[johnmcauley]

I’m a CTO in a 20 man startup and have been through the ringer on several different projects through my career.

This is a difficult situation as positive founders that you can build a company with are hard to come by (been there) and outsourcing is a minefield. I would suggest not to engage with an offshore outsourcing company, I have had terrible experiences here (they may tell u they are under NDA so cannot share any of their ‘successful’ projects, of which there are probably none), and if they know you don’t know tech, it’s a free for all. The other issue is they will try to bleed you up front and most startups are based on iteration, but you will probably have no cash left to incorporate the feedback into another version. Also, the quality will be terrible and they will not care about your project. What could Work, to get you started, is to find a single engineer you can work with (and pay) to get an MVP up and running, this could be a young guy or an off shore engineer but someone who will to work with you. This can keep your costs reasonable. The only issue here is that you have to think about how to move that MVP into a real product so you are really kicking the can down the road, but this can get you started.

In summary, avoid out sourcing like the corona virus.

[pier25]

> most startups are based on iteration

This, a thousand times.

Getting it right is not tracing a path on a map. Once you start traversing the terrain your perception about the thing will change. You will hit dead ends that you hadn't considered when looking at the map. You will realize you should have used another road or that you made a bad turn. You may realize the trip is not worth it after all. Etc.

Outsourcing when you're trying to figure it out is super expensive. Even more when you don't have the technical knowledge. Like John above said, it's better to find a cheap dev to produce a quick a dirty MVP, knowing this won't be the final product.

Another great metaphor I've found that helps think about this is that you don't build a car from scratch by building each part independently. You start with a kick scooter, then you make a bike, then you make a motorbike... until you finally make a car. The bigger the product, the more complex it will be, and the more interactions between all the involved parts.

[dctoedt]

Friendly correction: You've been through the wringer (as in, laundry wringer, an old-fashioned household appliance).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/is-it-through-...

[johnmcauley]

Yes! Thank you.

[rtx]

Your comment comes off as xenophobic. I know it's acceptable in tech circle to talk this way, but not cool.

[dctoedt]

That's not xenophobia, which is dislike or fear of foreigners because they're foreign. A lot of people have had similar experiences with offshoring.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xenophobia

[beering]

OK, so how do we talk about the prevalence of awful off-shore software-development firms without being "xenophobic"? If you're going to lecture us on how we talk, at least offer an alternative?

[dragonwriter]

> OK, so how do we talk about the prevalence of awful off-shore software-development firms without being "xenophobic"?

We don't, when the problem under discussion is endemic to outsourcing firms and has no particular connection to their location. The fact that there are lots of outsourcing firms that are, relative to where the demand for their services is, also offshore is completely beside the point.

Raising that irrelevancy is the problem.

[gfodor]

Offshore outsourcing tends to be by far the cheapest, hence assuming people will use offshore firms isn’t xenophobia its based on a relatively likely assumption.

[rimjongun]

No it doesn’t, He mentions His reasoning. Nothing in His reasoning gave off the vibe that he is afraid of others because they are different. ::prays for downvote button::

[dragonwriter]

> No it doesn’t,

Yes, it does.

If the “offshore” weren't in it, it would be just as accurate and not xenophobic.

[pier25]

"Offshore" is there most likely because it's so common to outsource work to cheaper countries and not because of any xenophobia.

[johnmcauley]

No xenophobia intended, the same can happen with onshore. But, there is a tendency to jump off shore due to costs and if you are inexperienced it can go very badly. That’s all. I’m experienced and it has gone badly on past experiences.

[notxenophobic]

This is a throwaway account.

I have been in companies where we'd outsourced to firms in India. The experience was not good for us, at all. The arm of the company that set up this arrangement, it went under. The offshore firm did not deliver.

I realized what seems to be a cultural thing with folks I'd worked with from offshore firms. They would nearly always exude absolute confidence in their ability to deliver what you'd requested from them, no matter how complex the task.

"Oh yes. Sure. No problem. We will get that done for you. Absolutely, yes. No problem."

You never heard humility in the sense of, "well, I/we aren't experts in _________ but we'll research and get back to you." It was always confidence, to the extreme.

I wonder why this is?

The reality ended up being entirely different. Many times, they had no effin clue. These were with some very big-name offshoring firms.

The flip side to that same coin… the folks from those firms that were genuinely skilled… they weren't in India. They got brought over on visas and were working in the US.

[rtx]

>I wonder why this is?

Because they were crooks, same as companies promising to protect your privacy and then selling your data. You will not hear anyone saying American tech companies are fraud.

[codegeek]

To be fair to GP, they did say it is ok to work with a direct engineer even if offshore vs offshore agencies that are just looking for a "project". I agree with him and I run offshore teams.