Home
Member since 2017-07-15T03:50:57Z. Last seen 2025-01-02T20:05:01Z.
2729 blog posts. 128 comments.
蘋果行政總裁庫克(Tim Cook)表示，矽谷科技公司需要為他們製造的混亂負責。
庫克周日在史丹福大學畢業典禮上發表演講。雖然他未點名具體公司，但提到數據洩露、私隱侵犯。
庫克指，最近科技行業似乎愈來愈以一種不那麼高尚的創新而聞名，相信可以在不承擔責任的情況下獲得榮譽。但他認為，「如果你建了一座混亂的工廠，就無法逃避對混亂的責任」。
他又提到自己對數據安全的看法，同時批評谷歌、Facebook和其他科技公司在用戶數據和私隱方面的做法，又稱數碼監控威脅創新，將創新扼殺在搖籃中。
庫克說，如果認為生活中的所有都可以被聚集在一起、出售，甚至在發生黑客攻擊時被洩露，並認為這是正常的、不可避免的，那麼損失的不僅是數據，做人的自由亦一併失去。
在回歸以來至為震撼香港的上個星期，我身在海外，但心繫香港，透過媒體及臉書知悉事態的一些發展，感到很痛心。星期六（6月15日）下午回港當天，趕及看到林鄭月娥特首終於宣布無限期押後逃犯條例修例二讀的直播，實際上就是擱置了。但是局面不見得就可這樣解決，因為經歷了此次修例爭議及由此全面發酵的民情，特別是年輕一代的發聲，我們應該十分清楚：香港從此不再一樣。
深層矛盾 莫再激化
我自從2017年中離任局長後，一直維持不評論現屆政府工作的立場。因曾身處管治核心的「熱廚房」，我完全明白今時今日政府施政之難、管治之複雜。所以我對眾多每天忠誠工作、服務市民的公務人員，心存感激。離任後我不會隨意指點政府裏的前同事，所謂不在其位，難謀其政也。但是當下的香港，正處於回歸以來最嚴重的管治危機，整個政府陷於四面楚歌，公信力和公權力遭到嚴重挑戰，我不能不打破緘默。
表面上事緣於政府提出逃犯條例修例建議。顯然政府錯估形勢，無論其背後考慮及法律觀點如何，現實上就是很多人都不明所以然。在社會各界廣泛存在各種大大小小的懷疑和質疑下，特區政府似不顧一切但求通過修例，遂只會加深人們的陰謀理論，認為定必有不可告人的政治企圖，這對修例本身就是一個道德上的否定。政府曾說，很多人誤解修例建議，若此，更不能在社會上不明不白下就通過修例。何況今次罕有地兩大律師團體及無數資深法律界人士均對修例存疑、以至持否定態度，若政府不能說服法律界，又怎能期望一般民眾接受呢？因此擱置修例是必要的，這乃一個按《基本法》須向特區負責的政府應有之義。
但是，修例爭議只是社會累積多年深層危機的爆發點。過去一星期的事態發展，已經超越黨派之間的政治角力與動員，或所謂「黃絲」、「藍絲」陣營之爭了，除了連續兩個星期天以起碼數十萬至百萬計市民（主辦單位說分別超過100萬及近200萬）蜂擁上街遊行抗議外，更有愈來愈多年輕人走出來進行抗爭，甚至包圍衝擊立法會，還有不同社群發動癱瘓性行動。普羅大眾、社會各界都躁動起來，對政府的信任陷入前所未見的低谷。站在前線維持秩序的警務人員處於不斷擴大的抗爭行動的風眼，承受了沉重的政治壓力，這些壓力本應由我們的政治領袖去承擔和化解。
際此關鍵時刻，各方均需冷靜下來，不要讓種種矛盾進一步激化，把結愈拉愈緊、愈拉愈死。我們無論情緒如何激動，仍需審時度勢，不因一時之急、一念之差而令香港陷入無法自拔的死局。面對劍拔弩張的局勢，我們必須避免發生另一場流血衝突。特區政府要從和解、包容、負責的方向去善後補救。
民心已變 回不了頭
我願相信大部分示威抗議的青年學生是出於焦躁、憤怒和恐懼而自發行動，他們關心香港的未來，因為這就是最終由他們這一代去面對的未來，他們怕失去其心中的香港制度和核心價值，卻苦無方法及出路（除了上街呼喊及一些自我行動），因為我們的管治體制經已失效，不能在高度自治下透過合理的政治制度和機制去解決分歧、尋求主流共識。特區政府對此絕對不能掉以輕心，不能使人覺得聽而不聞、視而不見。無論特區政府或中央政府，均不能以為「撤回」修例便可事過境遷，以為風暴之後，一切便「自然」地回復正常生活。因為民心已變，我們回不了頭。
2019年是香港的重要轉捩點。正如我的一代不少受到五十年前保釣反殖運動所政治啟蒙一樣，今天不少新生代的政治啟蒙始於2014年的「佔中」及「傘運」，再受今次對修例抗爭的洗禮。他們不認同政府的解釋、不願意疑中留情，因為他們不相信目前的政治制度、不信任其所產生的政府、以至不信任政黨及建制團體。經過此役，政府的正當性可能耗盡，日後管治只會更困難。所以，以為不再進行政改、只搞經濟民生便可走出管治困局，只屬「鴕鳥」心態，回歸20多年的惡性循環只會愈滾愈烈。
香港已經踏進新時代，究竟是最壞的時代、還是最好的時代，視乎我們的領袖及民眾何去何從。我回港前有朋友說：等我回來時，「香港已死」。這是何等悲情的申訴！我認為絕大多數港人（縱使當中政見不同）仍是和平理性、熱愛這個歷史異數的城市的，他們不肯認輸，他們既害怕、焦慮但也十分堅強。是這樣的堅強不認輸之力量，一直在種種困難和逆境中支撐着香港不斷前進。
我那一代的港人見證了香港的現代化成長，成為舉世知名的自由法治之都，我們不會讓香港倒退。我不希望年輕人只因心感絕望而抗爭，為何不可以為希望而創造力量？如何締造希望，是香港朝野內外、跨政治光譜的所有領袖皆應致力的。新時代要求新思維、新出路。悲情只會滋長更多的無力感和宿命觀。
理順民情、在「兩制」之間促進和諧互信、維護香港的核心價值，是特區政府的重大責任。為此，不存在面子或威嚴的問題。嬴得廣大民眾的信任，就是彰顯公權力的最大依靠，謙卑就是力量。
張炳良 香港教育大學研究講座教授、前運輸及房屋局局長
上周談及香港《逃犯條例》的國際關係視角，然後形勢每日改變，最終還是出現人命傷亡，令人哀痛。條例最終雖然沒有硬推，但正如上文所說，無緣無故樹立了內外太多對立面，不可能像沒事發生過，事實上，爭議期間引來的國際連鎖反應，早已不能回頭。香港的反《逃犯條例》群眾活動，聯繫跨立場、跨階層、跨世代，這比例的人數史無前例，不是任何「外國勢力」足以煽動的；反而是特區政府推出《逃犯條例》，偏偏出現在中國外交上最錯誤的時機，令全球都把香港當作最方便的「政治提款機」，北京莫名其妙輸掉一場戰役，可謂人算不如天算。在過去一段時間，曾通過不同渠道，嘗試對有關人士分析以下情況，不見得能有即時回應；只希望無論大家什麼立場，激情過後，也應明白香港已提前進入國際新冷戰主戰場，對周邊形勢，也有微妙影響。假如連上一波衝擊也沒能妥善應付，未來如何，更難安枕。
一、中美貿易戰，附屬出現「港元狙擊戰」？
不少朋友對《逃犯條例》為何在中美貿易戰的關鍵時刻推動大惑不解，因為即使沒有《逃犯條例》，香港早就具備成為國際金融大鱷狙擊目標的條件。事實上，中美「貿易戰」的重點從來不是字面意義上的貿易逆差；真正的貿易出口，也不是美國經濟的主菜。美國的真正「出口」其實有三︰一是「美元」作為國際貿易的主要結算貨幣，二是「美債」作為釐定「零風險」投資的標準，三是「美式金融」作為企業融資及金融管治的框架。因此維持美元在國際社會強勢、而且是人為的強勢，才是美國繼續稱霸的本錢，即使從經濟層面這可能犧牲若干本土貿易、與全球貿易穩定，也不是特朗普所在意。
香港作為特區對中國的最大價值，就是和美元聯繫的港元，以及被美國承認的單獨關稅區的身份。因此能夠在不大規模改變內地金融及外滙管理結構下，協助內地企業「走出去」，在金融市場吸納外資或發美元債。反過來說，也因為香港金融制度同時兼負美國、中國以至本地金融貿易要務，自然也是負擔兩國三地的政治及經濟危機，有着被衝擊的原罪。不少金融界朋友對對沖基金負責人Kyle Bass兩個月前的一篇警告「港元－美元」聯繫滙率早晚崩壞的文章印象深刻，無論是否認同那文章的觀點、能否洞察他希望製造self-fulfilling prophecy的可能性，大家都忽然記起一個事實：香港回歸後的金融風暴，當時索羅斯如何在包括香港在內的亞洲各地攻城掠地。當時還是純粹的投機市場行為，但今天多了中美貿易戰的國際層面誘因，香港單獨關稅區地位前景憂慮，還有自顧不暇的國家經濟，國際財團自然會考慮沽港元、買美元以求轉移資產及平衡風險，香港的外滙儲備是否足夠應付，就由20年來的偽命題變成真命題，也令投機分子有可乘之機。美國昔日如何對待日圓、1999年空襲科索沃對歐羅有何影響、然後怎樣以美資低價收購有價值資產，這些歷史，應該溫故知新。
因此，無論有沒有《逃犯條例》，在國際大形勢下，針對港元的新一波金融風暴，本已可能隨時出現，欠缺的，不過是一個合理化的理由。修訂《逃犯條例》所帶來的司法、人權等議題信心衝擊，以及其他國家對修例的反應，正好完美填充這個答案。即使今天暫緩修例，過去一周為香港社會帶來新一道，甚至是最深一道的信心傷痕，也為國際炒家預演未來，將香港的脆弱暴露於人前。這是筆者最擔心的危機。特區政府唯一應該做的是與民休養生息，暫緩發展計劃，全力備戰，這才是國家與人民賦予的責任。
二、「MFN模式」：美國未來的恒常「香港牌」
《逃犯條例》爭議期間，美國國會議員再次提出《香港人權與民主法案》，而這法案其實年前早就被提出，只是一直被按下不表。以筆者從美國政壇得到的資訊，關鍵一來是美國媒體對法案未有持久興趣，二來是某提案人家庭有其可能出現的利益衝突，三來在道德高地以外缺乏美國人直接利益攸關的切入點，所以昔日表了態，就「暫緩」推動法案。
但《逃犯條例》修訂，將美國及其他西方國家拉下水，令其在港公民被條例涵蓋，加上港人因修例所衍生的大規模和平遊行示威、激烈肢體衝撞，令美國政客及媒體找到關注香港的一切動機，由理想、到現實、到文宣層面，無一遺漏。更重要的是，不論是共和黨內以至在野民主黨，均可透過這張由傳統精英建構的「香港牌」，與走「反精英」路線的總統特朗普較勁。提出法案的盧比奧，上周大力表態支持香港反修例運動的美國「三號人物」眾議院議長佩洛西，提出修改《香港政策法》的克魯茲，都是特朗普在黨內外的主要政敵。反而特朗普上任至今反而對打「香港牌」十分克制，一來他當年在香港的經濟活動，可能還有外界不知道的後續，他曾提名在香港工作25年的基金經理Philip Bilden為海軍部長一事，始終是一大懸案；二來他對付中國已經有一手滿滿的牌，結果「香港牌」就讓國會主導，也符合一直以來港台事務的主要法案均來自國會的「傳統」；三來特朗普的「前國師」班農除了是另類右派舵手，另一個身份正是買空賣空的華爾街精英，和剛才談及那位唱淡聯繫滙率的Kyle Bass還是友好，與現於美國的爭議內地富豪郭文貴也是盟友，假如他有份操盤「香港牌」，恐怕不會像國會議員那樣打「開口牌」，只會製造突發危機。修訂《逃犯條例》，讓「香港牌」不但成了中美關係的「明牌」，還捲入了美國精英的內部明暗角力，未來麻煩，只會無日無之。
從法律層面，《香港人權與民主法案》假如通過，最大關鍵是提供了一個國會每年審查香港自治狀況的條件，去確定是否更改把香港與內地差別看待的《香港政策法》；也就是當美國有需要時，每年都可以打「香港牌」製造經濟、信心危機。情況對一些有一定閱歷的讀者而言並不陌生：上世紀九十年代時，美國每年均以香港牌作為衡量中國能否享有「最優國待遇」（MFN）的條件，也就是兩國每年都要循例講數，當年學者稱為「MFN模式」，分別不過是今天被審核的是香港而已。
三、美國重組後的「印太－香港」領導班子
《逃犯條例》爭議期間，美國公布了一批和香港相關的任命，首先是新任美國駐港大使史墨客（Hanscom Smith），取代以經貿為專長的現任總領事唐偉康。正如本欄多次講述，因為歷史原因，美國駐港澳總領事級別等同大使，直接滙報華府，選擇這時候公布新人選，很難不令人有宏觀聯想。史墨客是懂普通話的中國通，有留學日本經驗，是公開出櫃的同志，伴侶呂英宗是台灣人，曾在上海總領事館工作，這份履歷屬於「印太戰略」時代的外交官新貴，未來美國只會更把香港放進整個「印太」框架考量。還有新任副總領事侯偉業，在回歸初年就曾在香港工作，也有在波斯尼亞這個另類「一國兩制」處理美國利益的經驗。
不過最重要的還是此人：相當鷹派、職業軍人出身的史迪威（David Stilwell），終於在3日前獲國會通過，成為新任處理亞太事務的助理國務卿，也就是負責整個區域的最高層。筆者在夏威夷East-West Center當訪問學人時與其為鄰房，曾拜訪其像是軍事博物館的辦公室訪問，一言以蔽之，他是以軍事戰略處理外交的典型，戰略思維和外交官出身的傳統精英完全不同，訪問時他就對我說，在自由派外交思維主導的East-West Center，他幾乎是唯一的例外。美國印太戰略人員，正式在「後《逃犯條例》時代」埋班，香港未來再嘗試獨善其身，恐怕不可能。
四、印太時代，日本逐漸成形的「台港牌」對特朗普的博弈
特朗普的「印太戰略」，主要拉攏印度、澳洲、日本等亞太大國構成一個中國包圍圈，並以東南亞為樞紐，而在歷任美國總統當中，他大概是最沒有顧忌支持日本所謂「普通國家化」的一人。上月特朗普訪日時，登上日本自衞隊准航母加賀號，明言加強美日軍事合作，目標明顯是中國、北韓；但與此同時，其實美日也在進行自己的小型貿易「摩擦」，特朗普一貫是一手軟、一手硬的討價還價。日本安倍政府希望美國加持「普通國家化」，也不願意在貿易層面過分退讓，就需要顯示其他價值。因此，日本和台灣的特殊歷史淵源，乃至日本與香港的緊密經濟、文化關係，都成了日本政府的備用品。
客觀而言，和歐美政府相比，日本政府對香港《逃犯條例》的官方發言十分克制，一來是中日關係剛有改善跡象，二來G20峰會於大阪舉行在即，日本有自己的主場考慮，不願橫生枝節。但2014年以來，日本民間對香港的關注愈來愈高，「香港研究」在日本逐漸成為一門顯學，例如筆者的一位日本學界朋友最愛唱達明一派的廣東歌，對香港之熱愛相當澎拜，這類日本「香港通」愈來愈多，慢慢凝聚了一個圈子。這次《逃犯條例》爭議期間，不少香港網民對「條例通過後，日本可能不再給予特區護照免簽待遇」的猜測最緊張，而日本在香港的企業辦事處數目僅次內地，存在一定槓桿效應。相對於「香港牌」，日本的「台灣牌」則十分積極，這也是美日聯盟默契的一部分，這次修例卻令日本政客想到「兩牌合一」，並有地方議員參與了關於香港的聯署，除了是增強自身影響力，也是用來和美國的經貿談判討價還價。此例一開，也難以回頭。
五、中國「聯歐制美」戰略下，德國領導歐盟的「價值觀對冲外交」
《逃犯條例》爭議期間，德國於去年原來已給予涉及年前旺角案的兩名香港青年難民身份，引來特區政府高調批評；坊間對德國此舉應否進行有兩極意見，但我們應注意的是這事適逢此時被公布，固然是二人的主觀意願，但客觀上更配合了德國、乃至整個歐盟在中美貿易戰的策略：「歐洲式對冲」。
雖然美國政府多番要求盟友配合其針對華為的舉措，但歐盟各國面對5G時代，明顯希望在中美兩大勢力之間遊走，不願全面與美國合作，保留了讓華為進入市場的大量空間，同時也暗中鼓勵像諾基亞那樣的品牌乘虛而入，分一杯羹。以上政策純粹利益主導，但缺乏了一個漂亮框架；德國默克爾上台初雖然決意走「價值觀外交」，但自從習近平訪德簽訂大量訂單，這調子本來已輕輕放下，直到庇護劉曉波遺孀劉霞才重新被舉起。由於以德國為首的歐洲大國知道中國需要在經貿、科技戰層面拉攏他們，自然希望得到更多經濟實力，但也必須和國內輿論、國際盟友交代。於是重啟「價值觀外交」，顯示自己不是只要「發大財」，就成了一個辦法。北京為「聯歐制美」投鼠忌器，兩害相權，對德國為首的「價值觀外交」只能以更寬鬆態度對待。由於涉案二人本身也是香港「逃犯」，在歐洲傳媒眼中，評論《逃犯條例》卻又天經地義，經過一輪訪問，無論北京、港府多麼不願意承認，他們在西方媒體配合下，逐漸得到了國際話語權，脈絡和5年前黃之鋒成了國際風雲人物，如出一轍。
從歐盟而言，「香港牌」也同樣如美國一樣，捲入內外明暗角力︰在社交媒體支持香港反修例運動的伏思達所屬的政團「ALDE」，正傳出與議會內第一大黨團歐洲人民黨協商，後者醞釀支持伏思達成為歐洲議會議長，換取ALDE支持人民黨提名的韋伯，出任歐盟委員會主席，屆時歐盟和香港的互動，可能更頻繁。歐盟3月發表的對華外交政策戰略文件，表明歐盟將中國視為挑戰歐洲核心價值的對手，也提到香港的高度自治需要得到尊重，而正是這些高調的價值觀表態，令德國等國對封殺華為態度曖昧，不致於成為西方輿論眾矢之的。何況高調反《逃犯條例》修訂，除了為歐洲提供了「不是親華反美」的表面證據，掩護另一面的對華務實政策，還在特朗普不重視價值觀之際，重燃了歐盟作為「道德規範力量」的方針，也可要求參與「16 +1」框架的歐盟成員國歸隊。
六、僑民外交：借《逃犯條例》爭議突破《維也納公約》規範的駐港外交官團
駐香港的各國外交官極多，境內有62所總領事館、61所領事館，如此陣容，為中國首都北京以外的任何地方所無。但他們對評論香港內部事務一直想當克制，北京以往也對這方面把關很嚴，例如曾在吉爾吉斯鬱金香革命期間擔任美國駐該國大使的楊甦棣（Stephen Young）後來到香港擔任總領事，外交部駐港特派員公署就曾以違背《維也納領事關係公約》、評論香港內部事務為由，對其發出警告信。但《逃犯條例》爭議是一個極罕有的機會，讓這些外交官找到評論香港的理由，因為條例直接涵蓋他們本國在香港的公民、商會，以這出發點評論屬於他們基本責任，就有了迴旋空間；據稱外交部駐港特派員公署將集體和他們會面釋除疑慮，原因之一自然是特區政府在《基本法》框架下能說的層次，根本不為對方感興趣。特區政府似乎並未為意當一條本地條例涵蓋外國商人、僑民，這就早已超出了純法律問題，而是開啟了一個危險的潘朵拉盒子，因為「保護僑民」是國際關係界眾所周知的「萬能Key」，很多本來可以歸類為「干涉內政」的行為，有了這個合理理由，就變得冠冕堂皇，例如美國干涉委內瑞拉是保護僑民、俄羅斯吞併克里米亞是保護僑民而起、中國駐各地大使館近年也加強了保護僑民的宣傳。
更重要的是，這次各國大舉評論香港開了不少先例，除了歐盟各國集體行動，英國、加拿大也是由兩國外長罕有地對香港發出「聯合聲明」，暗示了英國脫歐後啟動「英加澳紐小英聯邦」的可能性，這是借香港來進行其他外交工作的範例；其他外交官在上個月內的合縱連橫案例，似乎還有不少。《逃犯條例》爭議期間，由於特區政府始終未能成功釋除各國疑慮，乃至愈描愈黑，駐港各國領事之間卻因為需要直接交流而產生了更多工作關係。這個領事團的重要性在回歸後20年首次被激活，假如沒有一條涵蓋世界各國所有國民、又引起本地大量爭議的草案，是幾乎不可能的。
七、台灣選戰前，蔡英文或成最大贏家
