The other half of "Artists Ship"

As companies grow big, they like to emulate larger companies, and hence the people they like to hire are from larger companies since they understand scale -- this comes with a lot of baggage ofcourse. This in turn, most times, brings with it a culture of people who are worried more about not screwing up, covering their own ass, and thinking about getting promoted rather than doing what's right for the company or the business and screwing up as a byproduct of making quick decisions.

Re Joel Spolsky: The cost of the sale is not only the cost of the product, but what an organization would pay for a software/service, and what they would value it at. This is why most companies have a sales force, and don't advertise their prices on their website. As Joel mentions, for a lot of companies, charging less than $50k is a rounding error and not worth their time.

The flip side of people at big companies buying is based not entirely on the performance of the service or the product. As long as the service/product is reliable & ok, and it doesn't screw up in any major ways, they won't get fired for making that buying decision, rather than looking at ways of maximizing/optimizing the performance of the product -- yet another reason committees make buying decisions.

Re SOX: I like what founder's fund + facebook is doing -- letting early employees cash some of their equity out, thereby increasing the time early employees will stay with the company.

I also like Fred Wilson's thoughts on a secondary market for startup stock (similar to what goog does), this would in some sense, I guess let you be a private company, and not deal with the challenges associated with SOX compliance and at the same time not raise a highly dilutive Series D, in addition there is some sort of liquidation event for the investors.

PS: (std. Buchheit comments about Limited Life Experiences + Overgeneralization = Advice apply)

PPS: Say hi to the reddit guys for me ;-)

You can change and roll back features quickly, but that gives an impression of instability among users. If things are constantly changing, they'll seek out something more stable. It's "lowest common denominator" thinking. It results in something that nobody dislikes, and that's the goal of larger groups. Niche companies are able to work much better, but even then there's some slowdown.

This is just not true. Rollbacks are always more expensive than changes, because you can't rewind time to undo the consequences of having your software be broken for minutes, hours, or days. Worse, in the absence of "checks", the cost of making a production change tends to be roughly constant as the company grows -- it takes the Amazon sysadmin no more time to type "make deploy" than it does me -- but the cost of a rollback scales directly with the size of your company's customer base.

Within a few seconds after Amazon.com breaks S3, thousands of companies begin to lose money, and they lose money second by second until the rollback happens. Even if Amazon is only down for a minute, that's one minute of downtime multiplied by its number of customers. The larger the customer base, the larger the stakes.

And, unfortunately, the cost of downtime is nonlinear. If Amazon goes down for a mere two minutes, hundreds of peacefully sleeping system administrators will get emergency pages from their uptime-monitoring systems. They will get out of bed. They will check their logs and their failover mechanisms. They will lose a lot of sleep, and soak up a bunch of overtime pay, and a lot of their good will towards Amazon will dissipate like the morning dew. Once you lose your reputation for quality it takes a lot of work to get it back.

This is why larger companies have more controls. The controls are in place to try and pass the ever-increasing cost of a rollback back to the team that causes the rollbacks. The reason it seems so gosh-darned expensive to add a trivial feature to your flagship app is that it is expensive: If the average rollback costs $1m in revenue and every new feature is only 95% reliable, every new feature costs the company $50k to deploy.

The secret here is: If you want to deploy changes rapidly, don't work on a product that has a lot of uptime-sensitive customers! Start a different product line, or start a beta program, or found a smaller company.