|
|
|
|
|
by noelwelsh
1041 days ago
|
|
The difference is 1) the power law distribution of revenue and 2) the finality of a movie. 1: A few movies (e.g. Barbie, Spiderman, Oppenheimer this year) make the majority of the money. Most movies make little. So if you pay based on expected return you probably don't pay your actors at all, or pay them peanuts. That's inequitable. But you can't pay them lots because you don't know how much money the movie is going to make. The solution is profit sharing. Most software business have much more stable income. 2: A movie, when finished, is done. There may be a director's cut in a decade or two if it's a super popular movie. There are occasionally different edits for different markets (alternate endings etc.) But basically it's done. The movie that is shown on release is the movie you watch 20 years later. So you can easily apportion credit to the actors, writers, etc. This isn't the case for software. It continually evolves. You made the initial design, but 64 other developers have worked on it since. Who gets credit? |
|
But to add, for me I wasn't talking about software, I actually engineered hardware- in my case, vehicle and airframe structures. Way more direct and less abstract than software. Large software systems may be some of the most difficult examples in the credit tracking problem, for sure.