台灣當局一直對直接介入香港事務十分克制，沒有意欲、也沒有能力，關心的只是借香港影射台灣現狀「抽水」。但《逃犯條例》以陳同佳案為「官方初心」，雖然矛盾重重，任何官方發言都言必台灣，卻意外令台灣當局得到評論香港的話語權，還為執政民進黨得到反擊北京的黃金機會。習近平主席年初的新年對台談話，明言以「一國兩制」、「香港模式」為統一楷模，自此香港成了台灣選舉的重要參考對象。蔡英文本來民望已跌至谷底，台灣朋友不少認為她連任無望，但通過連月來打的「反一國兩制牌」，加上各種坐擁行政資源的選舉手段，民望卻又極戲劇性回升，尤其是利用《逃犯條例》爭議宣示了堅定立場，找回人氣，在黨內初選期間，不時化身香港事務評論員，除了逆轉勝擊敗對手賴清德，還順道打擊了早前曾與林鄭月娥會面的主要對手韓國瑜。國民黨本來並不願高調批評「一國兩制」，但《逃犯條例》一出，黨主席吳敦義也不得不說「一國兩制全是虛言」以回應台灣民情；還有另一北京接受的候選人大款郭台銘，也在個人Facebook表示以「張開雙臂爭取港人移居台灣」為政綱；恐怕未來任何台灣政客肯定「一國兩制」和香港，都會成為票房毒藥。雖然不能說蔡英文勝出初選全靠香港，但「香港牌」肯定具有發酵民情的明顯作用，香港內政能影響台灣民情至此，也是史無前例。假如《逃犯條例》不是堅持以陳同佳案為「官方初心」，台方輿論不可能發酵至此。
由於陳同佳案這個藉口被發揮得淋漓盡致，理論上，日後依然需要與台灣當局商討對策才能「彰顯公義」，也就是賦予了台灣當局一個沒完沒了、可循環再用的選舉議題，「蔡英文或成最大贏家」，北京精密的對台部署，假如因為這件事破局，很多工作又要推倒重來。另一方面，台港關係近年本已相對制度化，但這次爭議，也連帶令雙方「經濟文化辦事處」的功能，以及其他半官方組織的功用大減，這些年來令港台關係半制度化的努力，就算不是一筆勾銷，同樣要重頭再來。
八、內交：假如香港不能協助「走出去」，由澳門到大灣區的連鎖回應
由於上述結構性轉變，導致中國能否長期利用香港「走出去」存在不確定性，北京必然有幾手準備。在國際關係角度，香港、澳門作為中國境內的兩大特區，有其明確分工，就是分別作為能與國際（特別是英美社會）完全接軌的地上、地下金融中心；官方定位澳門為「世界旅遊悠閒中心」，事實上只是枱面上的功能而已。這樣的結構分工，在世界並不罕見，例如筆者曾考察的塞班島，主權屬於美國、容許中國國民免簽入境、境內容許賭場運作、本土人口不多，基本上就是「澳門模式」。一旦香港的國際金融中心地位受影響、或港元－美元聯繫滙率不再，中國境內要吸引美元還有哪裏？就是澳門。澳門的重要性增加，而澳門政局相對穩定可控、「外國勢力」（特別是中國極希望拉攏的歐盟）的存在，也早有制度及默契，可能會得到意料之外的機遇；甚至更多擴大澳門行政版圖的「橫琴模式」，會以不同方式被考慮；而洽談中的賭場續牌花落誰家，也可能根據大格局有一定影響。值得注意的是，在《逃犯條例》一役，和香港特區沒有引渡條例的澳門，因為一位富豪的戲劇性介入，其實間接扮演了極關鍵角色；澳門本身也沒有通過與內地的類似條例，年前澳門政府懸崖勒馬，大概因為其地下經濟的國際元素只會比香港更受條例影響，這也是澳門政府罕有比香港政府更有國際視野之處。有了香港這次經驗，在可見將來，澳門的國際地位反而可能比香港更穩固，甚至可能像在二戰期間那樣，成為新冷戰的緩衝區。
此消彼長之下，香港的國際身份一旦弱化，或單獨關稅區、周轉美元的功能被廢止，削弱香港三大中心的國際地位，也難免直接影響整個大灣區的規劃。中山、深圳、廣州本來就對香港獲得例如「港人港稅」等「特權」頗不滿，部分民族主義者也認為香港的重要性每況愈下，更成為外國勢力影響國家穩定的負累，勉強忍下去，就是因為香港的國際身份能夠互補；假如沒有了，香港在大灣區也沒有了分工，上述這些內地城市的官員會如何看待香港，不言自明。未來「內交」層面，香港恐怕會更弱勢，比起前三任特首年代，不可同日而語，而其他城市藉此向中央游說不要「厚待」香港的工程，恐怕已經開始。
九、李顯龍接班人的機遇：中美新冷戰戰場撤離新加坡
經此《逃犯條例》一役，香港直接走進中美角力、新冷戰的核心戰場，卻間接令一些本來有機會成為戰場的地方鬆一口氣，乃至乘機獲利，最明顯的例子是新加坡。數年前，自從新加坡在南海主權爭議表態，中國一度打算以新加坡為突破口，期間發生的香港「裝甲車事件」、新加坡以「疑似情報行為」驅逐華裔學者離境、傳出中國資助興建「克拉運河」取代馬六甲海峽等事情，都令朝野大為緊張，擔心李光耀以來的「大國對沖政策」失靈，被迫要在中美之間明確靠邊站；屆時一旦局勢不穩，又可能直接影響國際金融企業的投資意願。這正是李顯龍在今年香格里拉對話發言的精髓：大國不要逼新加坡選邊站，下一句沒有公開說出的，就是「開戰請到其他地方吧」。結果香港《逃犯條例》爭議一出，整個地緣政治的壓力都轉移了在香港，相信在可見將來，新加坡的壓力會驟降，也不用再擔心成為中美新冷戰主戰場。而且不少金融界朋友告知，在過去數月，確有基金賬戶從香港撤退到營商環境最接近的新加坡，數目還不少，一旦形成氣候，雖然不一定傷及香港根本，卻會令新加坡的「亞洲首席國際金融中心」地位更鞏固，同時也令擔心新加坡成為中美磨心的市場憂慮，一掃而空。執政人民行動黨渡過了過去數年頗有暗湧的危機，李顯龍盛傳的接班人、現任副總理、財政部長王瑞杰可以視之為政績宣傳，也能夠一方面高調對華友好、另一方面乘北京無暇他顧，鞏固美國保護在國內的存在，順利接班，幾無懸念。
此外，還有涉及世界其他地區的一些觀察，篇幅所限，就不詳細列舉。總之，無論「初心」如何，這個案例，將會成為國際關係蝴蝶效應經典教材，一件最初不為任何人注意的事，經過連串失誤，除了逐步發酵為回歸以來最大爭議的本地大事，因為打擊面太大，超越了傳統反對派的同溫層，觸及整個香港商界、保守專業人士階層的憂慮，然後觸動國際神經，配合當下複雜的國際形勢，進而影響了全球地緣政治，一名作行政決策的香港人，有如此國際政治影響力，也是史無前例。已經走不回頭的香港，面對這個國際形勢，已經沒有不調節原有政策的可能，但具體又可以如何？
（下篇待續）
(編者按：沈旭暉著作《平行時空2 – 解構本土主義崛起的世界》現已發售)
歡迎訂購：實體書、電子書
179 oska 5 hrs 62
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/14/facebook-privacy-policy-court/
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20191870 Unable to load the content
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/14/facebook-privacy-policy-court/
不得不承認，比特幣已經成為年度表現最佳資產。
經歷了長達一年的暴跌後，比特幣終於在近期迎來了一波強勢升勢。截至五月中，比特幣已經連續上升十四天，目前比特幣價格暫報8011美元，此前曾一度攀升至8198美元。年內升幅依然高達112.1%，已經實現了double。伴隨着氣溫的逐漸升高，加密市場彷彿也開始從冬眠中甦醒，不少主流幣種當時的升幅均在兩位數以上。
美券商巨頭TD Ameritrade在CoinDesk二○一九紐約大會上表示，比特幣的價格波動並沒有影響到客戶對加密貨幣期貨的興趣，TD Ameritrade無數的客戶對加密貨幣感興趣。
目前的市場由炒作驅動，市場規模小，還不成熟。但是隨着愈來愈多的國家把區塊鏈定為國家戰略，由技術和市場基本面驅動格局日益明朗。
每一次變革都會誕生偉大的新公司，在一九九○年的互聯網泡沫中誕生了FAANG：Facebook、 Apple、Amazon、Netflix和Google這些巨頭，對於數字資產的未來，在數字資產領域未來也會誕生FAANG一樣的巨頭。
金融是百業之首，其應用場景包括數字錢包、貿易融資、房屋租賃、跨境支付和數位票據等，技術涉及衣、食、住、行等所有與生活息息相關的領域。全球的房產市場價值230萬億美元，全球股票市場價值70萬億美元，全球債務市場210萬億美元，三項累計超過510萬億美元，未來有可能會有100萬億美元的資產存儲在區塊鏈上。所以，十年後，區塊鏈成為十萬億美元產業不是夢。
最近比特幣的大升和前幾次最大的不同，就是機構投資者入場，實物交割的比特幣期貨一旦成形，ETF通過也指日可待，那時才是加密貨幣的春天。
香港特區政府強推《逃犯條例》修訂引來極大爭議，有德國傳媒刊出文章指香港陷入水深火熱之中，西方也有責任。文章批評西方政商界以往面對中國人權問題時態度曖昧，導致出現這種後果。
《巴登報》以「沒有人反對中國」為題發表社論，指香港的大規模示威無法撼動北京，一大原因是缺乏外界支持。社論認為起初北京似乎還願意遵守「一國兩制」的承諾，同時中國的經濟開始對外開放，政治上出現曙光，中國領導層甚至對西方民主產生興趣，令很多人抱有期望，以為香港可以影響中國。可惜事與願違，如今中共的專制政權前所未有地穩固。北京毫無掩飾地干預香港的政治，經濟方面也早已依賴中國內地。
另外，《圖片報》總編賴希爾特（Julian Reichelt）以「別與恐怖份子做生意」為題撰寫社論，文中提到當前德國將太多目光投放在環保、氣候等關乎未來的議題，卻忽視了人權這些當前要處理的事務。社論寫道：「在中國，德國企業的董事們迫不及待開設新工廠，同時又否認曾聽說過侵犯人權、勞改營等現象……在這個問題上，我們不應只討論如何應對氣候，也應該討論如何面對『人』。」
賴希爾特作出呼籲：「如果我們不再容忍對環境的犯罪行為，那麼我們也不應再容忍對人類的犯罪行為。如果我們想為後人留下一個更美好的世界，就必須思考一下現實政治的規則：不與恐怖分子做生意。」
一段關於Facebook（fb）行政總裁朱克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）的人工合成短片，本周初被上傳至該公司旗下平台Instagram（IG）上，片中他似乎就fb大數據的影響力發表偉論。截至周三（12日），該片累積逾2萬觀看人次，惟fb發言人強調，公司不會刪除這段短片。
fb強調不會刪除
該短片長約21秒，標題是「朱克伯格：我們正在提高廣告透明度」，片中的朱克伯格聲稱：「讓我們快速地想像一下，一個人完全掌控着數十億人被盜的數據，掌控着他們所有的秘密、生活和未來。我將其歸功於幽靈（Spectre），幽靈告訴我，誰掌握了資料，誰就掌控着未來。」
網站VICE報道指，該片由兩位藝術家Bill Poster和Daniel Howe聯同一家廣告公司Canny AI合作製成。他們在IG上表示，這段短片以Canny AI的視頻對話替換（VDR）技術製成，透過人工智能（AI）替換短片人物沒說過的話。據稱，該片剪輯自2017年的一段7分鐘短片，當時朱克伯格正在談論，俄羅斯干預2016年美國總統選舉。
IG 發言人說：「我們處理這些內容的方式，跟處理IG上所有虛假資訊的做法無異。若第三方核查人員將之標記為虛假內容，我們將把它從IG推薦頁面（例如Explore），以至hashtag標籤頁面過濾過來。」
佩洛西遭惡搞似醉酒
事實上，該段有關朱克伯格的短片，很有可能是對fb的一次考驗。上月底，該公司曾因拒絕刪除關於美國眾議院議長佩洛西（Nancy Pelosi）一段合成短片而遭抨擊。片中佩洛西被竄改說話聲音，語速被刻意放慢，聽起來口齒不清，被多數網友質疑是否喝醉。
片段一度在fb、YouTube及Twitter上瘋傳，隨後YouTube及Twitter先後移除，惟fb繼續保留該短片。當時fb的發言人指出，公司沒一項政策規定，在平台發布的訊息必須真實，但會大幅減少其曝光率。
有說內地千禧年後出生的人全是潛在千萬富翁，因為父母同是獨生子女，又是祖父母們的唯一寄望，萬千寵愛在一身，亦是所有家財的唯一繼承人，未來可能有五六套房子在手。以現在內地房價高企，身家有千萬元只能說是保守估計。不過，內地近日發布的一份人口研究報告，或許會推翻這個說法。
中國近年出生人口大幅減少，人們生育意欲下降。2018年出生人口為1523萬人，較2017年大降200萬人，創1949年以來的第二低。2016年開放「全面二胎」政策後，出生人口曾攀升至1786萬人，但之後便連續兩年下滑，政策效應急速消散。
1949年以來，內地曾出現三波嬰兒潮，七十年代之前是鼓勵生育，生育率在6左右（即每位婦女生6個嬰兒），至九十年代已降至2左右，再降至2010年後的1.5，已不足以補充人口需要。不僅遠低於2.45的全球平均水平，也低於1.67的發達國家水平。
年齡中位數升至37歲
低出生率有什麼不好？勞動力萎縮，人口紅利消失，還有老齡化加劇。內地勞動人口峰值早在2010年見頂，預計到2050年，勞動人口將比2018年少四分之一。內地人口年齡中位數從1980年的22歲，上升至2015年的37歲，預計2030年將升至43歲。
分母減少但分子增加，到2050年，每3.3個中國人便有一個是65歲以上的老人，不僅令經濟缺乏增長動力，社會養老負擔也日漸沉重。現時黑龍江等部分省份，養老金已入不敷支，未來財政缺口大概只會愈來愈大。
為什麼人民不生育呢？一是經過30多年的一胎政策後，適齡生產婦女人數大減，潛在母親少了，潛在嬰兒數量也下降。
二是教育普及和社會文化轉變，從前讀大學是少數人的事，社會平均學歷是高中。讀完書一兩年沒有事情做，父母趕緊催結婚。現在讀完大學再工作打拚兩三年，結婚起碼要到25歲之後。當然還有社會文化轉變，人們不以組織家庭、傳宗接代為第一要務，結婚生子年齡自然地推後。
另一個最重要的原因，那便是住房、教育、醫療等成本的急劇上升，抑制了生育行為，因為深怕生得出，養不起。內地房價急漲，房貸與收入比例從2004年的17%升至現時的44%，醫療費用同期亦增加20多倍。高房價會帶來財富效應，但房價過高，卻會讓人不敢消費甚至生兒育女。
還有，從前的萬千寵愛在一身，6個養一個，到小孩長大畢業後，卻變成一個養6個，擔子已不輕，又豈敢再輕易百上加斤？貿易戰其實真的不重要，因為中國有一個龐大的本土市場。他強便由他強，我只一口真氣便已足。可是，如果人口老化並減少，未來還有誰買房子呢？經濟放慢又怎麼辦？未來的6套房子，會不會到手時價錢已跌了不少？內地如何提高出生率，或許是同等緊急的要務。
筆者為證監會9號業務持牌人
hcl.hkej@gmail.com
(編者按：郝承林著作《致富新世代2──科網君臨天下》現已發售)
歡迎訂購：實體書、電子書
PUBLISHED 4 HOURS AGOUPDATED 26 MIN AGO
Lauren Feiner @LAUREN_FEINER KEY POINTS Apple announced new versions of its software for iPhones, iPads and Macs at its annual software developers event Monday. It also announced a new Mac Pro, it’s most powerful computer ever. It costs $6,000. Apple also gave developers a new way to migrate their iPad apps to a Mac, which will give it more opportunities to sell apps through its Mac App Store. WATCH NOW VIDEO02:21 Watch Apple unveil big changes to iOS at WWDC Apple kicked off its annual Worldwide Developers Conference Monday where it unveiled its new software for Mac, iPhone and iPad as well as a new $6,000 Mac Pro.
WWDC is where Apple typically pulls back the curtains on where its software is heading. The company has announced a new version of its iOS at WWDC every year since 2009. It unveiled version 13 at Monday’s event, which comes with a new dark mode and updated apps.
Apple also announced its new macOS that will make iOS apps available to 100 million Mac users. The announcement fits into Apple’s new focus on selling services to existing device users as the smartphone market has slowed down.
Beyond that, Apple TV and the Apple Watch also have new software updates.
All of the software updates announced on Monday will be immediately available for developers. Everyone else will receive them for free in the fall.
Here’s everything Apple announced on Monday:
Mac WATCH NOW VIDEO02:03 Apple announces new Mac Pro and 6K display Apple announced a new Mac Pro at Monday’s event, which it said is its most powerful ever. The new system offers robust features for professionals dealing with large files like videos. Apple built a new card called Afterburner that can process 6 billion pixels per second to achieve more efficient video editing. The Mac Pro has 1.5 terabytes of system memory and a 1.4 kW power supply. The Mac Pro will start at $5,999 and will be available this fall.
