Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cost of Developers

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 238 posts

Re: The Cost of Developers

#121

Post by eftpotrm »

pjmlp wrote: post #75
scarface74 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are those regular old desktop apps? Apps built by Microsoft, Adobe, and a few other large companies. The bespoke internal business apps have been moving to the web for decades.

In SV maybe. I have been developing mostly new WPF enterprise applications in the last 4 years and there is plenty of work across European business.

While I've not done corporate desktop development in nearly 10 years now, but have been doing enterprise apps for most of that period. Not in SV, not even in the tech hotspots of the UK, and it's all been web.

I'm not saying my experience is typical, but I suspect the bulk of enterprise apps are now browser rather than desktop based.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#122

Post by rkeene2 »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #109
pjc50 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did, it was called Visual Studio Team Services. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/2018/06/04/vsts-gith...

And it's awful. Not even comparable to Github and GitLab

I second this. I tried to use it when it was launched because it purported support for a build farm, but it was too terrible to figure out how to use it and I gave up after a couple of hours of trying to figure out how to make it do ANYTHING useful.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#123

Post by simonh »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #78
simonh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, they really don't want that because it makes the OS valueless. If the only desktop app you're running is a browser, you might as well be using ChromeOS.

But it doesn't suddenly make Windows any less valuable than ChromeOS. Which means that under the assumption of 50% of the market still using Windows, they will continue using Windows. You may be drinking the kool-aid, but 90% of the market doesn't care. Windows costs $20 per device; ChromeOS has a non-zero cost either.

The profit margin on most consumer PCs is less than $20.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/09/pc-value-...

Look at the 4th chart down. That's a bit out of date, but current figures aren't going to be dramatically better, and look at the trend line.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#125

Post by 0xfeba »

jasode wrote: post #32
heydenberk wrote: post #22

> the App Store dramatically lowered the barriers to entry for developers Is there any platform with higher barriers to entry than the App Store? iOS development requires a proprietary toolchain only available on Apple hardware, programming languages hardly used elsewhere, not to mention the $99/year developer fee and the litany of vague and arbitrarily enforced rules and content guidelines for App Store release.

stratechery wrote: "the App Store dramatically lowered the barriers to entry for developers" To which you replied: "Is there any platform with higher barriers to entry than the App Store? [...] , not to mention the $99/year developer fee" His baseline for "lowered barriers" was retail channel distribution .[1] Think of shrinkwrapped packaged software like Quicken on the shelves of CompUSA, OfficeDepot, Costco, and bo…

Interesting. In hindsight, the retail store distribution model of software lasted far longer (and still does) than it ever should have.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#126

Post by ghaff »

jasode wrote: post #105
pythonaut_16 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the standpoint of an end user (which is all of the people complaining about Microsoft acquiring Github) VCs and their money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their investment is what causes the acquisitions which change the service in ways that I (the end user) do not like. Not saying they're right or wrong (I think at the very least it's a limited point of view) but that's the argument being made.

>VCs and their money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their [the VCs] investment You're repeating the same "outsourcing of blame" to VCs that I was trying to short circuit. VCs as an abstraction are a convenient target but that doesn't mean they are the correct target. The founders of Github such as Chris Wanstrath, Tom Preston-Werner, et al have agency and autonomy . Why are they specifically not included i…

VCs are a convenient abstract bogeyman. Yes, VCs do tend to encourage a grow big or go home mentality but it is, as you say, the founders who wanted that sort of investment.

It's also the case that, as soon as someone here suggests that a startup doesn't need to operate in that manner, someone--as certainly as the sun will rise in the east--will post Paul Graham's startup definition and argue that you're not a real startup without a growth-first mentality.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#127

Post by myWindoonn »

jasode wrote: post #105
pythonaut_16 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the standpoint of an end user (which is all of the people complaining about Microsoft acquiring Github) VCs and their money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their investment is what causes the acquisitions which change the service in ways that I (the end user) do not like. Not saying they're right or wrong (I think at the very least it's a limited point of view) but that's the argument being made.

>VCs and their money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their [the VCs] investment You're repeating the same "outsourcing of blame" to VCs that I was trying to short circuit. VCs as an abstraction are a convenient target but that doesn't mean they are the correct target. The founders of Github such as Chris Wanstrath, Tom Preston-Werner, et al have agency and autonomy . Why are they specifically not included i…

You're super-close. Money is the "bad guy". It might not appear to have agency or autonomy, but that is because humans are not good at perceiving intangible power structures.

In other words, why aren't we saying this:

>Money is the bad guy, because its presence, uneven distribution, cult of worshipers, fungibility, and inherent ties to social power structures are unhealthy influences on the founders of Github

Re: The Cost of Developers

#128

Post by heavenlyblue »

simonh wrote: post #123
heavenlyblue wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it doesn't suddenly make Windows any less valuable than ChromeOS. Which means that under the assumption of 50% of the market still using Windows, they will continue using Windows. You may be drinking the kool-aid, but 90% of the market doesn't care. Windows costs $20 per device; ChromeOS has a non-zero cost either.

The profit margin on most consumer PCs is less than $20. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/09/pc-value-... Look at the 4th chart down. That's a bit out of date, but current figures aren't going to be dramatically better, and look at the trend line.

Yeah, but Chrome OS is also developed by Google - a revenue-seeking company.

So you're either missing the point where the margins on the laptops are already including the cost of the OEM OS priced at an even lower price than a personal OEM license, or you're missing the point where the OS being free also includes your annual usage of Google services.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#129

Post by panic »

acdha wrote: post #41
heydenberk wrote: post #22

> the App Store dramatically lowered the barriers to entry for developers Is there any platform with higher barriers to entry than the App Store? iOS development requires a proprietary toolchain only available on Apple hardware, programming languages hardly used elsewhere, not to mention the $99/year developer fee and the litany of vague and arbitrarily enforced rules and content guidelines for App Store release.

Before the App Store selling mobile apps required negotiating with every carrier individually, and they priced based on your perceived ability to pay. We had clients who were interested until they were quoted around $50k per carrier just for the privilege of being listed!

The old Palm smartphones let you run whatever you wanted on them.

Re: The Cost of Developers

#130

Post by Clubber »

jasode wrote: post #65
jillesvangurp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, github sold out to investors, which then owned them, which then sold them out to get an exit when it turned out the company was in no shape for an IPO which is the only reasonable other exit if you are looking for a 10x ROI on a company that burned through hundreds of millions. Investors were in this for a huge exit and they just got it. In fairness, MS bought a valuable social network of essentially the ent…

>, github sold out to investors, >Investors were in this for a huge exit I think these excerpts from your comment and also DHH's "VCs need their pound of flesh" are not helpful for readers on how to analyze the situation. They (maybe unintentionally) taint the discussion. Github is an entity owned by human beings. The founders included Chris Wanstrath, Tom Preston-Werner, PJ Hyett, and Scott Chacon. Therefore, emphas…

The term, "github sold out to investors," adequately includes the founders as part of the equation to me. "Sold out," describes all that you mentioned about courting investors and whatnot.
Post reply on HN