Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by charlesism 2818 days ago 

    > "It's not the technology that matters, 
    > it's the strategy"
Gross. That's the kind of meaningless ass-covering thing consultants like to say. It's a great claim because nobody can falsify it: "See, you don't get it! The increased clock-speed was part of their over-all strategy!"
1 comments
tomnipotent 2818 days ago
Can you think of any examples where great technology or product compensated for bad strategy? I can't. But I can think of MANY examples of where great strategy compensated for bad technology or product.
link
charlesism 2818 days ago 

    > I can think of MANY examples of where great 
    > strategy compensated for bad technology
Well, there's never a compelling argument that someone had a bad strategy once their product is a financial "success." They may have simply won a lottery, by the argument won't sound convincing.

Another thing that bothers me is: if you're making a shitty project, what is the point? You become what you do. If your project is bullshit, and you're spending all day strategizing, you'll wind up attracting idiots as customers, and scumbags as employees. Why bother... easier to go into banking or something.

link
tomnipotent 2817 days ago
> if you're making a shitty project, what is the point? You become what you do

This is silly hubris. Facebook seemed like a "shitty" project before it was a multi-national conglomerate.

> idiots as customers, and scumbags as employees

Everyone deserve a chance to earn a living. Your opinion of the worthiness of a project doesn't really factor much into peoples considerations.

link
charlesism 2817 days ago 

    > Facebook seemed like a "shitty" project 
    > before it was a multi-national conglomerate.
Facebook is a shitty project. What Zuckerberg gained in the short term he is paying for now: he will spend the next decade of his life dodging tomatoes as Facebook craters.

And honestly, that might be worth it for him. He'll also be extremely wealthy. My argument isn't so much that "it's not strategy that matters" instead of "it's not technology that matters" but rather that making pronouncements like that is bullshit.

Apple comes to mind. Using Ben's logic, Tim Cook's Apple is superior to Steve Job's Apple. The new Apple cares more about strategy and more MBAs work there. The new Apple has made more money. But at the end of the day, for a lot of people, it was more rewarding to work at SJ's Apple. And SJ's Apple still did plenty well financially.

    > Everyone deserve a chance to earn a living. Your
    > opinion of the worthiness of a project doesn't really
    > factor much into peoples considerations.
No, but my opinion exists in the world, as do many other opinions: Ben's personal preferences do not suit everyone. What his maxim assumes is that the only metric for "success" is his. I think for many people, it is better to do work of which one is proud. Not all people, but enough that Ben's advice is BS. For people like me, it's like saying "making 2x more money from your business, and wind up 10x less satisfied with your work."
link
tomnipotent 2816 days ago
> Facebook is a shitty project.

Hard to take you take this seriously with a comment like that. It's a technical marvel what they've accomplished and at the scale they've been able to take it. I'm not a fan myself, but I'm not going to crap on what they've pulled off because I don't like the service.

link
charlesism 2816 days ago
I don't even know what we are discussing at this point. As far as I can see, it would be a debate over various meanings of the word "shitty." If we brought it back to something tangible, I doubt we've even have any real disagreement. I don't like just bickering with people on the internet for its own sake. Cheers
link