Apple also introduced a new 32-inch display called the Pro Display XDR. It has what Apple calls extreme dynamic range, which produces more accurate colors. The Pro Display XDR will start at $4,999 and also be available in the fall. It does not include the stand, which costs another $999.
Apple introduced its new macOS Catalina.
The big news: iTunes is no more. Instead, Apple is splitting iTunes into three separate apps: Apple Music, Apple Podcasts and Apple TV. Users no longer need iTunes to sync their phones to the computer.
WATCH NOW VIDEO02:08 Apple announces end of iTunes after 13 years With a new feature called Sidecar, users can make their iPad into a second display for their Mac. The new Voice Control for both iOS and macOS lets users control their devices with their voices using the latest Siri voice recognition technology. It’s a feature designed for people with disabilities.
Apple is expanding Find My iPhone through an app called Find My that will also be available for the Mac. Even when the Mac is offline or sleeping, it will send off a Bluetooth signal that can be detected, so users can locate their devices. Apple’s new Activation Lock makes it so that a thief would not be able to access a stolen Mac.
Apple is making it easier to create apps that work on macOS and iOS with Project Catalyst, which will be available to developers in the new macOS on Monday. The update means developers can easily bring their iPhone and iPad over to the Mac. It also gives Apple the opportunity to sell even more apps on the 100 million Macs being used today.
Developers had been watching for signs of whether Apple’s iOS will eventually replace its operating system for Mac, or at least become the primary platform. At last year’s event, Apple said that it was not merging iOS with MacOS. But as Apple has shifted its focus into selling services to existing iPhone users as smartphone sales slim down, the mobile operating system has become increasingly more important.
iPad WATCH NOW VIDEO01:14 Apple announces multitasking iPadOS Apple made some of its biggest changes to the iPads software on Monday. It now runs a new operating system called iPad OS, which is based on iOS for iPhones. It features several new features that make the iPad act more like a traditional desktop computer.
iPad OS will make it easier to multitask. Users can switch between apps more smoothly or even view two windows next to each other. That means an iPad user can put two documents or notes side by side.
Typing and scrolling is designed to be easier to use as well. The keyboard can be shrunken down to make it easier to type with one hand on the screen.
The new system will make it easier to share files through new folder sharing through iCloud drive. Users can also plug a thumb drive, SD card reader or digital camera directly into the iPad to upload files, videos or photos.
Safari on iPad will serve viewers the desktop version of apps, rather than the mobile version to make for a smoother browsing experience. The browser will get new keyboard shortcuts and a download manager.
iOS Apple unveiled its latest version of its iPhone operating system, iOS 13. With the new system, unlocking with FaceID will be 30% faster. App launch speed will be up to twice as fast on the new system.
The operating system got a big redesign with the introduction of dark mode, which gives system menus and apps a dark background. The keyboard will allow users to swipe across letters to type, rather than need to tap individual letters.
Apple added new features to some of its popular iOS apps built into the iPhone. Safari will let users more easily change text size, Mail will now support rich fonts and Notes will have a gallery view. The Reminders app got the biggest rewrite, adding options to easily add photos and locations with a quick type bar. If a user tags a person in a reminder, they will get a notification about it next time they enter a message with that person.
Apple has been working to revamp its Maps with more granularity and a street view mode similar to the one in Google Maps. It expects to roll out the new version of the app to the entire U.S. by the end of 2019.
On the privacy front, Apple announced a new “Sign in with Apple” feature that gives users greater control over the data they share with apps. Developers will be able to include the sign-in for their apps as an alternative to a sign in option with Facebook or Google, which Apple criticized on stage for gathering too much personal data about users.
With Sign in with Apple, if an app asks a user to share their email address, the user can choose to share their real address or have Apple share an automatically generated address that forwards to their actual account. Apple also announced HomeKit Secure Video, which will analyze home security footage in the home before encrypting it and sending it to the cloud to provide better privacy.
Siri is getting some new updates as well, including a more natural voice. Siri can announce messages through Apple’s messaging app or a third party messaging app. It will also work with third-party apps like Pandora and Waze on CarPlay.
Apple is making it smoother to transition audio experiences between devices, so that users can transfer music or podcasts playing through their Airpods to their HomePod once they get home. Users can also share audio with friends through their devices.
Watch SS: 2019 Apple WWDC- Apple Watch Apple Watch updates at the 2019 Apple WWDC In San Francisco. Source: Apple Apple is bringing more apps to the watch, including voice memos, audiobooks and the calculator.
The new WatchOS makes the watch more independent from the iPhone. Users will be able to update their watch software on the device directly, rather than through the iPhone. The OS will support independent apps that don’t require a companion app on the iPhone. It will also let users search the full App Store from the watch directly and live stream audio.
Apple is also expanding its health features on the new watch operating system. It will give users more insights into their “activity trends” over longer periods of time. It also adds an app that will alert users when they are being exposed to dangerously loud noise levels.
The company announced a new cycle tracking app for tracking fertility and menstrual cycles. The app will be available both on the watch and to non-watch users on the iPhone through the Health app.
TV SS: 2019 Apple WWDC: tvOS Tim Cook Tim Cook introduces tvOS at the 2019 Apple WWDC in San Francisco. Source: Apple Apple is redesigning its TV homepage and letting different profiles have their own “up next” lists. Apple’s TV operating system will support Xbox and PlayStation controllers to for playing video games.
We did a deep-dive into the 233-page ruling declaring Qualcomm a monopolist.
by Timothy B. Lee - May 31, 2019 4:00am CST Login to bookmark 267 “It is unlikely there will be enough standalone modem volume”
Enlarge Ken Hawkins These exclusive or near-exclusive terms were important because huge scale is required to profitably enter the cellular modem business. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to design a competitive cellular chip from scratch. And designs are only useful for a few years before they become obsolete.
This means that it only makes sense for a company to enter this business if it already has some major customers lined up—customers willing and able to order millions of chips in the first year. And there are only a few customers capable of placing those kinds of orders.
