This is not sustainable forever unless their hypothetical usage is realized, and eventually the bill will come due.
Meanwhile, component makers will surely be spinning up more capacity, some of them in a foolhardy manner, and if the bubble does burst, 3-6 months later we'll be seeing fire sales on components and component makers going bankrupt (or getting bailouts, if considered of national importance)
I have one. I got it so I could have something small to slip in a small bag for when my toddler went to a playground. The thing that makes it's unusable is the trackpad. A better trackpad and I would think this was fine and great for the size.
ios Native App > web app > android app > anything made with a cross platform toolkit like react native or flutter.
I would much prefer a really well-crafted ios Native App with extensive attention to detail than anything, even a web app made with similar detail (in most cases). And also ios apps are far more likely to receive that level of attention than just about anything else.
I read what the author is saying as “time is fixed, so I adjust the scope.” The problem is when product or management is demanding both fixed time and fixed scope. “Here’s a list of requirements (which are under defined and we will change without giving you a chance to estimate) and a set of figmas you must implement for those requirements (and also we will look at the finish product and decide not to give you any extra time to make changes we want or build a breakpoint not defined by the Figma that we demand), no how much time with this I’ll-defined, fixed-scope take?”
Fixed time and fixed scope is essentially impossible, except in trivial cases. What I read the author saying is that he chooses to make it fixed time and has flexibility around scope in his work, because the requirements are more like loose descriptions than a description of exactly what a product should do, while ignoring edge-cases. That sounds like a nice situation. And a perfectly fine way to manage an engineering team. But it also sounds a bit to me like an abdication of responsibility to the engineering team by product, to allow the engineering team to decide what exactly the scope is. Again, that’s a perfectly good way to do it, but it means that product can’t come back and say “that’s not what I was expecting, you didn’t do it.”
I don’t think the author really tackles estimation here, nor the reasons why estimation is a hard and controversial issue, nor what junior engineers are looking for when googling “how do I estimate?”
The real reason it’s hard in this industry is that in general, product controls both scope and time, which are the two major dials by which delivery is managed, but abdicate responsibility for them by going an ill-defined but nonetheless more fixed (and unyielding) scope than described in this article, then demanding engineers give them specific date estimates to which they’ll commit, and work free overtime if they turn out to be wrong.
The author correctly defines a way to resolve this conflict: give engineering more say over scope—but fails to recognize that the root cause is not poor estimation, but rather that product or management denies engineering much say over scope past the initial estimation, and then demands they set fixed dates they commit to before enough is known. Death march projects, in my experience, are generally a failure of product, not engineering.
Oftentimes, broadly accessible services are lower quality than more personalized ones, to the consumer.
As an example in US government bureaucracy, government software teams digitizing forms at one point weren’t allowed to utilize features like autofill or automatically filling fields based on previous answers because it would relatively disadvantage users using paper forms.
Government capabilities do need to serve everyone, and from the perspective of the whole society that is beneficial, but they are often are of low quality to the individual consuming them for this very reason.
Let’s exclude taxes, because obviously many people would hate them under any circumstances. Does the government do a good job providing the other services people interact with regularly? Do people love their visits ti the DMV? Are they satisfied with their interactions with the police? Heck, in my town, just renewing a dog license is a pain.
The author talks about how software creation processes at large organizations are an artifact of how large organizations operate, but in all 3 of the 3 cases, I would ask “why does the large organization need to be that way?”
Most obviously, why do executives need to be the proxy to customers? Why can’t development teams simply talk to real customers? This isn’t just an abstract idea in agile, it grew out of actual Japanese product development practices practiced at large organizations: Toyota, Canon, and others, and documented in “The New, New Product Development Game” HBR review article that was so influential to early agile.
The point that in large organizations, most of the work is coordination, again demands the question, why? It’s been understood since at least World War I by some military planners (with organizations far larger than Google) that coordinating dependencies was far more complex than reducing or minimizing them. Goldratt wrote about it when designing a project management system for Theory of Contraints (indeed, you could argue this is a fundamental learning of ToC). And one of my favorite software conference talks of all time is Mary Poppendeck’s excellent “Tyranny of the Plan,” where she notes that as computer systems have been used in planning, we seem to have become more confident but no more competent in coordinating, rather than focusing on flow, in large-scale projects.
Finally, on the importance of software created at large organizations, I agree, something that will have millions of users on day one has a greater responsibility, but that doesn’t mean that loads of bureaucracy and checking are the pathway to quality software. First of all, does anyone believe that highly scrutinized and bureaucratic functions are general high quality services? The often provide access to even the most extreme edge cases, but they do so by reducing the quality of service to everyone else. Anyone who’s ever filled out their own tax forms in the United States knows that it covers every base of possibly income, but 80% of people really only need to be concerned with 2-3 common forms, and 99% could simply be asked about 10 forms or so. Instead we have to answer questions for “directors of foreign corporations who also happen to be Us citizens,” instead of just requiring those people to fill out an additional form. And, of course, to (probably badly mis-)quote Deming, “you can’t check quality into a product.”
I would turn it around in the author: yes, the software practices operate this way in large orgs because large orgs are structured differently—but why do large orgs need to be structured that way? Is it inherent when absentee owners with low domain context (shareholders) pass ownership over to a manager? Is it because hierarchies insulate good but not great managers from genuine value creation as long as they play politics well? Is it because these are first order ways to understand complexity, and again, low-context absentee owners aren’t going to do the work to understand the more complex dynamics at play?
Maduro, Castro, and Saddam Hussein are/were bad. Castro and Hussein, at least, committed murders to maintain power and Maduro pulled a coup after he lost an election.
Whether they were worth removing is another question, but if you could flip a switch and magically replace them with something better (with no cost and a guarantee the replacement would not be a murderous authoritarian) you would of course do it.
There's nothing wrong with that, but if you're a user of one of these services you might take it as a hint to find an alternative.