4 ms·
If you're a pure technology company, like Google and Facebook, you're not going to outsource your core competency. It's not an issue of costs; buying "big iron"
by applecore 13y ago
If you're a pure technology company, like Google and Facebook, you're not going to outsource your core competency. It's not an issue of costs; buying "big iron", even if they could, would be akin to style drift for an investment manager.
- rdl 13y agoYou could definitely still do a lot less in-house than FB does, and be successful. FB seems to delight in building tools and infrastructure. Bloomberg is probably a better example of a company which builds "optional" technology in house, just to be awesome, though -- they're not at the scale of FB (where "traditional" solutions break down), but from what I've seen, they do a lot of interesting work in-house because their staff want to do it, and because it lets them have really top-quality staff in a highly competitive market.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- morgante 13y ago> they're not at the scale of FB (where "traditional" solutions break down) I'm not so sure about that. Bloomberg processes an incredible amount of data, and they have strict latency requirements. In many cases, traditional solutions would in fact break down under those requirements.
- apaprocki 13y agoI work on the infrastructure team at Bloomberg. There are lots of problems solved by OSS, but there are also lots of pieces of infrastructure we have to build ourselves to scale the things we need to. Latency is killer, indeed. (Low-latency data aggregation/generation/distribution is only one part of the business, though.)