Qualcomm's executives clearly understood this. In a 2010 internal email, Qualcomm's Steve Mollenkopf wrote that "there are significant strategic benefits" to signing an exclusive deal with Apple because "it is unlikely that there will be enough standalone modem volume to sustain a viable competitor without that slot."
Advertisement
This was more than a theoretical issue. Apple hated being dependent on Qualcomm and was looking to cultivate a second source for modem chips. The strongest candidate was Intel—which didn't have a significant modem chip business but was interested in building one. By 2012, Apple was already planning to have Intel design a cellular chip for the 2014 iPad.
Apple's 2013 deal with Qualcomm forced the company to put that plan—and its larger relationship with Intel's cellular team—on the back burner. Apple's Blevins testified that "we cut off the work we were doing with Intel on an iPad" after it was signed. And without Apple as an anchor customer, Intel had to put its own modem chip work on the back burner as well.
Intel and Apple resumed their collaboration ahead of the 2016 expiration of Apple's deal with Qualcomm. That year Apple introduced the iPhone 7. Some units shipped with Qualcomm modems while others used new Intel modems.
Apple's commitment to buy millions of Intel wireless chips allowed Intel to pour resources into its development efforts. After securing its deal with Apple, Intel acquired VIA Telecom, one of the few companies struggling to compete with Qualcomm in the CDMA chip market. Intel needed CDMA chips to make its wireless offerings competitive worldwide and lacked the capacity to develop them internally on the schedule Apple demanded. Acquiring VIA helped Intel accelerate its CDMA work. But Intel's own projections showed that the VIA acquisition would not have been financially viable without the volume of business Apple promised to Intel.
The relationship with Apple helped Intel in other ways, too. The knowledge that the next iPhone would sport Intel cellular chips motivated network operators to help Intel test its chips on their networks. Intel also found that its status as an Apple supplier gave it more clout in standard-setting organizations.
The empire strikes back
Enlarge / A 5G Intel logo is seen during the Mobile World Congress on February 26, 2019 in Barcelona. Miquel Benitez/Getty Images Apple's deal with Intel posed a serious threat to Qualcomm's dominance of the cellular chip business. Once Intel developed the full range of cellular chips Apple needed for the iPhone, Intel could turn around and offer the same chips to other smartphone makers. That would improve every smartphone maker's leverage when it came time for them to renew their patent licenses with Qualcomm. So, Qualcomm went to war with Apple and Intel.
Freed of Qualcomm's chip supply threat, Apple began to challenge Qualcomm's high patent royalty rates. Qualcomm responded by cutting Apple off from access to Qualcomm's chips for new iPhone models, forcing Apple to rely entirely on Intel for the cellular chips in its 2018 models. Qualcomm sued Apple for patent infringement in courts around the world, while Apple pressed the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Qualcomm's business practices.
The dispute put both Apple and Intel in a precarious position. Qualcomm was trying to use its patent arsenal to get iPhone sales banned in jurisdictions around the world. If Qualcomm scored a win in a major market, it could force Apple to come to the table. Then Qualcomm might force Apple to buy fewer Intel chips, endangering Intel's wireless chip business—especially since other potential customers would be wary of leaping in front of Qualcomm's patent buzzsaw.
At the same time, Apple was relying on Intel to keep its phones on the cutting edge of wireless technology. Intel successfully developed modem chips suitable for the 2017 and 2018 iPhone models, but the wireless industry is due to make a transition to 5G wireless technology over the next couple of years. The iPhone is a premium product that needs to support the latest wireless standards. If Intel failed to develop 5G chips quickly enough for use in the 2020 iPhone model, it could put Apple in an untenable position.
It appears that this latter scenario is what ultimately happened. Last month, Apple announced a wide-ranging settlement with Qualcomm that required Apple to pay for a six-year license to Qualcomm's patents. Hours later, Intel announced that it was canceling work on 5G modem chips.
While we don't know all the behind-the-scenes details, it appears that earlier this year Apple started to doubt Intel's ability to deliver 5G modem chips quickly enough to meet Apple's needs. That made Apple's confrontational posture toward Qualcomm unviable, and Apple decided to cut a deal while it still had some leverage. Apple's decision to make peace with Qualcomm instantly cut the legs out from Intel's modem chip efforts.
Qualcomm has long refused to license its patents to competitors
The story of Qualcomm's battle with Apple and Intel illustrates how Qualcomm has used its patent portfolio to buttress its chip monopoly.
Chipmakers are ordinarily expected to acquire patents related to their chips and indemnify their customers for patent problems. But Qualcomm refused to license its patents to competitors, putting them in a difficult position.
"The prevailing message from all of the customers I engaged with was that they expected us to have a license agreement with Qualcomm before they would consider purchasing 3G chipsets from MediaTek," said Finbarr Moynihan, an executive at chipmaker MediaTek.
If a chipmaker asked to license Qualcomm's patents, Qualcomm would only offer a promise not to sue the chipmaker itself—not the chipmaker's customers. Qualcomm also demanded that chipmakers—its own competitors—only sell chips to a Qualcomm-supplied list of "Authorized Purchasers" who had already licensed Qualcomm's patents.
Needless to say this put Qualcomm's competitors—and would-be competitors—at a disadvantage. Qualcomm's patent licensing regime not only allowed it to impose a de facto tax on its competitors' sales, it effectively let Qualcomm choose its competitors' customers. Indeed, Qualcomm demanded that other chipmakers provide it with data on how many chips it had sold to each of its customers—sensitive commercial data that would allow Qualcomm to figure out exactly how much pressure it needed to apply to prevent a rival from gaining traction.
An internal Qualcomm presentation prepared within days of a 2009 deal with MediaTek ("MTK" in this slide) provides a comically candid visualization of Qualcomm's anticompetitive approach:
Enlarge "WCDMA SULA" refers to a Qualcomm patent license. Qualcomm believed that limiting MediaTek to Qualcomm-licensed companies would prevent MediaTek from getting more than 50 customers for its forthcoming 3G chips. Meanwhile, Qualcomm aimed to deprive MediaTek of cash it could invest in the chips.
A few smaller chipmakers like MediaTek and VIA agreed to Qualcomm's one-sided terms. Even more significant, a number of more formidable companies were deterred from entering the market—or encouraged to exit—by Qualcomm's tactics.
Qualcomm twice refused to grant patent licenses to Intel—in 2004 and 2009—delaying Intel's entry into the wireless modem business. A joint chip venture between Samsung and NTT DoCoMo called Project Dragonfly was rebuffed by Qualcomm in 2011; Samsung wound up making some modem chips for its own use but not offering them to others. Qualcomm refused LG a patent license for a potential modem chip in 2015.
Qualcomm refused patent licenses to Texas Instruments and Broadcom ahead of their departures from the modem business in 2012 and 2014, respectively.
Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
Enlarge Brent Lewin/Bloomberg via Getty Images When a standards group is developing a new wireless standard, it assembles a list of patents that are essential to implement the standard—these are known as standards essential patents. It then asks patent holders to promise to license those patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Patent holders usually agree to these terms because incorporating a patent into a standard enhances its value.
But Qualcomm doesn't seem to be honoring its FRAND commitments. FRAND patents are supposed to be available on the same terms to anyone who wants to license them—either customers or competitors. But Qualcomm refuses to license its standards-essential patents to other chipmakers.
And when handset manufacturers tried to license Qualcomm's standard-essential patents, Qualcomm usually bundled them together with its larger patent portfolio, which included patents that were not subject to FRAND commitments and in many cases had nothing to do with modem chips. As a result, handset makers effectively had to pay inflated prices for Qualcomm's standards-essential patents.
But no one was in a good position to challenge Qualcomm's creative interpretation of FRAND requirements. Qualcomm didn't directly sue other chipmakers, so there was no easy way for them to challenge Qualcomm's policies. Meanwhile, Qualcomm's chip supply threats deterred customers from challenging Qualcomm's licensing practices.
Judge Koh ruled that Qualcomm's failure to honor its FRAND commitments was a violation of antitrust law. Qualcomm had an obligation to license its patents to anyone who wanted to, she ruled, and Qualcomm had an obligation to do so at reasonable rates—rates far lower than those Qualcomm has been charging in recent years.
No more “no license, no chips”
Enlarge / Judge Lucy Koh. Pelicanbrieflaw Judge Koh orders several changes that are designed to stop Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct and restore some competitive balance to the marketplace.
The most important change is to decouple Qualcomm's patent licensing efforts from its chip business. Koh ordered Qualcomm not to "condition the supply of modem chips on a customer's patent license status." Qualcomm must renegotiate all of its patent licenses without threatening anyone's supply of modem chips.
Koh also ordered Qualcomm to license its standards-essential patents to other chipmakers on FRAND terms, submitting to arbitration, if necessary, to determine fair royalty rates. These licenses must be "exhaustive"—meaning that Qualcomm is precluded from suing a chipmaker's customers for violating patents licensed by the chipmaker.
Third, Koh bans Qualcomm from entering into exclusivity deals with customers. That means no more rebates if a customer buys 85 or 100 percent of its chips from Qualcomm.
Patent expert Charles Duan argues that Koh's ruling "deals with the largest problems that people have observed in terms of Qualcomm's behavior."
A big winner here could be Samsung, one of the few major technology companies to have retained significant in-house modem capabilities. In recent years, Samsung has often shipped smartphones with its own Exynos chips in some markets, while selling Qualcomm chips in others—particularly the United States and China. It's not clear exactly why it does this, but a reasonable guess is that Samsung believes that it's more vulnerable to Qualcomm's patent threats in those countries.
Now it'll be easier for Samsung to use its own chips worldwide, simplifying product design and giving the company greater economies of scale for its own chips. Eventually, Samsung might start offering those chips to other smartphone makers—as it tried to do back in 2011.
On the other hand, Koh's ruling might come too late for Intel, which announced it was shuttering its 5G chip efforts last month and may not have the appetite (or enough time) to restart them.
Koh's most important requirements, however, may be her mandate for seven years of monitoring by the FTC and the courts.
"I imagine that over the next year or so Qualcomm will come up with some new way to get back to [its] old revenue model," Duan told Ars in an email. It will take continued vigilance by the authorities to ensure Qualcomm complies with both the letter and the spirit of Koh's ruling.
But first the ruling must survive an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Tuesday, Qualcomm asked Koh to put her ruling on hold until the appeals court has a chance to weigh in. Qualcomm's customers and competitors won't be able to truly breathe easy until the appeals process is over.
It seems that Qualcomm charges Apple $7.50 while Apple wanted to only pay $1.50.
Is $7.50 really inappropriate for a $1,000 smartphone whose primary function is to connect to cellular networks?
And what's wrong with charging a percentage of the entire device. Why shouldn't Apple pay more than a cheaper manufacturer? All kinds of fees in the real world are percentages such as sales taxes etc.
I have no doubt that Qualcomm is a bit greedy but I don't think their practices are outrageous.
Well, let's think about this. If Apple needed to license 500 patents, and each wanted 1% of the device price, then Apple would owe $5,000 in licensing for a $1000 device. If they raised the price to $5,000 in order to break even, then they'd owe $25,000. So, yeah, I'd say that's unreasonable. By licensing only for the value of the components the license contributes to, then you can't exceed the value of the device.
Also keep in mind that Apple is selling 250 million units per year, so we're not talking about a disagreement over $6, but over $1.5B. In all likelihood, Apple could have replicated Qualcomms research for that IP for $1.5B, but the federal government prohibits them from avoiding that license fee. Qualcomm should certainly be able to recover their R&D costs, but that recovery is supposed to be a shared effort - that's the point of the patent - to share the load. If a single customer is being held to the entire cost, then we're well in rent seeking territory because it likely would have been better for the customer if the patent was never granted, and that can't possibly be the goal of the patent system. 7358 posts | registered 6/16/2002 Timothy B. Lee Senior tech policy reporter jump to post Wildbiftek wrote: show nested quotes
There's no doubt that given time, some other (possibly free) standard would have emerged but the industry adopted Qualcomm's patents DESPITE the fact that they were royalty encumbered because faster speed to market and doing the foundational technical things well are definitely worth something.
Given Apple's efforts with the backing of Intel's warchest much of the time not paying Qualcomm royalties, it's unlikely you'd have seen a 4G iPhone before 2016 and a 5G one before 2021. The value of these capabilities is substantial as important apps such as Uber or Google Maps would be far less compelling if one had to find WiFi, acquire the password before using those functionalities.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but didn't "the industry adopt Qualcomm's patents" (as well as patents from a bunch of other companies) in exchange for promises from those companies to license them on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms? Qualcomm could have refused to participate in that process, in which case the industry likely would have chosen a different set of standards that aren't encumbered with Qualcomm's patents.
Instead, Qualcomm chose to participate in the standards process and get its own patents included in industry wireless standards. But then when people asked Qualcomm to live up to its FRAND commitments, Qualcomm threatened to cut off the chip supplies of anyone who made trouble.
One other relevant episode in the Koh ruling that I didn't include in my article: around 2007 Intel was trying to convince the industry to adopt WiMax, which posed a threat to Qualcomm. Qualcomm signed a deal with Apple in which Apple would publicly announce it would not be using WiMax. Qualcomm also paid Apple rebates it would have to pay back if Apple started selling handsets that used WiMax.
So the industry partly adopted Qualcomm's technology because it was faster than what came before. But the industry also adopted Qualcomm technologies partly because Qualcomm was able to throw its weight around and discourage the adoption of promising alternatives. 1192 posts | registered 1/6/2007 mebeSajid Ars Praefectus jump to post Tim Lee wrote: show nested quotes
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think this aspect of Qualcomm's conduct would have violated antitrust law on its own. If you own a patent you're supposed to be able to collect a royalty from everyone who uses the technology it covers.
The problem is the other stuff Qualcomm did in conjunction with its patents—threatening to cut off chip supplies, reneging on FRAND commitments, refusing to license to competitors, etc. Those tactics helped Qualcomm secure much higher royalties than they would have gotten without them, which in turn gave them a lot more leeway to offer customers rebates that undercut competitors' prices. In some cases Qualcomm also tied the rebates specifically to customers promising not to use competitors' products.
Microsoft did some stuff like this in the 1990s. I would expect they're more careful about it today, though I haven't looked into it in any detail.
Exactly. I'm not an antitrust lawyer (I am a patent litigator however), but Qualcomm's use of it's position as the leader in making baseband chips to force customers to take a patent license agreement seems like a pretty clearcut Sherman Act violation. On top of that, cutting off supply if customers didn't take a license agreement, and using that to impose fairly onerous licensing terms, seems like a pretty straightforward antitrust case. If you read the opinion (not specifically directed to Tim), you'll Judge Koh pointed out very early on that Qualcomm straight up lied when it said that it had never cut off supply to a customer.
