6 ms·

Sorry but I disagree with this post completely. In fact, I hate articles like this. A real developer who loves his project would never outsource major aspects

by xpose2000 14y ago

Sorry but I disagree with this post completely. In fact, I hate articles like this. A real developer who loves his project would never outsource major aspects of the project. One might outsource the design, only because its incredibly difficult to create a great UI and have the know-how to code it as well. One might outsource the slicing of a layout to CSS/HTML or something simple like that while dealing with IMPORTANT issues such as database architecture, setting up the server, etc. To suggest that you want to concentrate on the "business aspect" simply means that you don't want to do the hard part. By outsourcing, the article states: "I have more time and I can spend this time for marketing and blogging". ... Right. Because blogging and marketing is so very tough? The truth is that you USED to be a developer. It sounds like you've realized this and outsourced the project to an actual developer. If that's the case then you've made a wise choice. In any case, best of luck to you. Edit: It sounds as though I am belittling other people's jobs on a project. Sorry, I guess to some degree I am? I agree that I am a bit foolish to say that. I don't mean to create any type of hostility in this thread. (Regardless I will keep my full comment here so this thread makes sense.) My main point is that the author refers to himself as a DEVELOPER. Therefore it does not make sense to me to outsource his own specialty.

coryl 14y ago
That's kind of bullshit, you've focused more on what he decides to call himself rather than what he has accomplished. Are Eric Scmidt / Larry Page are no longer "real engineers" because they manage, and not code anymore? And yes, blogging and marketing is very tough. User acquisition is tough. A good on-boarding process is very tough. User experience is tough.
- dools 14y ago
  > A good on-boarding process is very tough a-fucking men to that!
mark_l_watson 14y ago
+1 I had the same reaction.
AgentConundrum 14y ago
> Because blogging and marketing is so very tough? I agree with the rest of your comment, to an extent, but I strongly disagree with this line. The act of blogging is easy, sure - it's just typing. The act of marketing, or at least some subset of it, can be easy, I'm sure. Doing these things effectively, so that they actually drive business, is hard. Dismissing blogging and marketing by sarcastically saying they're "so very tough" is the same sort of bullshit that we get pissed off about when people say "I have this great idea for a website/app, all I need is a coder!" You're dismissing an entire profession without regard for the hard work that those in that profession put into their jobs.
- xpose2000 14y ago
  I see your points here and understand your frustration. Marketing / blogging are still important to the success of a project. Though in order of importance, I feel it's behind the actual codebase. For the author to suggest that it's okay to outsource development to have more time doing marketing and blogging when he refer's to himself as a developer is just plain ridiculous.
  - AgentConundrum 14y ago
    I didn't say I didn't understand your point. I get where you're coming from, and I don't necessarily disagree. I just didn't like the sarcastic dismissal of an entire profession.
mindcrime 14y ago
A real developer who loves his project would never outsource major aspects of the project. Obligatory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Secondly, I'll posit that a "true developer" (whatever that means) certainly might outsource "major aspects of his project," if he's trying to make a successful business from his project, and he needs to dedicate bandwidth to other areas of the business. Creating a business is more than just writing code. As the old saying goes "The scarcest resource in a startup is founder bandwidth." If you can amplify your bandwidth by doing some tactical outsourcing, then you do it, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, this post got some gears turning in my own head, and has me considering whether or not Fogbeam Labs could justify outsourcing some development work, to help speed things along. All three of the founders still work dayjobs at the moment, so a little additional development help could actually be a good thing. I'm not saying we will do it, just that I'm seriously considering the possibility for the first time.
oz 14y ago
I'm really wondering if your post is sarcasm. But I'll bite. To wit: >A real developer who loves his project would never outsource major aspects of the project. Excuse me, but that's just the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. You don't get to decide what makes someone a 'real developer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman >while dealing with IMPORTANT issues such as database architecture, setting up the server, etc. The primary focus of the founder should be to get paying customers. These paying customers could care one iota about Codd's 12 Rules, 3NF, and Chef/Puppet configuration. If you truly believe that those things are more important than getting paying customers, then you, my friend, have a hobby, not a business. The IMPORTANT thing is "getting them to sign on the line which is dotted." Not mucking about at the CLI. >To suggest that you want to concentrate on the "business aspect" simply means that you don't want to do the hard part. By outsourcing, the article states: "I have more time and I can spend this time for marketing and blogging". ... Right. Because blogging and marketing is so very tough? Sigh. The common engineers fallacy of thinking that creating is enough. It is not. Steve Jobs was a salesman. And I can assure you that marketing is not as simple as throwing up a wordpress blog and a facebook page. It takes real work. Which I suspect you would know if you'd ever done it. HN: You don't get rich by agonizing over data structures and algorithms (unless you're Google). You get rich by leveraging resources so the multiplier effect works to your advantage. If the most efficient path to getting paying customers is to outsource, then do so. Kudos to OP. </rant>
- xpose2000 14y ago
  Excellent viewpoint. The business aspect and getting paying customers is important. A marketers job is important as well. I don't mean to step on toes. However, keep in mind that the author of this post refers to himself as a developer. It's like Steve Jobs saying he is a great salesman but wants to outsource selling his vision. It makes no sense to me. Therefore that is why I wrote what I wrote.
  - oz 14y ago
    Thank you. However: >author of this post refers to himself as a developer. It doesn't matter what he calls himself. If you can pass FizzBUzz, you're a developer. Maybe not a John Carmack, but a developer nonetheless. There is no sacred law written on tablets of stone and handed down from volcanic mountains that states "Developers who found startups must code or face eternal damnation." Rather, there is a holy precept that does state "The founder (whether a dev, UX guy or bizev guy) shall find the most efficient path to profitability, or be condemned to the lake of failure." So if a founder is from a UX background, but in his particular context, it is more efficient (faster to profitability) for him to outsource the UX and read 'MBA for Dummies', I would argue that that is the rational course of action. Again: Your priorities as a founder are not whatever background you are from. Your priority (and you must accept it :)) is to become profitable. When that is achieved, THEN you can go up the Maslow Heirarchy of business-actualization.
nyar 14y ago
Time is the real currency.
balloot 14y ago
I think you're underselling the challenge in the parts of the business that aren't coding. Which is exactly why this guy's decision is such a bad one. He's basically said "I have skill set X, which I'm trained in and have been honing for years. For my company, I need skill sets X and Y. So I'll do Y and find someone else to do X." No matter what X and Y are, that's just the wrong way to solve that problem. The key issue in this case being that he is assuming the marketing/user acquisition stuff is so easy that he can just pick it up on the fly with no prior experience.
- stonemetal 14y ago
  No matter what X and Y are, that's just the wrong way to solve that problem. I don't know, If I can't do Y how am I going to hire an A player at the Y game. Being good at X means I can evaluate others in skill X.
  - balloot 14y ago
    OK, but here are your outcomes if you are good at X and need X and Y: You do X, hire Y - You have one skilled person, one question mark. You do Y, hire X - You have one unskilled person, one question mark. Seems pretty simple to me that the first is better. I suppose that you could make the argument that Y may be easy to pick up, but if that's the case it should be all the easier to just hire someone else with a proven track record.
    - aangjie 14y ago
      Just to elaborate what i think stonemetal's point is that. You are good at X. you hire someone to do X. prob. of X being useless <<< prob. of y being useless(if you don't know y and hire for Y)
      - stonemetal 14y ago
        My thought exactly, those two question marks aren't equal. One I am capable of evaluating, both before and after I hire for the position. The other I am incapable of evaluating both before and after I hire for the position.
arn 14y ago
This seems ridiculous. This belief doesn't scale past a few programmers/employees. If you are "doing it right", your time should be worth far more than a programmer's salary. I run several websites/businesses. At one point I was doing all the coding, marketing, blogging, customer support, etc... I was crazy busy. Over time I've managed to hire for most of this, so I can work on bigger picture, managing what is to be done, architecture issues, and a lot more. Every few months I try to reasses what things I'm doing that are not worth my time. Programming was one of the first to go. It's so incredibly time consuming and I can hire someone better than me.
- oz 14y ago
  You're doing it right, and that's exactly where I'm headed. Mind if I email you?
  - arn 14y ago
    sure!

