[joecasson]

> That said, I think product and businesspeople are often not aware that having really solid tech yields dividends for years to come and will help them outcompete any peer as well increase the acquisition likelihood.

This an incredibly inaccurate assertion. I'm not aware of a single business person would ever say, "I think we can win simply on positioning." [1] While people may not understand/appreciate the pressures or output of an engineering team, it is not to say that they don't recognize when the product stability is not there. It undermines the credibility in their statements and pitch.

[1] 10 years experience in Sales and Engineering at very small and medium sized businesses

[cynusx]

We are talking about the difference between a functional engineering culture (or mediocre) and a great hackerculture-based culture.

In both cases, the product has to work and be stable however in a mediocre culture the cost of adding features goes up significantly over time, while if you have a really great team then the cost of adding features compresses or remains similar to the early stages.

This mostly comes down to good technology choices, unassuming code, fast tests, optimized developer flow and really solid architectural choices.

I was not talking about plain bad engineering cultures like no testing, modifying code in production, copy-paste development,...