I've litigated multiple SEP cases - both Qualcomm's rates and insistence on using the entire handset as the royalty base are pretty shocking to me. I'd be shocked if a Court imposed either that royalty rate or that royalty base in litigation. 3978 posts | registered 5/29/2001 mebeSajid Ars Praefectus jump to post Wildbiftek wrote:
What would guarantee the absence of competition would be if Qualcomm kept all of its patents to itself and didn't submit them to standards committees for open licensing. You would get a completely vertically integrated giant like Intel who had a controlling stake in CPU standards and implementations with minimal competition for some 2 decades, during which the quality of CPUs languished while pricing was high. There was no competition due to largely gate-keeping patents (as well as the difficulty of rewriting decades of software...) and little innovation from Intel itself from the early 2000's until around 2015.
This manages to both miss the point and get basic facts wrong. First, there isn't a CPU "standard", at least as we're using the term here. There's an x86 instruction set with contributions from both Intel and AMD (more Intel than AMD), but it's origin is largely proprietary: nothing in x86 has gone through a standard setting organization.
In contrast, there are robust standard setting organizations that participate in standards for wireless communication, and there are very important reasons for having those standards: interoperability, and predictability. Because of this, being able to introduce one's technology into a standard is quite lucrative (aside from any IP revenue), and lots of parties try to get their IP into standards. Having IP that reads on a standard is quite lucrative, and it tends to be a fairly straightforward patent infringement case.
For this reason, the tradeoff for participating in the standards setting process is an obligation to license any IP on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory terms. Standards Setting Organizations don't want any one party to be able to "hold up" an industry.
Quote: An open FRAND based licensing scheme for standards in the case of cellular standards allowed for vibrant competition in SoC implementations from multiple companies, a fact that was distorted by the FTC and missed by Koh because of their myopic focus on "premium standalone modems" where only Apple was a big customer. There is also value inherent to good standards which are not cheap to develop and may not ultimately be adopted either.
Premium standalone modems was, by itself, a several billion dollar market. Further, while standards certainly aren't cheap to develop, Qualcomm was far from the only party to contribute to those standards. You make it sound like Qualcomm alone developed 3G and LTE. That is not the case. 3980 posts | registered 5/29/2001 READER COMMENTS 267 Share Tweet Google Reddit
Timothy B. Lee / Timothy is a senior reporter covering tech policy, blockchain technologies and the future of transportation. He lives in Washington DC. ← OLDER STORY NEWER STORY → SPONSORED STORIES POWERED BY OUTBRAIN
NEXT TECH 25 Insanely Cool Products from the USA Finally in Hong Kong
BLINKIST The 5 Books To Read If You Want To Transform Your Life
NIKKEI ASIAN REVIEW Amazon Japan halts direct sales of Huawei devices
NEXT TECH Why Everybody is Snapping Up These New Earphones?
8FIT Too Busy to Stay Fit? Try This Effective 10-Min Workout
NEXT TECH Celebrities Reveal the Solution to Pearly White Teeth
CNMN Collection WIRED Media Group © 2019 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 5/25/18) and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement (updated 5/25/18) and Ars Technica Addendum
334 tango12 1 day 77
https://github.com/hasura/graphql-engine/blob/master/architecture/live-queries.md
Unable to load the content
https://github.com/hasura/graphql-engine/blob/master/architecture/live-queries.md
237 luu 2 days 296
Unable to load the content https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/30/18642535/california-ab5-misclassify-employees-contractors
2018年3月，中國修訂憲法，刪除國家主席及副主席「連續任職不得超過兩屆」的限制，那一刻開始，國際關係似乎開始醞釀微妙的變化。有人關注這是否帝制復辟的序幕？又有人關注如果再出現超級獨裁者，世界又會變成怎樣？
華為事件成另類世界冷戰
悲劇的發生，從來不是一朝一夕，總是由眾多事件累積而成，只是究竟引爆點為何？上星期寫第3次世界大戰由科技戰爭揭開序幕，其中華為公主孟晚舟被加國扣留成為關鍵點，而華為更不幸成為導火線。過去一星期，大家看到不同科技企業陸續加入抵制華為，令華為被孤立，變相成為了世界冷戰的另類演繹。
然後大家再看看快被融入成為大灣區沿岸城市的香港，看看那一條修訂《逃犯條例》，不知大家有否一種時光倒流100年的感覺？香港似乎已經無奈地成為了中國與世界各國之間的一個宣戰之地，而這條所謂「送中」條例，隨時變成一條導火線。
德國政府選擇在這個時候，公布批出兩名香港年輕人的難民庇護申請，絕對是一種無形姿態，在特區政府臉上打一巴掌，傳達一種清晰訊號，就是在德國眼中，香港已不再是昔日那個尊重「一國兩制」的香港。
不過特區政府似乎仍然未願正視國際社會對香港失去「一國兩制」的憂慮，又或是自視過高，真的以為只要成為大灣區一分子，大家一起盲目愛國，香港便可以豐衣足食！於是繼續以強硬姿態，硬推修訂《逃犯條例》。
既然如此，歐盟駐港澳辦事處，便正式以歐盟連同各成員國代表的名義，亦即28個國家，聯手向特區政府提出的修訂《逃犯條例》，發出正式的外交文件「外交照會」，重申歐盟對這一修訂的關注及憂慮，表達憂慮在港的歐盟國民可能面臨移交內地，接受不公平審訊。
其實過去兩個月，國際間對香港修訂《逃犯條例》一事，已經從不同渠道表達不安及反對，但是特首林鄭月娥的愛國思維，令她的口吻也變得像外交部發言人一樣。面對歐盟的外交照會，林鄭把責任歸咎有人到外國作不是事實的陳述，甚至指成員國代表只是「立場宣示」，並無實際內容表達修訂對國民的影響。面對德國給予兩名參與政治運動的香港年輕人難民身份，林鄭表示深切遺憾及強烈反對，認為此舉會使香港法治和司法獨立的國際聲譽受到不合理的損害，但其實真正在損害香港法治精神及國際聲譽的人是誰？你知我知，就只有一群始作俑者扮唔知。
一場中美貿易戰令華為在國際社會上被孤立了，至於中央以為透過修訂《逃犯條例》來增加政治籌碼的把戲，或純粹只會面子考慮？最終會否令香港變成另一個華為，被國際社會孤立？我真心希望一切只是自己想多了！
zoelamyy@gmail.com
法國有個瘋狂的屠宰師叫Yves-Marie Le Bourdonnec，曾被選為巴黎年度最佳屠宰師，江湖上人稱"the king of butchers"或"the angry butcher"等。在法國解牛的，不是牛肉佬，像我們叫豬肉佬一樣，法國人雅稱：屠宰師，名廚Alain Ducasse也是他的鐵粉。
懂肉、懂牛、嗜牛，為了尋找世上最好吃的牛，他從歐洲、走到南美洲、走到亞洲，以史詩式壯志「取牛經」，誓要找出全世界最美味的牛。他的整個牛之旅拍成了紀錄片《Steak（R）evolution》，我深愛的西班牙牛Rubia Gallega是他的世界之最，和牛都要靠邊站；他也選定了全球最佳牛扒餐廳，三甲之中，有英國的Hawksmoor。
Hawksmoor，在倫敦Knightsbridge和Seven Dials的我都有去，尤其前者，逛完Victoria & Albert美術館徒步走過去就是，簡單美味的一餐。所以忽然見到Hawksmoor鬧出驚世的公關奇聞，成為國際大新聞，登時叫我抓狂。
The shittiest project I ever worked on (2013) 449 luu 12 hrs 201 https://blog.plover.com/tech/prudential.html news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19998806 bonoboTP 4 hrs Having followed HN and similar dev culture (Dilbert etc.) for some time now, I feel a growing contradiction that I cannot fully resolve.
On the one hand big corporations are presented as these incompetent behemoths that are locked in their internal petty office politics, managers are clueless as to what is being or should be developed, and tons of money is wasted, they are wooed by empty marketing etc.
On the other hand these organizations are immensely wealthy and successful.
It may actually be that they are right, and for non-tech-centered companies this whole software stuff is really peanuts and their mental energy is better spent on other business-related stuff. So they will come up with random low-effort comments on all sorts of details because ultimately they (rightly) don't care. What actually matters is to negotiate deals like referral fees, or coming up with other contract ideas that will bring a lot of revenue in.
Or maybe it's just an equilibrium, a local optimum. You don't have to produce "good" stuff (in the developer's sense) without waste, precisely because the other company that you're targeting is also inefficient in similar ways.
I'm really not sure but I think it's important to look beyond just "haha, stupid managers, they can't make up their mind". There must be deeper reasons.
CPLX 3 hrs I've had this same thought, and have a pet theory about it. I think the answer is something like momentum is so unbelievably useful in business that having it is enough to be immensely wealthy and successful.
As someone who recently created yet another startup, I am reminded daily that literally everything I do has to be done for the first time. It's like molasses covering every part of the machine. When a client needs a proposal you have to write one from scratch, when someone wants payment terms or to negotiate a contract adjustment you have to figure out contract language. You don't have expense reimbursement forms, you don't have job descriptions, you don't have anything to use as a starting point or template for anything you do.
Big companies have all that. They have clients that are planning on using them again this year. They have meetings they took two years ago that are about to be a sale. They have a guy on the third floor that has seen this problem they're about to have once and knows how to avoid it. People instinctively trust them, so they don't have to explain themselves as much. People instinctively fear them, so their contracts get upheld. People that used to work for them now work at potential customers and call them up.
And on and on and on. Having a slightly busted software development process is, in fact, peanuts compared to all this.
Or, perhaps another way to say it is that there's a lot of different kinds of "software" besides the digital ones-and-zeroes kind we think about here. A group of humans all organized around a business purpose with tons of experience and momentum is a high functioning machine as well.
rossdavidh 3 hrs This theory, by the way, explains why efforts to turn around failing large companies are so rarely successful. Once that momentum is a bunch of bad decisions, etc. the momentum is working against you. But, up until that point, it is extremely powerful.
amelius 1 hr It's not just momentum in that sense; it's also the fact that wealth begets wealth. (Which you could also call momentum in a way.)
tmaly 1 hr This idea of momentum reminds me of Jim Collins Flywheel Effect
https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts/the-flywheel.html
I have to disagree with the broad statement that a busted software development process is peanuts. In highly regulated industries like finance, bad software can cost you billions in fines from regulators.
In these industries, they have to invest in technology and good processes if they want to stay in business.
w0utert 1 hr High-tech is similar. Where I work there are literally 100s of insanely bright people with backgrounds in math, physics, etc. who struggle for years to get their ideas into results and (ultimately) products. Usually things get stuck on simple software tasks like connecting things together, driving them in a feedback loop, or just identifying that all the parts are already there, scattered around the company, and someone just needs to write a framework to put them together. I honestly think huge business opportunities are lost because of inefficient software development processes.
In a sense, this lends credence to the theory that once you’re big and powerful and have lots of clients, you can afford to lose these opportunities. But I still think that you would have a huge competitor advantage without all the molasses.
PhasmaFelis 34 mins What is a "comparison company" in that article?
linuxftw 2 hrs Good analysis.
I think for software sales, this type of thing is slowly fading as it becomes more and more commoditization. For all but the largest of businesses, you go to AWS and pay the market price for compute and other services, there's not much need for contracts and negotiations and meetings, the price is the price. Going to a competitor or doing business the old way simply costs much more. Eventually, businesses align on consuming commodities as commodities, the spending slowly moves from CapEX to OpEX.
AWS is the power company now. You agree to their terms, and you pay their bill. Unless you're doing a major industrial facility that requires mega-watts of power, you don't need to interact with their sales staff; same applies to AWS (and ironically, you can probably use power as a proxy to relative deal size here, too).
100 years from now, all the conceivable software is going to exist that could exist, at least for 'business processes.' If your business is selling potatoes as a farmer to distributor, the software you need to participate efficiently in that market will already exist.
nullwasamistake 1 hr The upper end of the market is still contracts all the way down. My company has around 250 employees and every single service we use, software and otherwise, is a negotiated old school contract.
The market price isn't what most companies pay. If you pay significant amounts to Amazon (maybe 1 employee salary worth) you're screwing yourself if you don't negotiate lower rates
Edit: Just asked the corporate overlords. It's actually against our finance rules to pay for any recurring service charge without a negotiated contract.
luckydata 1 hr You're still paying market price, just not the published one. Negotiating b2b deals is a little like ordering from the secret menu at in&out. Doing tons of that lately and it's quite the mechanical endeavor. The only really annoying part of it is deals move only as quickly as the sales drones want it to. I have to sit through their "sales process" even if I know exactly what I want, I know what I can spend and ultimately the deal will be done on my terms. It's funny to think that some guy got high fived to death for selling me a contract for about 35% the original quote.
madhadron 1 hr
It's actually against our finance rules to pay for any recurring service charge without a negotiated contract.
Your company probably also employs a professional shark whose job it is to squeeze the blood out of every stone he is pointed towards. With even a modest number of sizeable contracts, such a person would pay for themselves very easily.
mruts 49 mins At my old company we were paying millions for contracts and software we didn't use or really didn't mean. One of the analysts volunteered to be the "undertaker" and renegotiate. After a year of screaming at people on the phone (I sat next to him), he managed to save us around a million dollars, which was around a 60% savings. He pocketed maybe 30% of the money saved that year. Not bad for a year of being a dick.
Spooky23 31 mins The Dilbert perspective is a shallow one.
End of the day, a big company or government agency is too big for any human to internalize. It's a machine that pumps out process, but the downside of consistent process that change is more difficult.
When I worked at an agency that supported social services, some guy was bitching and complaining about how everyone who wasn't him was stupid, the agency was awful, etc. One of the more respected directors walked by and heard this. She popped in and said something like "There are x million people who depend on us to feed their children. And y million people who expect us to do so in a responsible and equitable way. We've never missed a payment, ever, because of this team."
Another example is the military, which is probably the dumbest possible bureaucratic institution ever devised. Yet is capable of executing the mission with ruthless efficiency, and can survive in the face the adversity and loss that few organizations can.
Smaller organizations are always better at reacting to change, because there are fewer stakeholders. But, they suck at many things, including consistent delivery, paying things on time, and organizational resiliency. Software makes them better, but software is its own form of bureaucracy with its own set of problems.
blauditore 2 hrs I think success doesn't come because of these bad decisions and red tape, but despite them. I have the impression that in many areas, a certain "critical mass" makes a big difference, e.g. more market presence may generate a lot more sales even if the product is mediocre.
I still think that doing things the right way and getting rid of those famous inefficiencies could leverage success even further. With regards to software I think that's the difference between large companies with a known engineering culture (like Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft) as opposed to those known to be a bit more red-tapey (like IBM, Adobe).
