4 ms·
What a ridiculously terrible article. The company "decided to sell itself to Google as a last resort, after failing to find traction in the market". But the en
by mynewwork 13y ago
What a ridiculously terrible article.
The company "decided to sell itself to Google as a last resort, after failing to find traction in the market". But the engineers got hired, so probably the product was good but the failure was in marketing, branding, etc. Who was in charge of that? "I did our user experience, our logo, the marketing – all that stuff," she said.
So the article could have been written "Strong technical team makes valuable product, but bad marketing and UI prevents success" and no one would be surprised that the engineers got hired and the marketing & design people didn't.
But that wouldn't fit with the sexism in tech narrative the author wanted, so let's ignore the most significant and obvious facts.
- prodigal_erik 13y agoBeing acqui-hired means the company managed to recruit a team that's probably decent, but failed to do anything substantially more valuable than that. If the product were inherently strong they'd continue it with different marketing staff.
- wpietri 13y agoYour notion that good programmers = good product is absurd. As is your rush to blame somebody for failing to find traction. If a startup fails to find traction, there's no clear reason to blame anybody. Most startups do that.
- mynewwork 13y agoI edited my comment several times and I think the message I was originally trying to convey got less clear as a result. I don't for a moment believe the startup actually failed due solely to the designer. And yet, it's more likely that the designer just wasn't google-quality than libelling google by claiming it was sexism that caused them to hire a few engineers but not the designer from a failed startup.
- wpietri 13y agoShow me where she libeled Google and claimed it was sexism?