There are outstanding problems not yet solved. > They are built as monoliths with large teams working to add features and collaborating relying on a hierarchy of maintainers A monolith, but also hierarchal? Uhh... > I don't see any proof whatsoever that building a company or a product in general out of a marketplace of dozens or hundreds of very small teams has ever worked beyond maybe some niche cases. I suppose you can take the perspective that nothing works, but given the outstanding problems not solved to allow anything else, something that doesn't work beats nothing at all. Worse is better, perhaps.

tsimionescu 2y ago

The point is that you do need explicit integration and cooperation. And you often have way more than 4-8 people working on one of these contracts to even define the terms. And again, most real companies own most of their supply chain, they don't depend on a hundred different suppliers at every level like you seem to be suggesting. And they do this because it's FAR more efficient to have a large monolithic team build something together than to rely on dozens of small teams competing in a market to build the same thing.

randomdata 2y ago
> The point is that you do need explicit integration and cooperation. Obviously. Like we said, no 4-8 person team is building anything by themselves. For one, most obviously, they'd starve to death if they even tried. Integration and cooperation are literally what defines an economy. > most real companies own most of their supply chain As opposed to fake companies, that have no supply chain, with them being fake and all? > because it's FAR more efficient to have a large monolithic team build something together How can you know? The problems needed to be solved to see that through were stated to be unsolved. Was there some breakthrough in the past 10 hours that you haven't mentioned and the rest of us missed?
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  > As opposed to fake companies, that have no supply chain, with them being fake and all? I should have said "companies that can afford to". > How can you know? The problems needed to be solved to see that through were stated to be unsolved. Was there some breakthrough in the past 10 hours that you haven't mentioned and the rest of us missed? Because I can look at the price of goods versus their cost. A company that owns the production chain for a sub-component is paying the cost of that component, while a company that doesn't pays the market price. Also, markets only work if you have competing suppliers for the same product. This in itself is extremely wasteful for software, so trying to maintain an internal market of software where multiple teams build the same service and compete with each other on who has a better version is crazy when there is any alternative. Again we can see this from the software market: most companies not only don't build an internal market in house to have, say, the best OS, but they actually found that even supporting an external market is wasteful. Instead of buying Solaris or Windows or OS/2, they started collaborating on Linux (and clang, and MySQL, and Kubernetes and others). But these are not built as a marketplace of microservices. They are built as monoliths with large teams working to add features and collaborating relying on a hierarchy of maintainers to merge them together in a cohesive whole, or on a more elaborate committee system. So again, I don't see any proof whatsoever that building a company or a product in general out of a marketplace of dozens or hundreds of very small teams has ever worked beyond maybe some niche cases.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > Because I can look at the price of goods versus their cost. A company that owns the production chain for a sub-component is paying the cost of that component, while a company that doesn't pays the market price. I'm not sure I follow. Let's say Acme Inc. produces a widget that is a subcomponent of their larger product. When that subcomponent is within the control of a team of four who works for Acme Inc., the company has to pay the market price (meaning a markup margin?), but when that team is joined with another team who also works for Acme Inc., then they only have to pay the cost? 1. What difference does that make? Even if a markup really was paid on paper, it's just to Acme Inc. itself. You haven't changed anything, practically speaking. 2. If an external entity is willing to pay more for the component, which is what I think you are trying to suggest with market price, Acme Inc. is paying the opportunity cost when keeping it internally and thus is still paying the market price. Are you under the impression that there is a free lunch here? There is not. > trying to maintain an internal market of software where multiple teams build the same service and compete with each other on who has a better version is crazy Just as it would be crazy in the macroeconomy. The idea that competition is necessary for markets to work is misguided. You don't need a second road running parallel to the first. One road is just fine. Competition only comes into being when someone thinks they can serve the customer better by doing things differently. Which is a useful property of human dynamics, to be sure, but sometimes things are already as good as anyone is able to imagine. > they started collaborating on Linux As individual teams, with another team headed by Linus who accepts the services of those other teams as seen fit. Another great example of the service economy in action. No need for a monolith – if such a thing were even possible, but as pointed out at the beginning of this, of which I agree, we don't actually know how to build monoliths, no matter how great they sound in theory. There are outstanding problems not yet solved. > They are built as monoliths with large teams working to add features and collaborating relying on a hierarchy of maintainers A monolith, but also hierarchal? Uhh... > I don't see any proof whatsoever that building a company or a product in general out of a marketplace of dozens or hundreds of very small teams has ever worked beyond maybe some niche cases. I suppose you can take the perspective that nothing works, but given the outstanding problems not solved to allow anything else, something that doesn't work beats nothing at all. Worse is better, perhaps.