9 ms·

Amazing. This one piece is simply eye opening - https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/Financials.md https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-In

by mbesto 13y ago

Amazing. This one piece is simply eye opening - https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/Financials.md https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/... And here it is - the side effects of the talent war in full effect: HR - $1,374,695.06 - or 52% of total costs And the real winners of the whole thing (the pick axe industry): AWS - $394,588.35 - or 14% of total costs

suyash 13y ago
how many full time employees? Also Consultant costs seem way too high..looks like they hired a bunch of contractors.
crystaln 13y ago
> HR - $1,374,695.06 - or 52% of total costs Why would it be unusual for the majority of costs to be salaries for a company that sells services and develops products? This has nothing to do with the "talent war." That's just the way things work. What else would they be spending money on? > AWS - $394,588.35 - or 14% of total costs How much higher would that number have been had Everpix built out their own infrastructure?
- mbesto 13y ago
  My points weren't criticisms, they were merely highlighting the sentiment that comes from outside "the bubble" that is SV. It is unusual to people outside SV* to see such a high number (the % was just an additional data point that signals to non-tech people how much salaries constitutes tech startups). This has everything to do with the talent war - the market dictates that an engineer's salary must be $foo because Facebook/Google/etc are willing to compensate that much. People are generally curious why that "that's just the way things work" who aren't familiar with it. > company that sells services and develops products Here is my criticism now - not all products and services are equal, yet the costs to develop them (in SV) are. FB/Google/etc.'s high revenues dictate that their products and services constitute a developer that costs $foo - they set the market rates. Talented developers are fungible, but their salaries are not - thus the disconnect. > How much higher would that number have been had Everpix built out their own infrastructure? I don't have the answer to that question, and probably very few people do. There are two points to be addressed there - (1) could they save money by building their own? mature companies deal with that question all of the time (2) this is a real life indication of how much a software services money can make on one client by "selling pick axes in a gold rush" - thereby singalling a reinforcement to that sentiment. *(note - I'm in SV)
  - tinco 13y ago
    Aren't these numbers also so high because they took VC funding? The VC wants to throw the company against the wall as fast and hard as possible to see if it sticks. That means no time to roll out custom infrastructure, and hiring rockstar consultants just to build the product as fast as possible. The idea is not terrible, it's definitely better than doing everything the right way (tm) for 5 years, just to find out there is no way to fit the market.
    - Sssnake 13y ago
      >That means no time to roll out custom infrastructure It is sad that the industry is so anti-intellectual that we're actually afraid of computers now. Giving dell a CC# and giving them your hosting providers shipping address is not a complex or difficult task. There is no need for "custom infrastructure" to run a trivial web app. You buy servers, you plug them in.
      - ameister14 13y ago
        This is exactly what I was thinking. More, you can buy some used servers at well below the cost of new ones, they're perfectly serviceable.
      - sethhochberg 13y ago
        I wonder how much of the resentment to owning hardware comes from the "fail fast" approach - if you're trying to vet a business model quickly or move onto the next thing, having actual physical assets to take care of if the company ends up failing could be an off-putting extra complexity for some people vs just clicking "delete instance" with some virtualized provider.
        ameister14 13y ago
        I think it has more to do with initial fixed cost. Personally I used my cofounder's existing array, but that's not an option for most companies, particularly starting out, and cutting out server purchasing costs pays in the short term. However, if you have the initial funding, as in this instance, it pays to buy the servers you need. Plus, it's an asset that, should your company fail in 6 months, can be sold to at least salvage some of the initial investment. [edit]In the last boom, though, people bought millions of dollars worth of servers and equipment that are now less than worthless; in many cases you have to pay to get rid of them. So, I guess there can be a significant downside.

by mbesto 13y ago

suyash 13y ago

how many full time employees? Also Consultant costs seem way too high..looks like they hired a bunch of contractors.

crystaln 13y ago

> HR - $1,374,695.06 - or 52% of total costs Why would it be unusual for the majority of costs to be salaries for a company that sells services and develops products? This has nothing to do with the "talent war." That's just the way things work. What else would they be spending money on? > AWS - $394,588.35 - or 14% of total costs How much higher would that number have been had Everpix built out their own infrastructure?

mbesto 13y ago
My points weren't criticisms, they were merely highlighting the sentiment that comes from outside "the bubble" that is SV. It is unusual to people outside SV* to see such a high number (the % was just an additional data point that signals to non-tech people how much salaries constitutes tech startups). This has everything to do with the talent war - the market dictates that an engineer's salary must be $foo because Facebook/Google/etc are willing to compensate that much. People are generally curious why that "that's just the way things work" who aren't familiar with it. > company that sells services and develops products Here is my criticism now - not all products and services are equal, yet the costs to develop them (in SV) are. FB/Google/etc.'s high revenues dictate that their products and services constitute a developer that costs $foo - they set the market rates. Talented developers are fungible, but their salaries are not - thus the disconnect. > How much higher would that number have been had Everpix built out their own infrastructure? I don't have the answer to that question, and probably very few people do. There are two points to be addressed there - (1) could they save money by building their own? mature companies deal with that question all of the time (2) this is a real life indication of how much a software services money can make on one client by "selling pick axes in a gold rush" - thereby singalling a reinforcement to that sentiment. *(note - I'm in SV)
- tinco 13y ago
  Aren't these numbers also so high because they took VC funding? The VC wants to throw the company against the wall as fast and hard as possible to see if it sticks. That means no time to roll out custom infrastructure, and hiring rockstar consultants just to build the product as fast as possible. The idea is not terrible, it's definitely better than doing everything the right way (tm) for 5 years, just to find out there is no way to fit the market.
  - Sssnake 13y ago
    >That means no time to roll out custom infrastructure It is sad that the industry is so anti-intellectual that we're actually afraid of computers now. Giving dell a CC# and giving them your hosting providers shipping address is not a complex or difficult task. There is no need for "custom infrastructure" to run a trivial web app. You buy servers, you plug them in.
    - ameister14 13y ago
      This is exactly what I was thinking. More, you can buy some used servers at well below the cost of new ones, they're perfectly serviceable.
    - sethhochberg 13y ago
      I wonder how much of the resentment to owning hardware comes from the "fail fast" approach - if you're trying to vet a business model quickly or move onto the next thing, having actual physical assets to take care of if the company ends up failing could be an off-putting extra complexity for some people vs just clicking "delete instance" with some virtualized provider.
      - ameister14 13y ago
        I think it has more to do with initial fixed cost. Personally I used my cofounder's existing array, but that's not an option for most companies, particularly starting out, and cutting out server purchasing costs pays in the short term. However, if you have the initial funding, as in this instance, it pays to buy the servers you need. Plus, it's an asset that, should your company fail in 6 months, can be sold to at least salvage some of the initial investment. [edit]In the last boom, though, people bought millions of dollars worth of servers and equipment that are now less than worthless; in many cases you have to pay to get rid of them. So, I guess there can be a significant downside.