Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by slavoingilizov 2202 days ago
OK. I'll try to play devil's advocate here.

Disclaimer: I think of myself as an engineer.

I do believe your frustration comes from observing actual issues and you're right to express your disappointment. However, I can see a lot of cynicism in your tone, and I feel there's a huge amount of judgement on those "cons" without trying to peek behind the curtain on what makes them behave like that.

To provide a different viewpoint - I've often seen this desire to do tech in a tech-first way fail massively. Many of us consider ourselves techies, so we believe we work in the tech industry. But we don't. We work in Finance, Productivity, Mobility, Food and similar industries, even though we're engineers. Apart from developer tooling and some exceptions - those industries are not about the tech. Countless times, I've seen engineers spend valuable resources (their own time) delivering the perfect tech solutions for non-existing problems (or over-engineered and expensive solutions to real problems, which could have been solved without tech much easier) Without the "cons" of UX, business development and product management, people like those would always disconnect from customers.

I do believe we should all try to find what motivates us and for many people here, this would be tech innovation. But dismissing the other roles in the companies we work with is just an endless utopia chasing, never productive.

I've been lucky to work with some great non-tech people and learn a lot from them. And from 10+ years in the industries (plural), I've seen many more examples of over-engineered and useless tech than failure of "cons" to grasp why engineers should be put first.

1 comments

It's not either/or. Good luck building the next FB/Google/MS/Amazon/Apple without exceptional tech and exceptional tech people. All of those companies had breakthrough tech combined with breakthrough business ideas.

Assuming that everything is just about UX, PM and bizdev nets you the kind of mediocrity the OP is talking about. Sometimes what looks like over-engineering to the mediocre actually enables breaking new grounds in the hands of the excellent.

I agree. I'm not suggesting tech isn't important at all. I'm just trying to provide a counter point to the OP, whose argument sounds very one-sided.

You can't build the next FB and Amazon without great tech. But they are not in the tech industry. Tech is the key ingredient (out of many)

They're not in the tech industry, but they are tech companies. Tech companies are companies who believe that in tech innovation is not only possible, but necessary to drive exceptional business success. Those are indeed few and far between.
That's a very interesting definition of a tech company and I think I have to agree with it, although I've always been very much "tech companies build tech".

The reality is the companies at the top right now all have EXCELLENT tech cultures, including one's you wouldn't have considered tech companies. An excellent tech culture is a form of operational excellence, which is how companies succeed. That's why all these companies are at the top and some big brand names in tech aren't necessarily at the top.

I know market cap is a very poor measure, but here:https://www.dogsofthedow.com/largest-companies-by-market-cap...

Who are the top companies? Each one of these not only understands their industry extremely well, but they generally speaking, having spectacular operational excellence.

IBM was a top company before. What happened? Why did it fall from grace? It's because they lost that motivation to maintain operational excellence. They just couldn't compete with the new companies who did pursue the better ways of doing things.

FB didn't have a breakthrough tech at their beginning.
Maybe not at the dorm room phase but pretty early on after that