coryl 14y ago

That's kind of bullshit, you've focused more on what he decides to call himself rather than what he has accomplished. Are Eric Scmidt / Larry Page are no longer "real engineers" because they manage, and not code anymore? And yes, blogging and marketing is very tough. User acquisition is tough. A good on-boarding process is very tough. User experience is tough.

dools 14y ago
> A good on-boarding process is very tough a-fucking men to that!

mark_l_watson 14y ago

+1 I had the same reaction.

AgentConundrum 14y ago

> Because blogging and marketing is so very tough? I agree with the rest of your comment, to an extent, but I strongly disagree with this line. The act of blogging is easy, sure - it's just typing. The act of marketing, or at least some subset of it, can be easy, I'm sure. Doing these things effectively, so that they actually drive business, is hard. Dismissing blogging and marketing by sarcastically saying they're "so very tough" is the same sort of bullshit that we get pissed off about when people say "I have this great idea for a website/app, all I need is a coder!" You're dismissing an entire profession without regard for the hard work that those in that profession put into their jobs.

xpose2000 14y ago
I see your points here and understand your frustration. Marketing / blogging are still important to the success of a project. Though in order of importance, I feel it's behind the actual codebase. For the author to suggest that it's okay to outsource development to have more time doing marketing and blogging when he refer's to himself as a developer is just plain ridiculous.
- AgentConundrum 14y ago
  I didn't say I didn't understand your point. I get where you're coming from, and I don't necessarily disagree. I just didn't like the sarcastic dismissal of an entire profession.

mindcrime 14y ago

A real developer who loves his project would never outsource major aspects of the project. Obligatory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Secondly, I'll posit that a "true developer" (whatever that means) certainly might outsource "major aspects of his project," if he's trying to make a successful business from his project, and he needs to dedicate bandwidth to other areas of the business. Creating a business is more than just writing code. As the old saying goes "The scarcest resource in a startup is founder bandwidth." If you can amplify your bandwidth by doing some tactical outsourcing, then you do it, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, this post got some gears turning in my own head, and has me considering whether or not Fogbeam Labs could justify outsourcing some development work, to help speed things along. All three of the founders still work dayjobs at the moment, so a little additional development help could actually be a good thing. I'm not saying we will do it, just that I'm seriously considering the possibility for the first time.