But of course, "doing things the right way" is terribly hard to quantify, and so is "how much success would be possible". If numbers at the end of the year are already positive, good luck trying to convince C-level to introduce fundamental changes to existing processes.
org3432 1 hr
But of course, "doing things the right way" is terribly hard to quantify
I don’t think it is hard to quantify actually, shorter build times are better than longer ones, branch merges that take seconds are better than the ones that take up to a day, spending people’s time on higher level thought processes vs squandering their time going through pages of manual steps that could just be a script, etc. It’s just a lack of awareness of what the company is doing that turns them into molasses, and puts projects at risk of being canceled. The companies are still successful overall somehow, but individual employees learn and grow at a much slower pace than they’re capable of.
twblalock 2 hrs These organizations succeed because these inefficiencies are not the result of incompetence, but the result of prioritizing other things that have a bigger impact on the bottom line.
Software is viewed as a cost center at a lot of companies, and in many cases that is the correct decision. The company officers and managers understand this, which is why they act the way they do.
Their goal is not to make the best possible software -- it is to ensure the software is good enough that it does not hold back other areas of the business, and to achieve that within the budget they are given.
azhu 2 hrs There is a phenomenon that happens when things scale. A certain level of detail begins to fade into static fuzz around the edges.
Think about the difference in terminology between a coach and players. When a coach takes a team through a play, they usually don't tell the players which hand they need to dribble with or which foot to plant first when running, they use much broader strokes and leave the implementation details to the player.
Let's take the example of... perhaps a Jamaican bobsledding startup. In the early days, you don't know what you're doing so everything matters. You scrap to purchase airfare to get to key industry events so you can be where the players are. If you mess up almost anything, it's game over. But you make it there, and you perform like you knew you could. You pick up sponsors. Expenses like airfare are now no longer a problem. What before used to be a mad scramble to organize and scrape together funds and make sure you have a good pitch for the big meeting is now a smoothly oiled proven machine with accounting and assistant cogs. Your jerryrigged home workouts are now streamlined by an Olympic training facility. Your mind is now no longer occupied by what has become minutia to you. You don't really worry about grocery shopping because you have a team nutritionist. You don't care about how efficiently or inefficiently the process of grocery shopping and cooking goes down now, just that it does and is on time.
You no longer make music with an instrument. You conduct an orchestra. Your mind is now thinking in bigger blocks.
Software is just one section of most orchestras.
rossdavidh 3 hrs Actually, I have seen small companies do just as badly at things, but they don't stick around for long, because they die from these mistakes. The ones that CAN make mistakes like this again and again, must be huge, and also their mistakes are more visible because they're big.
Plus, small companies that make big mistakes that do survive, are scarred by the experience and tend not to repeat that particular kind of mistake again. Companies that can make a blunder of the sort described in this story, repeatedly, have to have been big in order to survive long enough to repeat it.
jldugger 29 mins IMO, the way to resolve this paradox is to realize that the equilibrium adjusts slowly, then all at once. IBM is a pretty clear example of your clueless behemoths. On the other hand, their net income per employee is now closing in on like $24,000 annually, which sounds good, until you realize it was $29,000 2 years ago, and Apple is around $600,000 and Facebook is around 2 million.
IBM will continue to target their most expensive employees for layoffs while hiring cheaper new grads, but even after those alleged practices, their profit per employee fell by 5k. Seems reasonable to expect they won't be around in a decade, though I'm no financial expert and this is a projection from two datapoints.
mdpopescu 3 hrs Large companies are inefficient because they suffer from a number of problems (calculation, internal politics, Peter's principle, Parkinson's law and so on). However, they can introduce savings due to lengthening the production process, economies of scale, (external) political power and other factors.
The fact that a large company is rich does not necessarily mean that the inefficiencies don't exist.
I somewhat agree with you on "this whole software stuff is really peanuts and their mental energy is better spent on other business-related stuff". For most companies this software stuff can be mostly irrelevant, and it's our fault this is the case. As Erik Dietrich says [1], we are "efficiencers" -- we're supposed to make all kinds of processes more efficient, not just be code monkeys and copy code from StackOverflow.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0722H41SG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
rjkennedy98 3 hrs Having worked for a while at one of these enormous companies I will take a stab at answering this:
Tech is an afterthought for most of these companies. Most of them are natural monopolies. Insurance for instance is a business that works such that the larger you are the lower the risk and cost. Take the ACA: many nonprofit startups tried to join the ACA marketplace to compete with the Big Boys. Essentially all failed.
These companies have so much money that they can afford to do things like 10 million dollar POCs (which I've seen). Often they have literally 5+ different teams doing the same exact thing and will pick the best out of that list.
In some cases (I won't say which) they essentially launder profits through the "tech" parts of the company. They basically optimize for cheap people they bill out to the "real" company at some enormous fee.
wool_gather 1 hr
These companies have so much money that they can afford to do things like 10 million dollar POCs (which I've seen). Often they have literally 5+ different teams doing the same exact thing and will pick the best out of that list.
Ugh. Reading stuff like this gets me deeply sad; what could have been done with that money and time instead? It makes me want to go escape to live in the hills, maybe even a full-on Wonko the Sane.
groestl 1 hr Don't forget that capitalism (with companies), and life itself does things that way. It's not necessarily elegant (although some might say it's actually elegant), but it works.
ambicapter 3 hrs
In some cases (I won't say which) they essentially launder profits through the "tech" parts of the company. They basically optimize for cheap people they bill out to the "real" company at some enormous fee.
Can you explain this differently? I don't understand how you would launder profits through yourself (or why you're laundering them at all-tax reasons?).
ekianjo 1 hr i guess outsourcing the actual work for very cheap and charging the end client a much higher amount. very common.
scruple 1 hr It's perplexed me, as well. What I've learned over the years with my current company may have an insight. When I joined, we were 50-100 employees. The tech was good. Revolutionary, in it's context and industry. We were actually doing something useful and good and positive for other people. In the last 3 years, however, we have seen tremendous growth. We're now closer to 300 employees, if not more. The tech is less revolutionary. We're now in an innovation through acquisition phase.
What I see is: most of this new cohort has no idea what our business is and they are overwhelmingly concentrated in middle management.
kouh 1 hr Reminds me of Microsoft. They only had two engineers working on MS-DOS 1.0, their most important and profitable product at the time. Despite recurrent industry criticism of the product and the launch of competing DR DOS (faster, better and 33% the price), it took Gates two years to react, with commercial tactics first (and eventually overdue product changes later)...
Source: http://www.ariplex.com/tina/tcfact01.htm
carlmr 59 mins My take on this: you're right that the other large competitors aren't better. That's just basic economics you only get good enough to be close to your competitors.
The other side is that a large company often gets large contracts. If you sell a software 10 million times it doesn't really matter if you spent 100x as much on it as a small company would. The small company with 10000 customers still is having 10x the revenue per work done.
Could you make more profit? Sure, but lacking market pressure you're rarely concerned with efficiency.
I just noticed my company always books flexible airline tickets. They cost about 2x as much as non flexible ones. I've never missed a flight and most of my colleagues haven't either. It makes sense if you're a busy manager that often doesn't fly. But for most engineers the flexibility costs more than what it's used for.
jordanbeiber 17 mins I believe that this is what the "digital transformation" is about, for real. I'm not even joking.
Only a wealthy company can spend $400.000.000 on an SAP project, for example, but in reality it would probably be better for the business long term, to build something custom and embrace the fact that IT & tech is important to achieve its goals. If it's not, why spend the money?
Doing it right probably means creating a "software factory" or tech hub within or outside of the company.
If we're talking a company with muscle and will to plow down $100s of millions on a massive tech/automation project, this should be feasible right?
For an example, see Lufthansas tech initiative: https://lh-innovationhub.de
(I'm not in any way affiliated to LH, I just happened to read about it a while back, while trying to convince my then CEO that something like that probably would be better that spending millions on proper crap from 3rd party)
I'm sure there's many other examples.
Traditionally, the problem is that with money comes politics. Everyone wants a piece of this pie, and a lot of non-tech/dev employees are used to turning to vendors.
The thing is, what you want to achieve is a cultural change, not simply an organisational update (which is why, in the LH case, the tech hub is not located at LH HQ. It is not a cultural match, according to the CEO).
Does this change even require money, except salaries for the "right people"?
Big business have done IT & tech a huge disservice by outsourcing and off-shoring things not considered "core business", such as tech & coding. The pendulum is swinging, at least in my experience, and suddenly everyone need dev expertise again. Of course they do, because most likely you will be disrupted by a company without the legacy, that is sprung from tech.
Well, not a disservice to us still around, but it's obvious that theres a lack of expertise to just pick up off the streets.
How long you can keep a lot of people employed in a traditional IT dept. and buy a lot of half-crap vendor solutions that you glue together in half-assed ways I guess depends inertia of you customer base, and also as pointed out below, already accumulated wealth.
scarecrowbob 3 hrs "I'm really not sure but I think it's important to look beyond just "haha, stupid managers, they can't make up their mind". There must be deeper reasons."
You might take it as evidence that, of all the myriad aspects of a business, scale far outweighs all other factors for generating a profit.
You don't have to be "good" (whatever that might mean) to generate profit, production costs just need to be marginally cheaper than your prices.
org3432 52 mins The managers and directors if you talk to them will frankly tell you they have no idea what’s going on, they hire people and somehow the problems they were hired to solve don’t get solved. I had a founder tell me he created an entire department to improve the developer experience and nearly 20 employees later they’ve not made any successful improvements, they just limp along the broken systems.
NateEag 3 hrs In most cases, the large companies being picked on as "not knowing what to develop" are not software companies. They make their money from selling things or human services, not programs.
If software is not your core competency, you don't need to be any good at it to make money.
ashelmire 44 mins From my observation, these companies become wealthy and successful first, then develop awful cultures as innovation becomes less important (and more difficult as you get away from your core business), and extracting maximum value from current capabilities (sales) becomes more important. Once you get to making billions of dollars, your organization can afford to be a lot less efficient and less innovative technologically.
CM30 1 hr It's a mix of things to be honest. For instance, you're right, for many non tech centred companies the software stuff isn't all that important.
Hell, in many situations in general it isn't that important, since knowing the right problem to solve and who to market the solution to often matters a lot more than the technical quality of the solution in question. People and companies generally don't judge products and services by code quality or development practices, and unless these cause it to constantly break, don't really care about them at all.
But other factors do matter here. If a company is a known brand, then they can keep getting customers for terrible products for a long, long time, simply because they're the first name people go to. At some point you become so big, you get so much momentum, that you can basically publish/release anything and people will buy it. Apple could sell the most broken phones on the planet, and have 10 million + people rush out and buy every one.
Do companies get away with it forever? No, but the bigger you are, the longer it takes for you to fail after your products/services become crappy.
And yeah, as you say, local optimums matter too. If most companies in your field are inefficient and put out terrible products, then there's not much pressure for you to be much better.
paulddraper 4 mins I will invoke the Peter Principal [1], but for businesses.
These now big corporations were really good at something...so good that they beat the competitors, grew their market share, expanded their head count, etc.
However, operating at a higher and higher scale (or with more modern technology) brings new challenges that weren't part of the game before. Ones that they are not necessarily good at. Eventually they might become great enough to threaten the company itself (AOL, AT&T, Yahoo, etc.)
The inefficiencies you see are characteristics that have be acquired due to the level of success and exposure to new challenges. The inefficiencies are not characteristics that got them to that success.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
Quarrelsome 45 mins
On the other hand these organizations are immensely wealthy and successful.
Have you read "Searching for Stupidity"?
Basically the NASDAQ of 1990 has almost no relation to that of 2000 not because of competence but of stupidity. Big lumbering behemoths shoot themselves in the foot and fall over.
collyw 1 hr I worked for a large investment bank a good few years ago. It was probably the crappiest job that I have had in terms of job satisfaction. There was a high staff turnover and the answer was to throw money at the problem and keep the churn going.
It seemed to work for them.
kevstev 2 mins I also worked at a few IBs before I came to the realization that one was just worst than the next. I thought that they worked by underpaying people just out of school, but dangling the carrot of big bucks that always seemed just out of reach (maybe next year I will get the big bonus!) and then churning and burning.
I am back in finance at a private company, and I am part of our on-campus recruiting efforts, and I frequently tell candidates "listen, take a job with one of our direct competitors, that's fine, but whatever you do don't take an offer at an investment bank if you can avoid it- they will just work you to death largely filling tech debt and you won't get the opportunity to work with the truly best and brightest..."
rb808 1 hr There are some bad organizations, but overall most are not incompetent behemoths. Yes a little website for a startup that gets a few thousand people doing trivial things is technologically much more advanced. But when you get involved with millions of customers are lots of complexities that make everything complicated.
whatever_dude 3 hrs I think it's more likely that they stumbled into a profitable position in some market or another, and that became their bread-and-butter. Being successful for a long time breeds incompetence.
badpun 2 hrs To be successful in capitalism, you don’t need to be awesome - it’s sufficient to be no worse than competition. And the competition is the same huge, kafkesque mess - primary because no one yet figured out how to organize thousands of people without creating inert beaurocracy in the process.
aidos 8 hrs Not me, but one of my favourites would be when a guy joined our team. We were an agency and he’d been hired by the client to eventually take over. On the first morning I walked him through the codebase and showed him how it all worked, how to extend it etc. After a while I said “any questions?” He replied, “yeah, just one - am I meant to be a developer?”
Turned out that when the startup had brought him in as CTO they failed to mention that he was eventually going to be the sole developer.
weka 4 hrs Gotta ask -- how did the next few weeks/months pan out?
aidos 1 hr To his credit he just kinda sucked it up and got on with it. I was happy because eventually I didn’t have to work on it anymore. Surprisingly, all the money they wasted on buying rack servers and Oracle enterprise licences didn’t net them more than 10 visitors a day and it feel apart. Once it all went pop, him and I crossed paths on other projects too, got to trade stories about the absurdity of it all.
jawilson2 4 hrs So he was the OTO - Only Technical Officer
TheRealDunkirk 3 hrs He got catfished.
I'm feeling it, because I was recently catfished.
stanleydrew 3 hrs What does catfished mean in this context? Mislead into a role you aren't suited for?
pault 3 hrs Accepting a job offer based on a false representation. Usually by offering you an inflated title and promising responsibilities and opportunities you won't actually have.
Double_a_92 2 hrs Like when you get the Big Data Analyst job, but you are actually supposed to create plots from Excel data and put them in some sales Powerpoint...
linuxftw 2 hrs Oh, that sounds so brutal. Had no idea this was a thing that happened to people. I would-first week quit.
komali2 1 hr My buddy quit a senior developer role day 1 at Walmart labs because they sat him down and presented him with the task of doing nothing but technical writing.
bshimmin 8 hrs I think anyone who has done any consulting with a big organisation probably has one of these stories. As one of the other commenters says, if the end result is something that the client is happy with, and they actually pay you, you should basically consider this a success!
I spent six months building a single-page app (back when that was still an exciting sounding thing) for a major US financial institution; by the time we actually delivered it, the result was so watered down from the initial proposal that I could've just taken some screenshots from what my designer had produced six months earlier and put them in a PowerPoint deck and said "Done!" - because this was, in fact, what the VP at the company ended up doing, except they were screenshots from the web app we built that no one other than the VP himself ever used.
