Paul Graham says, “Tech companies must keep shipping cool new things or die. Not because customers require it, but because the best employees do. If your best programmers stop being able to ship new things, they’ll leave work somewhere they can.” I would like to know your thoughts on this.
Thanks in advance.
15 Likes
I’ve done this in my capacity as a PM when we wanted to try something new after our product reached a stable state. This effect applies to almost all occupations, not just engineers. But it’s possible that the smartest and brightest employees you hire won’t be satisfied working on service tickets or little changes when they see their peers doing interesting things elsewhere.
14 Likes
Paul also implies that the PMs of IT companies and non-tech companies are essentially distinct from one another. I had a job as a program/product manager in the financial sector. Yes, it is annoying that there are many hoops to go through in order to accomplish a task, but people don’t leave because of it. In the end, a PM is accountable for millions of clients, daily transactions totaling billions of dollars, system and client integrity, etc. That provides plenty incentive to stay.
People depart because of poor management and a toxic culture. There are many IT firms that are doing a lot of wonderful things, but employees continue to leave because of poor cultures.
14 Likes
I would believe that it has less to do with releasing innovative products and more to do with facing problems.
14 Likes
@DonovanOkang, I agree, and to be more precise, there should be clear objectives.
Working without a distinct end goal often leads to fatigue or a sense of being lost. Having specific goals and understanding how your work progresses toward them are, in my opinion, essential components of intrinsic motivation. And we’re learning that successful people are mostly driven by internal motivation.
13 Likes
Paul is a smart man who approaches problems from an engineer’s point of view. Although shipping to ship is unquestionably the incorrect business strategy, he is not necessarily wrong. One of our apps reached a point where it required more users in order for us to verify that it was functioning properly and resolving the issue, and everyone wanted additional features in order for it to attract more users. It turned out that we declined. But this makes sense because our head mobile developer left.
11 Likes
@JesusRojas, Similar to this, I released a mobile app in 2018 with a limited number of features, and the VP of Engineering was disappointed that I didn’t have a year’s worth of amazing additions planned and spec’d, mainly because he was afraid the mobile developer would quit. I understand, but before creating more goods, we needed to determine what the market wanted.
9 Likes
Even though your company didn’t “die,” Graham and you basically agree on this. I believe he was trying to convey the idea that without the decent guys on your team, you will surely fall behind.
11 Likes
Businesses are subject to the principles of entropy as well; if you remain unchanged for a long enough period of time, a competitor will surpass you.
To at least attempt to construct new things in order to keep the drag of entropy at bay is one of our goods’ basic tasks, but like everything else, there must be a balance.
9 Likes
Wow! Excellent insights coming in this thread.
Agree @PriyaVarma. So you agree what Paul Graham has said.
@FelipeRibeiro, this is a great perspective to consider.
10 Likes
Paul has a typical rich man’s thinking; he no longer comprehends what drives real people. It’s fine for many outstanding people in their late thirties and early forties to deliver respectable goods and iterate with a few fascinating ideas, but not always act crazily. Nobody desires to work more than 70 hours per week. Burnout exists.
It would be fantastic if we stopped idolizing the extravagantly wealthy and began to give more weight to the opinions that matter.
8 Likes
@VladPodpoly, He made no mention of working seventy hours a week or being reckless all the time. He argued that rather than sustaining an existing service, they should be releasing innovative new products. I concur with him even if I don’t work or aim to work 70 hours each week.
Why should we believe a complete stranger over Paul, who has a proven track record?
9 Likes
I believe the OP is saying “TC or GTFO” when she states that she “doesn’t comprehend how actual people are motivated anymore.”
It’s true that the main deciding factor when choosing a job is salary, but because we live in the age of technology, employers everywhere are paying applicants absurd sums of money. There are some places (though not all, and maybe not even most) where you can’t just set a high wage and hire the best applicants because your rivals are doing more creative things and offering salaries that are equal to or higher than yours. To persuade good people to work for you, you need something more notable than money.
YMMV, based on the area/industry, etc. However, they are both somewhat correct.
7 Likes
How do you imagine you can always ship awesome new stuff? 40 hour work weeks are just for fun, lol. Just because someone is wealthy and successful doesn’t preclude the possibility that they could be mistaken or that we shouldn’t critically assess their viewpoints.
8 Likes
@VladPodpoly, There is a point where you work more than 40 hours a week but not quite 70. And I’m objectively evaluating his opinion, not just agreeing with him because he’s pg
“Just because someone is rich and successful doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong” this is indeed correct.
9 Likes
A very, very, very twisted manner to accept the justification of profit over the resolution of important global issues.
I mean, good for him if that is what helps him fall asleep at night. The truth is that a developer is NOT kept at a company by adding more bells and whistles or adding a second camera to a phone that is progressively less expensive than the one before it. The developer works for the business since it supports him financially.
My developer actually spent his own money and effort to completely rewrite our jagged JS library because “the corporation” determined it was no longer necessary. I’m a PM, and it WAS crucial for both the company’s TAM growth and the customers experiencing severe pain as a result of the footprint of our present library.
So, yeah, Paul Graham is talking complete gibberish while trying to sound intelligent. However, it is just crap.
8 Likes
Most established tech companies must strike a balance between innovating and milking the cash cow while also developing new goods. Different PM and engineering types are typically drawn to them. While some enjoy a less frantic existence working on a proven, profitable product, others desire to constantly push their limits and try new things. This said that innovation cannot halt in any way, and not just due to personnel turnover.
9 Likes
Why not have engineers work on an open source project that they can all agree on if your product is stable and future changes will be minimal? Engineers who aren’t doing anything particularly fascinating (anymore) on the product for their company may find it hard and enjoyable to create tooling for others.
Building purely for the sake of building is, in my opinion, not the best course of action.
9 Likes
Despite how amazing this sounds, the people who decide the budget won’t continue to fund it. Since all they need for success is to expand margins and hire cheaper, worse developers, they do so.
10 Likes
@SamanthaYuan, Yes, that is an idealistic perspective. My former employer helped us develop certain OS software and internal tools. yet it was short-lived (mostly because things picked up and there was more to do). Since products are real and the environments in which they are used are dynamic, I believe there are always opportunities to improve them. Business needs alter as a result of user base shifts, strategy modifications, etc. It won’t always be that way, even if there is a lull because a product is in a “steady state.” Am I nuts to think that, or what?
9 Likes