[weavejester]

Do you have any empirical evidence to back up your theory, or is it all supposition?

If it's the latter, and I assume it is, why do you present your hypothesis as if it's already fact?

Second, why do you assume that 50% less work is such a big deal? Even assuming you're right, productivity depends on many other factors that influence the result, and I'd claim by a heck of a lot more than 50%.

The theory I personally subscribe to is that the single most important factor for any software company is getting the right people. There is some empirical evidence[1] to support this hypothesis. If I'm correct, then what a company should care about is attracting and retaining talent.

So even if you assume people can work long hours without burning out, and that there's no productivity loss in doing so (and I'm pretty sure I've seen evidence to suggest otherwise), the numbers aren't on your side if your competition has all the talent because they offer a better work-week.

And even if your team is more productive, it doesn't help you if your competition builds a simpler, but more commercially successful product, because they're smarter. Just because something is harder to build doesn't automatically mean it's more profitable.

[1]: http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2011/01/09...

[atspcohn]

I never pass on my thoughts as fact. The title of that section is "What I believe." Not "This is a fact." All of the other statements you make are false choices. You can have a hard working team that also produces simple, clean, intuitive UX. Great companies do this all of the time.

[weavejester]

You do say "Here is what I believe" but before you get to that section you throw out statements like "Giving up an extra 13 sprints/year to a competitor is simply unsustainable."

If you meant your whole article to be taken as mere opinion, then it wasn't clear at all. It looked like you were making a series of statements that were supposed to be taken as fact, and that only the last section was your opinion on these facts.

As for my statements being false choice, I did not claim that it is impossible to have talented people working long hours, just that people are generally inclined to go for the better offer, and a 4-day week is a very good offer for someone who's pulling in six figures. If you subscribe to the theory that getting talented people is several orders of magnitude more effective than making them work long hours, then a 4-day week makes serious economic sense.

[atspcohn]

I think the recruiting benefit that Ryan states is a very, very strong point in his approach.