On the plus side, I became good friends with the VP and the project paid off a significant chunk of the mortgage on my first house.
pault 3 hrs As an aside, I sometimes have to play UX designer when there is no one qualified available, and I've used every wireframing tool in the market trying to find something that allows me to create UIs as quickly as I can think. A few weeks ago I gave up and in frustration I put together a quick powerpoint so the product team could work on it themselves. It turns out PP is exactly what I was looking for! I found that all the other tools required a lot of setup and configuration that slowed me down, and powerpoint is so simple that you can just start plopping squares down on the page and put a few links in-between slides. I think the real gain for me is that most products I work on end up being data grid heavy, and creating tables in balsalmiq/whatever is always a nightmare.
Double_a_92 2 hrs Yeah, Powerpoint is a surprisingly good drawing tool. I remember in college a lot of my classmates used it to create illustrations for their thesis.
Jedi72 8 hrs Good thing there are no real problems left to work on in this world or this would be a gross mis-allocation of macro resources.
(No judgement on you OP this is the situation we're in)
clarry 6 hrs Ah but if someone paid for it, the problem must be exactly that valuable to them! And if it's valuable to someone, it must be a Real Problem!
weka 4 hrs When it comes down to it, we're not paid to code. We're paid to solve problems with code and if paying you $75/hr as a contractor to build me three webpages with CI/CD capabilities is it, then off you go.
pault 3 hrs $75? That's about half of what I would charge myself, and an agency is going to be $300 minimum.
azhenley 4 hrs They needed this developer to help them understand what they needed. Every project I’ve worked on (even personal projects) has a fair amount of this.
soVeryTired 3 hrs Out of interest, do you mean that seriously or are you parodying the sort of knee-jerk reply that an economist might produce?
wool_gather 1 hr Personally the capitalized "Real Problem" (along with my current mood) makes me lean towards sarcasm, but yeah, Poe's law...
mekkkkkk 6 hrs The whole point of all of these stories is funny/sad misallocations of resources. The "real problems" thing is a completely unrelated discussion. Not sure why you'd want to weave that in.
airstrike 4 hrs He's weaving it in because the parent called it "a success", which is only true from your individual perspective, but not from a societal one. And some people want more from what they're doing than just personal gratification.
asveikau 3 hrs I agree that our definition of success should have a strong societal component. However, if you expect societal benefit from every action, including actions heavily dependent on something like the whim of a consulting client, you may be faced with a lot of anxiety when you inevitably fall short, anxiety which may ultimately hamper your later individual capability to achieve societal benefit.
mekkkkkk 3 hrs I think you might be overloading the word "success". A successful project doesn't necessarily imply anything beyond delivery of what was agreed upon.
pbhjpbhj 4 hrs Did he even get personal gratification, he got paid handsomely (by the sounds of it), but it didn't come across as him feeling fulfilled beyond that.
bshimmin 3 hrs I can confirm that I both got paid handsomely (especially for the second phase of the project where we were on a retainer and literally did one day of work over the course of three months, barring a couple of phone calls) and that I felt very little satisfaction or gratification at the end of it, especially when the whole thing we had built was eventually rebuilt by a different offshoring company using a much clunkier technology stack without so much as a glance at our code.
I stand by my original assessment that, from the perspective of both the client (everyone was happy with the end result) and my consultancy (we delivered work and we got paid), it was a success.
vibrato 4 hrs This kind of misallocation is really the only thing keeping velocity of money high enough to sustain the economy
wool_gather 1 hr While I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, I think it's worth questioning the unspoken premise here:
Is there no other way to support human life than these accelerating grinding gears of money-shuffling?
chii 4 hrs Or those losses the only thing preventing the creation of even greater things
vibrato 16 mins Well, of course. Problem is that, apparently, we're doing the best we can.
pbhjpbhj 4 hrs Could you expand that a little for us slowpokes?
Aside, I assume you mean "to sustain the [USA] economy"? Perhaps you mean World economy, or EU, or ...?
Balgair 31 mins Oh dear God ... I just finished this exact project this week (ok, 90% similar)0, everything he says is true.
The insanely messy data (bathroom intergers are a mess!), the firm essentially being just a collection of smaller firms in one building, the massive issues with 'finder fees', the near endless list of VPs that have to pass anything off, the contractors not knowing anything, the 'real' employees also not knowing anything, the hosting of websites, the brokers paying for useless (to them) web-dev, it's all true! Nothing has changed in ~25 years!
0 I know you're reading this Jeff.
SubuSS 59 mins These are the instances where I feel it is definitely worth keeping some people around who act as glue. (or old timers).
In our company - we have a tech lead role which is supposed to be the technical point of contact for a given team. This person is expected to have answers or have a way to find the right answers about the nuances of the team.
The good ones are invaluable. Whenever new projects come up, the modus operandi is to write a proposal, review it with your current team for sanity (on whether it achieves its purpose) and then with this group of relevant stake holders / tech leads to ensure you're not getting some giant thing wrong that can nuke some other part of the business.
The problem I see with this role though - we (I am the one for analytics and one of the TLs for Data Infrastructure at Snap) have to handle 20-25 hours of meetings around all these coordination AND ensure some work gets done in your own area so that you are in touch with the code bases you are fiddling with. So as much of an alluring title that is, you are giving up deep dive development (like I was able to do building storage engines for DynamoDB). Tradeoffs :/
And there are cases where the tech leads don't have the answers (new or incompetent) OR they think of a weird case couple of months down the line, but this works out overall.
I probably should write a blog about this - but anyway, I don't know how this works out in the non-software world: Why wouldn't you have a knowledge person/council around?
sequoia 26 mins
The problem I see with this role though - we (I am the one for analytics and one of the TLs for Data Infrastructure at Snap) have to handle 20-25 hours of meetings around all these coordination AND ensure some work gets done in your own area so that you are in touch with the code bases you are fiddling with.
If you figure out the answer to this PLEASE share it with me. This describes my current role; whenever I focus on one aspect (eg actually writing a few lines of code) the other (keeping up with planning) suffers.
My suspicion is that “tech lead” in this context basically means “manager,” but employers know many devs are scared of the word manager, so we have the highly ambiguous “tech lead” title, which allows dev managers to be in denial about their actual role.
seanwilson 4 hrs
The report I got about the demo was that the real estate people loved it, it was just what they wanted.
“But,” they said, “how do we collect the referral fees?”
This is why you need to understand what problem a client wants solved and not just build what their suggested solution is. Even if you build their suggested solution perfectly, they're not going to be happy at the end if their original problem isn't solved. Their suggested solution should only be used as a starting point to understanding their requirements.
JoeAltmaier 3 hrs That's a confusion about who the client is. This was a web page, to be used by a public consumer. The real estate people were, in my view, obstructionist old-guard trying to preserve their paper empire. Not the client. They torpedoed an early example of the web removing the middleman and streamlining an industry. Prudential's agents weren't ready for the revolution.
seanwilson 3 hrs Isn't that a lesson then that you should make sure you're talking to and getting buy-in from decision makers higher up the chain instead of people whose decisions are more likely to be overturned?
jimmydddd 3 hrs Hypothetically yes. But in some cases, you are hired by a department in a large division of a huge corp., with many layers of management above the department that hired you. And the end product is for a department in a totally different division of the corp. In such a case, you don't have access to the actual end customer.
wool_gather 1 hr The right move at the point where it got presented to and rejected by the other division was probably to say "Well, I built what we agreed on. I'm happy to revise the product based on this external feedback, but that's not included in the original fee".
But the article did say that this was at a point in his career where he might not have been experienced enough to make that call.
seanwilson 2 hrs Why wouldn't you be able to get access to the end customer to validate what you're building?
oblio 1 hr Because he's not the one paying you.
c3534l 10 hrs This... this is just my life right now. Get a contract, spend all of my time doing anything other than actually accomplish anything, and then after wasting time adhering to project requirements that don't make sense, wind up delivering something that could have been done in 10% of the time if people listened to me at the start of the project.
rubber_duck 8 hrs
wind up delivering something that could have been done in 10% of the time if people listened to me at the start of the project.
I felt that way until I eventually got to a point where people did listen - and it turned out to be false. I underestimate the effort required on first glance and I oversimplify things in hindsight. Also I'm a developer - not a business guy - I can guess a lot of things on the requirement side but a lot of it is outside of my domain. This is something that I have to be aware of now when I'm in a position to give such estimates.
Don't get me wrong - I think there's a lot of room for improvement in almost everything I worked on before and after me - but that gut feeling of how I could have done things was never on point for me. With the article in question - too many people involved in the decision - no way to know the final result for sure until people see it have a bunch of meetings, see the iterations and decide on this - rarely do you have the person with deciding power know/understand these things clearly from the start. And you need to account for bureaucracy BS time-waste - it's just a fact of life when dealing with such clients.
hamilyon2 4 hrs Your comment was something like eye - opener for me.
haskal 9 hrs Start a consultancy, name it (or if you have one, rename it to) Cassandra0.
avar 8 hrs And in keeping with the spirit of the article charge murderous fees to help people with their "Big Data" Cassandra installations, only to find out after weeks of wading through a management quagmire that the data in question can be stored in a few KB text file.
dullgiulio 5 hrs Incidentally, Cassandra is called like that because she kills the /Oracle/...
unixhero 2 hrs Devious! I love it.
mgkimsal 6 hrs "Big Data" doesn't mean "makes Excel slow down" or "needs to scroll in Excel" :) If you can fit it on a thumbdrive you can buy from a Walmart, it's probably not 'big data'.
teddyuk 5 hrs This really is true, I worked on a project where we were meant to be getting hourly files into a data lake, the files so small we couldn't reach the recommended size of 256mb per file (compressed parquet in azure adls) - the files were like 1 mb each - a years worth of data was tiny and the processing overhead ridiculous
jjoonathan 5 hrs If your workflows don't bog down your servers, add big data technologies until they do!
walshemj 5 hrs I think if you cant fit a single data set on the biggest commonly used hard drive is another good metric.
allenskd 5 hrs It's pretty much what's happening on my assigned project. It's a legacy app created in the 90s... most of the time spent is just things that takes 1-3 days but due to the constant tweaks and re-tweaks it can take months. In a personal sense it doesn't affect me. I do the work they require me to do and get paid for it. Professionally and personally, I'm a huge mess because I'm frustrated on how bad is the decisionmaking. I feel I'm just wasting, and even though I'm paid for it it just doesn't feel like I'm doing anything with my career. Sigh.
diggan 5 hrs
In a personal sense it doesn't affect me
I'm a huge mess
I feel I'm just wasting
doesn't feel like I'm doing anything with my career
Sounds like it does affect you in every sense.
You should probably try to adjust that, before you burnout not just for that specific job but your carrer in general
allenskd 5 hrs I'm burnout and have been questioning myself after 2 years servicing clients in the company I'm in if I'm good enough for other roles (using as example) promoted in HackerNews, or whatever job portal.
When I spend so much time idling by and letting that frustration build up... I just start questioning if I'll be able to do other roles and not fail the team or whatever company I'll be working for because of how dormant I am.
It's not like I knew a lot. I don't consider myself to be super talented, just the average guy trying to make it out there but yea... I need to look into moving on.
Lewton 2 hrs I was in the same situation as you at my previous job, feeling like I wasn’t learning anything because I was working on a legacy system where every design and business decision made was pure insanity
After five years at this place I finally got my shit together and applied for a job
I spent the job interview asking pointed questions about their infrastructure and how they ran their business and then I contrasted their way of doing things with my old job and explained why their way was so much better
Turns out I was learning! And learning how NOT to do things carries some value
beauzero 4 hrs My advice is to interview a couple times (with companies you don't mind missing out on), find out what you are missing and work on side projects that interest you. Then interview again about 6 months later. There is nothing like interviews to set your mind straight. Competition and hard questions seem to energize my "survival" instinct.
...doing something hard and outside of your comfort zone I guess is what I am recommending.
EForEndeavour 4 hrs Invest time into thinking about and listing specific things you've learned (technical, but also organizational, managerial, etc.) from maintaining this horrible legacy system.
This list will show you that it hasn't been a complete waste of your time, and it will show future employers that you're thoughtful, observant, respectful of your own time, and healthily critical.
arethuza 9 hrs My estimate would be that about 70% of all IT/software projects on the planet are like that.
Edit: Clearly I am in an optimistic mood this morning.
retSava 3 hrs Sometimes the desired result is not known ahead, at project start, and twisting and turning is part of the process of (hopefully) ending up with something that people are happy with. It's just part of human nature and needs to be embraced. You just ensure you are paid for it.
wool_gather 53 mins This is the optimistic take. :) But there's a difference between
exploring the design space and iterating until you end up with a product that makes the customer happy
and
endlessly reworking decisions every time the next "stakeholder" in the customer's org sees a part of the bikeshed that they have an opinion on
One is a skill-engaging and -enhancing professional project. The other is the road to burnout.
csomar 7 hrs This has been my experience and it might be sane. The 90% went on project/requirements discovery. Remember that you are doing this through several people, so it's multi-dimensional and once you leave 2/3 dimensions things start to get really complex.
itronitron 7 hrs I think most of the impediments are intentionally created to hinder projects so that nothing looks to easy or successful. This may help explain why some PMs or product owners inflate the product features when internally advertising the effort, that way if other people throw up roadblocks they are less likely to impact a core feature.
mdpopescu 7 hrs I suspect something similar. I had a project which had a team of developers for six months; we didn't do anything the first four months (I spent a lot of time on HN during that time!). After those four months, we discovered that during the last month, being December, we were not supposed to release anything (as it might endanger the end-of-year runs). We did the entire thing in two weeks and then deployed it in the remaining two (deploying was a nightmare).
At some point, we discovered that the team lead wanted to be promoted to manager so he needed a reasonably-complex-but-actually-simple project as a "win".
joncrane 2 hrs The consolation prize is that you're paid by the hour.
twervle 10 hrs
if people listened to me at the start of the project.
The dream of all software developers.
arethuza 8 hrs That assumes that the problem is best solved by developing new software - which quite frequently isn't the case!
clarry 6 hrs That assumes software developers think the problem is best solved by developing new software - which quite frequently isn't the case!
Oh how I wish we could stop reinventing this same stupid wheel badly. And change the "wants" framed as requirements into something more reasonable, so that we could get away developing less bumpy wheels, perhaps even use one off the shelf.
jimmaswell 2 hrs
Oh how I wish we could stop reinventing this same stupid wheel badly. And change the "wants" framed as requirements into something more reasonable, so that we could get away developing less bumpy wheels, perhaps even use one off the shelf.
We'd be out of many jobs if this happened.
clarry 2 hrs We'd be out of many jobs if people started breaking windows.
