I have had a grand total of one customer ask in almost 10 years. I have the block and announce it but there are so many dangers with implementing it that I am scared to even try yet until we slow down a little.
The in house developers raised their hackles and had reservations about using the product even in the face of perceived inferior solutions. The product then goes out of business... The irony of this story...
The customer's in-house developers raised their hackles and had reservations about using the product, even though the customer's in-house solutions were terrible, because the customer's in-house developers wanted to build it themselves. I'm not sure if the article wasn't well worded and you misunderstood, or if it's me who doesn't see the irony.
The irony is that a valid reason for in-house developers to not want to use an external product is concern about the long term support availabilty for that external project. You could make a case that this product shutting down is proof the in-house developers were right not to trust it.
I don't think that's totally fair in this case, since it seems they open sourced their software. But also, in general, I think NIH syndrom gets a bad rap. Sometimes a "worse" solution you control really is more reasonable compared to a technically superior solution made by an external company.
Ive been doing this for 20 years and I have had to do several major migrations due to vendors doing all sorts of stupid things. Millions of dollars and so so many hours completely unproductive because a commercial off the shelf product was 'cheaper' to buy initially.
Feeling it :) Currently in day two of an outage with almost no vendor response for my entire platform because it was "the cheaper option" :)
Every quarter during budgeting I have politely pointed out this inferior service costs us a lot of money and sucks at support as well, and every time its considered not a priority.
This exactly happened for the same product a few years - a real time push company called Pusher folder (or killed its major product) and everyone using it had to migrate.
One of the reservations the customer likely had is "will this company be around in X years?" The inferior home-grown product will continue to be supported.
Thank you for clarifying for me so elegantly. That self fulfilling prophecy does have a sense irony to it, especially given that the code is open sourced.
So basically, now the developers could decide to use it for free if they wanted? Either they will, and they'll have saved their company a lot of money, or they won't, because the traditional issues they had with it are still there. I'm not sure how either of those ends up making the developers look like they made a bad decision.
Yes, the current state of the thread now that it's been too long for any of the comments to be edited further certainly doesn't look like anyone was saying it.
Or the cost being 10x'd after they come to depend on it.
That certainly hasn't ever happened to us before.
Every external { tool, vendor, SaaS, platform } is a potential risk. You don't want to eat a year of unplanned costs and a quarter or more of engineering hours of migrating off.
Well, this is a very one-sided take. Imagine being a dev tasked with evaluating a product that makes you look redundant and also costs the company license fees in perpetuity. Whereas building a homegrown solution ensures that you keep your job, and get to look like a rockstar who saved the company money. Gee, I wonder which one the devs picked.
I know that what you said is supposed to be true. However in my real world experience it is anything but. Cisco java programs are a disaster and require certain JVMs to run.
The enterprise Java applications we use require specific versions of specific Linux distros. It's possible that they would run on other distros, or even other operating systems, if you got the right JVM. But there's enough question about it that the companies that sell them for a substantial price aren't willing to promise even a little portability.
Who have also captured regulators and politicians and use them to cement their advantage by making things too costly and difficult for new startups to compete.
if you are putting $12/mo into a big pot via Spotify there's way less money available to pay artists than if you buy a few albums outright a month, it takes a lot of Spotify streams to earn an artist a dollar. If you stream an album a few thousand times on Spotify maybe it works out in the artists' favor, I suppose.
and crucially, it's not taking 70% of your $12/month and parceling it out to the artists you listen to, it's taking everyone's money and putting it in a big bucket and parceling out it proportionally by stream numbers, so you can't direct $8.40 to an artist by only streaming them.
If you want to direct a few dollars to an artist you really do need to buy their music (or mech), or somehow give them a couple thousand streams.
Lidar and some sort of algorithm probably. It seems to work ok but not perfectly and depending on your area the lidar point cloud could be almost 10 years old.
I have lived my entire life in a a rural area, not even a town and it seems to me that every time I go to a city it is the same as the last. Everyone has their thing I guess.
Sometimes you can. Depends what you want out of it. I've only spent a very short time in London, but I live in New York, and some evenings all I need to do to be happy is walk to the middle of the Brooklyn Bridge and look at the lights and the people. Same reason I don't really need an itinerary if I head upstate - it's enough to find a random mountain, climb it, and look at the trees and lakes. Just getting to know the feeling of a place can be very special.
I am not sure what you mean by that. Do cities not want people to visit them? You can't travel through a city unless you commit to live there for a while?
I’m saying that if you want to enjoy a city you should find things that you enjoy to do there. If you just show up it’s not surprising that you’ll be unimpressed.
