> Maybe it's just because I'm getting old, but this whole "Don't build it yourself, buy it. Focus on your own business, and whenever you need something extra, use a Saas" seems to me like an anti-pattern. I cannot back it up, it's a gut feeling.
A lot of this now is also about supporting others within your community. I'm sure you do this with code, support junior developers? Now we're in an era where you can do the very same, but for those creating products, too.
> I don't know. Building a product with so many dependencies feels very amateur, error prone, and prone to instability.
I bet if most were honest, and reviewed their code dependencies (external libraries) you could make the exact same statement.
> Again, it's just a gut feeling from some old dude that has been doing software since the late 90s. Maybe it's just the way things are done nowadays.
It's just an extension of doing what you're most likely already doing, and firmly believe in.
> I know this sounds horrible but in the days of covid and working from home, what are companies supposed to do if they have to lay off large amounts of people?
This isn't about a Zoom call.
This is about companies taking massive, quick capital to rapidly expand head count at such a rate to which this inevitably occurs.
It lacks responsibility, care, empathy, or even the slightest bit of concern for those that have invested their opportunity cost of being a part of your company.
> The problem that the article doesn't address is that users don't actually seem to mind using terrible software so long as it solves the problem they face better than not using it. I could list literally hundreds of half-assed, broken, bloated applications that I've encountered in the past 25 years that have done very well simply because they kind of solve a problem a bit for the user.
This is ZERO snark, but I'm genuinely curious for lots of examples. I ask because I'm confronted with this problem ALL THE TIME working at startups that obsessively focus on visual elements that won't move the needle, versus being obsessive about solving pain better than others.
I need to start building a list that I can just pull out at a moments notice.
> if a competitor takes interest in your space and has a large war chest, you'd be powerless to compete with them
If that were true, every single company that had more money to spend would always win. But that's not what's observable. There seem to be other factors at play that don't always center around money.
> no new company that starts with the environment you are describing is going to be successful.
That would mean no upstart could ever compete in the same space any established player. But again, that's not what's observable.
It appears to be much more multi-faceted than just "he who has the most money always wins."
Not all companies desire to be acquired, even when offered. Not all deals go through, even when desired. We often hear of those that do get acquired, more rarely those that don't - Facebook has notably failed making attempts. Those companies are still going strong. Facebook didn't kill them.
Maybe it's not what you would prefer but the owners of those companies probably saw themselves as winners. Unless Zuckerberg forced them to sell at gunpoint?
no, because the point is that the company has fundamentally changed it's structure. So it would be hard to create new features when they lack a culture for doing that
> At EDS, the culture wasn’t like this. People moved in and out of management roles. There was no stigma associated with moving from roles with greater scope, like strategic planner, to roles with more narrow scope, like PM or project-level developer.
This sounds amazing. I'm curious...how does salary change? Or does it change? How is all of this handled...
https://www.indiehackers.com/post/how-to-brainstorm-great-bu...
High level:
https://www.oreilly.com/content/how-to-create-products-peopl...
How to get started:
https://stackingthebricks.com/guides/your-first-10k/
A helping hand:
https://stackingthebricks.com/launchftw/