oz 14y ago

I'm really wondering if your post is sarcasm. But I'll bite. To wit: >A real developer who loves his project would never outsource major aspects of the project. Excuse me, but that's just the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. You don't get to decide what makes someone a 'real developer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman >while dealing with IMPORTANT issues such as database architecture, setting up the server, etc. The primary focus of the founder should be to get paying customers. These paying customers could care one iota about Codd's 12 Rules, 3NF, and Chef/Puppet configuration. If you truly believe that those things are more important than getting paying customers, then you, my friend, have a hobby, not a business. The IMPORTANT thing is "getting them to sign on the line which is dotted." Not mucking about at the CLI. >To suggest that you want to concentrate on the "business aspect" simply means that you don't want to do the hard part. By outsourcing, the article states: "I have more time and I can spend this time for marketing and blogging". ... Right. Because blogging and marketing is so very tough? Sigh. The common engineers fallacy of thinking that creating is enough. It is not. Steve Jobs was a salesman. And I can assure you that marketing is not as simple as throwing up a wordpress blog and a facebook page. It takes real work. Which I suspect you would know if you'd ever done it. HN: You don't get rich by agonizing over data structures and algorithms (unless you're Google). You get rich by leveraging resources so the multiplier effect works to your advantage. If the most efficient path to getting paying customers is to outsource, then do so. Kudos to OP. </rant>

xpose2000 14y ago
Excellent viewpoint. The business aspect and getting paying customers is important. A marketers job is important as well. I don't mean to step on toes. However, keep in mind that the author of this post refers to himself as a developer. It's like Steve Jobs saying he is a great salesman but wants to outsource selling his vision. It makes no sense to me. Therefore that is why I wrote what I wrote.
- oz 14y ago
  Thank you. However: >author of this post refers to himself as a developer. It doesn't matter what he calls himself. If you can pass FizzBUzz, you're a developer. Maybe not a John Carmack, but a developer nonetheless. There is no sacred law written on tablets of stone and handed down from volcanic mountains that states "Developers who found startups must code or face eternal damnation." Rather, there is a holy precept that does state "The founder (whether a dev, UX guy or bizev guy) shall find the most efficient path to profitability, or be condemned to the lake of failure." So if a founder is from a UX background, but in his particular context, it is more efficient (faster to profitability) for him to outsource the UX and read 'MBA for Dummies', I would argue that that is the rational course of action. Again: Your priorities as a founder are not whatever background you are from. Your priority (and you must accept it :)) is to become profitable. When that is achieved, THEN you can go up the Maslow Heirarchy of business-actualization.

nyar 14y ago

Time is the real currency.

balloot 14y ago

I think you're underselling the challenge in the parts of the business that aren't coding. Which is exactly why this guy's decision is such a bad one. He's basically said "I have skill set X, which I'm trained in and have been honing for years. For my company, I need skill sets X and Y. So I'll do Y and find someone else to do X." No matter what X and Y are, that's just the wrong way to solve that problem. The key issue in this case being that he is assuming the marketing/user acquisition stuff is so easy that he can just pick it up on the fly with no prior experience.

stonemetal 14y ago
No matter what X and Y are, that's just the wrong way to solve that problem. I don't know, If I can't do Y how am I going to hire an A player at the Y game. Being good at X means I can evaluate others in skill X.
- balloot 14y ago
  OK, but here are your outcomes if you are good at X and need X and Y: You do X, hire Y - You have one skilled person, one question mark. You do Y, hire X - You have one unskilled person, one question mark. Seems pretty simple to me that the first is better. I suppose that you could make the argument that Y may be easy to pick up, but if that's the case it should be all the easier to just hire someone else with a proven track record.
  - aangjie 14y ago
    Just to elaborate what i think stonemetal's point is that. You are good at X. you hire someone to do X. prob. of X being useless <<< prob. of y being useless(if you don't know y and hire for Y)
    - stonemetal 14y ago
      My thought exactly, those two question marks aren't equal. One I am capable of evaluating, both before and after I hire for the position. The other I am incapable of evaluating both before and after I hire for the position.

arn 14y ago

This seems ridiculous. This belief doesn't scale past a few programmers/employees. If you are "doing it right", your time should be worth far more than a programmer's salary. I run several websites/businesses. At one point I was doing all the coding, marketing, blogging, customer support, etc... I was crazy busy. Over time I've managed to hire for most of this, so I can work on bigger picture, managing what is to be done, architecture issues, and a lot more. Every few months I try to reasses what things I'm doing that are not worth my time. Programming was one of the first to go. It's so incredibly time consuming and I can hire someone better than me.

oz 14y ago
You're doing it right, and that's exactly where I'm headed. Mind if I email you?
- arn 14y ago
  sure!