The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer

The article makes the error of assuming that a 10x engineer is 10x because he has arcane knowledge about the intricacies of low level programming. This may be true for some layers of development. In my experience, for application programming, this isn't the "10x skill".

10x engineers are the guys that can grasp the complexities of large systems, enabling them to change them with minimal effort. When prompted with the need to implement a new use case, they understand the whole system or most of the system and thus they can plot the minimal change path to achieve the new functionality. They don't code faster. They code less, leveraging work that is already done.

If you have fewer engineers working on a system, because of better abstraction layers, then you only need the 10x guys. These are the ones that can drive the powerful machines.

What we are witnessing isn't the demise of the 10x engineer. It's the demise of the code monkey.

When I was in college in the mid-late 90s, my Software Engineer professor said that "In 5 years, programmers won't exist. With the revolution of Object Oriented Programming, creating software will be a matter of plugging blocks together".

Right.

This article is grossly oversimplifying and conflating things. All the examples cited are skewing the results to fit the agenda the author wants to promote. Specifically, the functionality, audience, and valuation are creating insane $$$-to-engineer ratios, that the author then tries to claim is the future of the industry.

Functionally, imgur is not very complex. Its an order or 2 of magnitude less complex than say, another "software is eating the world" business like a web-based CRM app. That's not to discredit imgur or Instragram. They are great achievements and successful apps. But it doesn't and shouldn't take dozens and dozens of engineers to make those.

The potential audiences for the examples are, essentially, the world. These apps can gain use very rapidly, and it can disappear just as fast. 1 person can make Flappy birds and the entire world can use it. The people to audience ratio here is huge compared to say, a SaaS invoicing product.

Imgur doesn't have a monetization strategy like, say, a SaaS product like a web CRM, or even something as simple as a WordPress backup SaaS product. Instragram had no business model. How much is it worth? This is where the crazy audience ratio comes in and messed up the results some more by effecting valuation. These valuations are not based on real revenue numbers. They are based on the wish and dream of extracting value from eyeballs. I'm sure they are worth something, but taking a Series A or Series B valuation and extrapolating is murky.

So, low functionality apps, with a huge potential audience, and a completely made up valuation number. Of course you are going to get $10B to 10 engineers ratios. That doesn't mean this is a trend in the industry, let alone business/enterprise software.

This post is making the completely wrong conclusion.

The reason companies like Instagram, Imgur, etc are able to service large #s of users with 7 engineers is mainly because computers and tools are a lot CHEAPER than they used to be, not simpler.

Cheaper. Less expensive. This allows small teams to build really huge things because generally small teams don't have much money (because if they did, they'd have a bigger team!), and the fact that stuff is cheap allows them to build it in the first place. Open source = free. Computers, bandwidth = a lot cheaper than they were 5/10 years ago.

Snapchat couldn't have existed 10 years ago because it would have cost 100x what it costs today. In fact, things are so cheap these companies can overspend and run their service on AWS or Heroku because the price of computing doesn't matter as much [1].

Programming is just as complicated as it was before. In fact, anything where you have a team of 5+ people working on the same thing for years is going to be complicated whether it is software, legos, or plumbing. As tools get simpler, the product will compensate by becoming more complicated (which is why we are seeing more awesome software these days), and thus the level of complexity will be roughy the same.

Today I could build a product as a one-person team that would have been competitive 5/10 years ago, but today the bar is much higher, and of course it will continue to get higher as we software and the trade of building software improves.

1: Though companies like StackOverflow still build their own metal and because of that run their sites incredibly efficiently on a cost basis

Programming talent and skills do not translated into business talent and skills. And vice versa. It does not even translate into an idea doable by just two guys that can sell well and is not easily doable by other two guys. How many such products does exist?