51–60 of 453 posts
Translation: Companies are pissed that the free software gravy-train is over and how they actually have to start paying for it. This is the way it should have been for the past decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are just going to pay their employees less. Companies have to be profitable, temporary exceptions notwithstanding, and the money has to come from somewhere.
As long as the purchased software is worthwhile (i.e. it makes employees more effective; the company gets more output per employee expense dollar), this trend should actually increase employee pay. Higher output per employee allows a higher salary per employee while still being profitable.
Remember, many people in USA believe that corporation has duty to increase shareholder value. And similar stupid ideas.
I’m sure many people have stories of their enterprises making bad decisions when it comes to SaaS contracts - or picking the wrong tools and forcing them on employees only to later abandon the existing tools for different tools, further driving up the cost.
$10K seems like a lot. If Slack is going to round out at $100/a/staff member ... then how on earth does that number creep to $10K? I think there might be some 'crossing of streams' in this data, for example, perhaps they're including general services like AWS in there, which I'm not sure makes sense because conflating product-related IT charges with other services isn't helpful. Also relevant is the fact that said AW…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about most enterprises but I'm guessing any given cost per employee includes a lot more than salary.
In London, I'd guess the median salary for most enterprises is around £30-40K. National insurance, a desk, and a few other benefits are probably £20K on top of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Unfortunately, way too often I see execs saying "that's too expensive, we just have to do it manually" instead of using good tool. Then what happens is somebody making $100+/hour would spend several hours to do the job that would be covered by a tool that costs under $50/month.
Because most business in the United States is done despite the management, not because of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Unfortunately, way too often I see execs saying "that's too expensive, we just have to do it manually" instead of using good tool. Then what happens is somebody making $100+/hour would spend several hours to do the job that would be covered by a tool that costs under $50/month.
> Then what happens is somebody making $100+/hour would spend several hours to do the job that would be covered by a tool that costs under $50/month. Sure, but then there's the slightly more complicated economic calculus: do we build our own tooling now, for a significant up front cost, or do we buy the SaaS which we might use essentially forever for an unknown future TCO?
The slightly more complicated question is "do we invest in optimizing SaaS costs/utilization? Or use those resources to start building our own?". But even for this question the right answer is usually fairly obvious.
$10K seems like a lot. If Slack is going to round out at $100/a/staff member ... then how on earth does that number creep to $10K? I think there might be some 'crossing of streams' in this data, for example, perhaps they're including general services like AWS in there, which I'm not sure makes sense because conflating product-related IT charges with other services isn't helpful. Also relevant is the fact that said AW…