Or maybe that time & money could be spent on something else, it's not like we're running out of things to do.
arethuza 5 hrs Well, in my experience a lot of developers do generally see the world in terms of opportunities to develop new software.
Edit: I don't think is a bad thing and I am prone to it myself !
reallydontask 5 hrs I am very much in agreement with you.
At my previous place, after several times where the wheel was re-invented I asked one of my senior guys what did he think he got paid for.
Perhaps unsurprisingly the answer was to design features, write code, review code and advise support. Whether any of this delivered any value to the company was, seemingly neither here nor there and he'd held my position before I joined the company, so it's not like he never had to think about these things or at least he should've thought about those things but the code would testify that he hadn't.
Sadly, this is pretty common
lmm 3 hrs I do think it's a bad thing. In my experience the best developers are those who view new software as a last resort (or rather a second-last resort, with manual work being the last resort).
tmaly 5 hrs As he said he was green, I think this really shows that early on, young developers do not always understand the importance of requirements gathering and problem understanding.
Just yesterday, a junior developer from my team came to me about a request to generate some output from historical data. I went back to the business side and determined it was just a simple switch of several columns in the input data to get the results.
My junior developer at first thought it was some monumental problem that was going to require a lot of work.
duxup 2 hrs Similar story.
I'm a noob when it comes to coding but I worked a technical job with customers for 20 years before changing paths.
I was in a position where I joined a place as the "new old guy" and several new college grads.
One day the president of the company comes to me and asks "You know the questions to ask! Some of our experienced guys don't."
It takes a lot of effort for two people or groups to form an idea and be on the same page, understanding "all" doesn't mean *, thinking of roadblocks before you get there (seeing them coming), softly working around those roadblocks, helping frustrated people, offering alternatives without going off the rails, listening closely to find out what is REALLY important and etc. I think that stuff just comes with experience working with humans.
My own experience makes me think everyone should be required to work some form of technical support for a while ;)
mooreds 3 hrs Yup. Knowing when to go back and clearly define the requirements is a senior type of behavior.
"We don't have time to think, just do!" is a recipe for disaster.
lmkg 1 hr As the saying goes, months of development work can save hours of planning.
duxup 2 hrs They said they wanted everything so the DB displays in a table ... everything.
IggleSniggle 1 hr Hey works for me, let me just get my web-scrapper going so I can--hey wait a minute!
kingaillas 2 hrs Great story!
Out of curiosity I wondered about the current state of the Prudential website. So I searched, and found Berkshire Hathaway bought the real estate arm in 2012 and now they are Berkshire Hathaway Home Services.
I did a local search on the website, received pictures and basic information (price) for each house... and for each one it lists the same toll-free number as a contact.
So the site he built basically works the same way!
vfc1 9 hrs My shittiest project was a hostile takeover from another development team.
In the interview, the manager told me a bunch of BS that turned out to be completely false: that it was a new project, that lots of new development was expected, that there where performance challenges to be tackled.
When I got there, I found out on day one that the goal of the project was to take over the code base from an existing development team, with which the customer had lost trust because among other things they refused to use their new shitty trouble ticket system (which was awful), and instead insisted in using JIRA.
Also, they had a server running in Tomcat that they didn't want to migrate to Websphere.
Turns out that we didn't even have access to the code, until we accidentally found that the SVN repo was listed in an infrastructure powerpoint, and we did have a VPN connection set up.
We were at the taking over consulting firm offices and not at the customer, reverse engineering the existing 7-year-old codebase without any assistance from the development team, which didn't even know that they were getting replaced.
After months of reverse engineering and producing useless documentation so that the client manager could say in some meeting that the system was well documented, we ended moving in and mostly doing production support instead of development.
Our managers were afraid that we broke something, so they did everything to make sure that we didn't spend our time coding.
After a few months, I just asked out because it was not development work and this type of work was actually harming my career and even had my consulting manager actually shout to me on the phone and tell me that he would blacklist me at his company.
Software consulting is some of the shadiest businesses out there, beware.
The amount of lies that gets told to candidates just to get them signed at the dotted line to contracts without exit clauses (which was the case with me), the use of outdated job descriptions, the lack of information that you have about the actual job even if you ask a lot of questions in interviews, you really never know what you are getting into until day one.
Here is a tip from what I have learned: ask a ton of questions about what the job will actually be, if they answer evasively or strangely seem like they want to avoid the questions and move on to other aspects of the interview, that is a huge red flag.
itronitron 7 hrs
Our managers were afraid that we broke something, so they did everything to make sure that we didn't spend our time coding.
that's like hiring football players and not letting them on the field out of fear they'll score for the other team.
please write a book!
vfc1 7 hrs Yes its insane LOL Managers were non-coders themselves, and they looked at developers with suspicion.
This happens in a lot of projects, where developers are almost treated like children or assembly-line workers.
I realized through small hints and queues over time that the goal was to take over the maintenance of the project and make sure that we could fix things if something broke, but not add any new features.
They even had a management term for what we were doing. They called it KIR - Keep It Running! LOL
teddyuk 5 hrs yes but happens a lot - if you dont change it, it won't break (expept it will, every time because the reason you don't change it is because it is crap in the first place)
em-bee 7 hrs could you elaborate on the negative effects on your career? were you a contractor or an employee? and why would someone blacklist you specifically? how was that consulting manager related to the project?
i mean as an employee, if i get put in a hard position, sometimes the only choice is to quit, so, in that case, the CV would have an entry that you would not look back at to happily, but other than getting out as fast as you could why would being stuck in such a situation harm your career?
vfc1 7 hrs Yes sure, already after a few months doing production support and reverse engineering instead of coding, you start getting questions on interviews about why are you not coding lately anymore.
This was a bad look, because hiring managers want active developers for coding positions. I ended up not even mentioning that the position did not involve much coding on later interviews, I left after 6 months.
You are put in a tough position because you will have an entry of 3 to 6 months on your profile, which is generally a red flag for hiring managers as it's too short.
An entry with a full year or more will not raise any eyebrows, but 3 months will. Also, because you leave against their will, they won't give you references to the next jobs.
I did end up leaving it was a real nightware, and never looked back, but to this day I feel that I was flat out lied to on the interview about the job content.
In other interviews at other places, I was left out critical details, like for example that the team is moving to another city in two months, and you are expected to go with them.
So this why I say, you never know what you are getting into with software consulting, it's a shady business.
With the high turnover rates and the difficulty to find developers, hiring managers are incentivized to embellish otherwise mundane positions in the interview process, leading to unmotivated staff and further turnover.
tomrod 5 hrs Several 3 months stints are a problem. One, bookended by reasonable work, is a filter. If a company is overly concerned with one, they just want a skill hire, which may or may not be your target.
You can describe the stint in several ways, such as "the strategic direction the consultancy took was away from software and into project management early in the project cycle. My personal strengths lie in..." or some such.
mdpopescu 3 hrs
You are put in a tough position because you will have an entry of 3 to 6 months on your profile, which is generally a red flag for hiring managers as it's too short.
As an employee, probably. As a contractor, I prefer short contracts (1-3 months is short, 6 months is average) with a clear deliverable. If I wanted to just "sit around and do whatever" I'd get employed.
em-bee 1 hr agree, it's all a matter of how you look at it. in my CV i don't even make a distinction between contracting and employment. i have even been contracting with and was employed by the same company at different times.
RhodesianHunter 7 hrs Or just avoid consulting. There are plenty of other opportunities in software that AFAICT have better hours and higher pay.
vfc1 7 hrs Higher pay than consulting its hard, a consulting job pays usually almost twice as much as a permanent job.
I prefer it to permanent, because besides the monetary aspect you can also get into new projects just starting out more often, and that is were you learn more when compared to maintenaince projects.
What type of opportunities would you recommend other than consulting?
zaphar 5 hrs I believe maintaining software is great way to level up some of the most important parts of software engineering.
How do you design software so that it is easier to modify over time?
What will your software need that isn't specific to the business features requested when it is being operated in production?
You severely limit your experience when you keep yourself from being around for the aftermath of your software 3-5 years later.
tigershark 7 hrs Contracting is different from consulting. As far as I understand when you are consulting you are a permanent employee of a consulting company that assigns you to various projects. When you are contracting you work for a temporary period of time exclusively for a client until your contract ends or you find better opportunities. The first case is paid double of the permanent to the consulting company, but the employee of the consulting company is lucky if he gets as much as a normal permanent. A contractor on the other hand gets paid much more than a permanent, especially counting the less taxes that he needs to pay. There is a 3rd option when you actually own the consulting company, but then it’s up to you to find clients and if needed additional resources to assign to the various projects, but in that case you may be paid even more than contracting if you have no down time between projects.
barrkel 6 hrs That's not what I understand those terms to mean.
A contractor is effectively a non-permanent employee: someone you hire for a fixed period because you have irregular work load and you need some extra people temporarily. I say effectively a non-permanent employee, but it's really skirting the edge here: if the relationship is too much like an employee, then the contractor is an employee for tax purposes.
A consultant is someone you hire for their expertise. They're a specialist; they tell you what you should be doing, rather than doing work you specify.
https://www.itworld.com/article/2801854/know-the-difference-...
https://www.crunch.co.uk/knowledge/tax/consultant-contractor...
IT contractors are also usually employed by contracting companies that take care of accounting and other overheads, and if they do things like marketing and referral, they'll eat a significant chunk of the fees too. I don't think there's a significant difference in organizational structure between contractors and consultants in this way. It's mostly that consultants address the problem at a bigger distance, and are more likely to be drawing up the plan, rather than working on the execution.
tigershark 6 hrs ok, it makes sense, but then the consultant is kind of the 3rd option in my previous post but his job is to advise rather than actually do all the work, right?
RhodesianHunter 6 hrs Contractors have to pay more in taxes, not less, since they owe both sides of social security and Medicare.
tigershark 6 hrs I guess it depends from the country and the type of contractor. In UK, with a limited company, you pay less taxes (at least until next April). If you are under an umbrella company you will pay more taxes because you’ll be paying all the taxes of a normal employee plus the taxes of the employer. No idea if it is different in US and other countries honestly...
yardstick 5 hrs What happens next April?
tigershark 5 hrs It’s a very good question, and a long story. As far as I know still no one has a certain answer. The back story is that in April 2017, if I remember correctly, all the contractors that worked for public companies were forced to be under the IR35 rule. This rule, in short, tells that the contractors are equiparable to permanent employees. So they had to pay taxes as permanent employees, without the perks, like paid holidays, sick days and so on. This caused a quite massive loss of public contractors, understandably. From April next year they are implementing the same schema in the private sector, with the difference that it will be up to the employer to declare who is inside IR35 and who is not. The mainstream theory is that employers will start putting everyone under IR35 to avoid problems with HMRC. Even if this won’t be the case at the beginning, after the first couple of high visibility cases in which hmrc punishes the employers for some wrong IR35 classification, all the others would want to avoid the risk and headaches and will classify everyone inside IR35. We’ll see next year how it turns out, but I’m not very optimistic. Luckily for now I’m shielded, but I’m paying an eye watering amount of taxes...
mattkevan 6 hrs After working in a web agency for years, my number 1 red flag that the project is going to go badly is the quality of their current website they’re hiring you to fix/replace.
If it’s solid but just a bit old or needs more features, you’re fine. But, if it’s crap, look out.
The quality or lack of is never down to the the people who built it (unless it was by the MD’s nephew or something), especially if the client blames them for it.
It just shows they can’t run a project properly and whatever you end up with will be just a slightly newer pile of crap. And they’ll slag you off to the next lot.
Number two red flag is if they say at any point “You tell us, you’re the experts!” This can be translated to, “We don’t know what we want but we’re going to reject whatever you say anyway.”
mdpopescu 3 hrs
Number two red flag is if they say at any point “You tell us, you’re the experts!” This can be translated to, “We don’t know what we want but we’re going to reject whatever you say anyway.”
I disagree with this being a red flag. That's exactly why I hired someone to build me a small website. It's not because I don't know HTML / CSS / JS; it's because I'm bad at (visual) design. I wanted someone who knows what they're doing to use their expertise and give me a good product.
mattkevan 1 hr That’s great, you know to hire an expert and let them get on with it.
The problems start when the client either can’t or won’t explain what they want, then gets upset that what you produce doesn’t match what’s in their heads. At that point they start trying to undo every decision and things go south rapidly.
yingw787 1 hr Ahahaha...
One company I worked for had a great website. One of my coworkers worked on it as his baby and took great care of it. Rest of the software stack was a dumpster fire.
One other coworker came on board because they thought "no bad company would ever have a bad website". The guy who hired him left a week after he joined. One developer left every week for four weeks afterwards.
Website quality is a weak signal; I'd say if a website didn't have any errors or warnings in $BROWSER DevTools, or made a mention of not pasting JavaScript here or having an explicit "oh hey you're a developer we're hiring", then that's good. Otherwise keep asking questions.
otabdeveloper1 9 hrs
Prudential Real Estate is a franchise operation. Prudential does not actually broker any real estate. Instead, a local franchisee pays a fee for the use of the name and logo and other services.
I don't know how contracting works, but for corporate project the rule is always "follow the money", then once you figure out the money flow, only then do the requirement gathering bit.
Doing it in the opposite order will result in tears.
beat 4 hrs As an aside, "Tell me about a project that failed" is one of my favorite interview questions to ask. Failure is endemic in our industry. A candidate that only tells you about success isn't telling you their whole story.
And a candidate who talks about failures in terms of what everyone else did wrong, but never acknowledges any failures or learning experiences of their own, is telling you something important, too... they're telling you that either they never learn, or they don't tell you the whole story.
jlarocco 31 mins Maybe I've been around too long, but this doesn't seem too bad. The guy made a lot of mistakes (flat fee, not talking to users, etc.) and then suffered the consequences.
As far as the shifting requirements, management nitpicking, "dirty" imported data, and all of that, it sounds like any software project at any medium or large company. It describes a lot of projects at smaller companies, too, for that matter.
silveroriole 5 hrs The only thing that’s ever worked for me to avoid these scenarios is getting all the relevant stakeholders physically in a room for a couple days and drawing mockups, looking at their systems, learning the domain lingo, running reports over their data, etc as we go. Otherwise the domain knowledge for a proper solution just isn’t there, even for a ‘simple’ project.
Unfortunately I also hated every minute of doing this and have switched to a back-end job where I never have to interact with a customer again!
pbhjpbhj 3 hrs There's a lot wrong with this whole thing but the end solution is the wrong way around too - you don't require the client to then take a further step, you get their contact details and then reduce the friction by calling them.
The solution should surely be "enter your phone number and zip code and we'll contact you". Then the central referral agency contact the person immediately, to keep the momentum & check the person's details, reward them for their effort in finding the company, and arrange for the next step -- ideally an at home meeting with the particular agent you booked them with.
Just "right, now call this number" is a bit daft, isn't it?!
dvh 10 hrs If he was paid by the hour it would be typical, perfectly reasonable contractor project.
erdo 6 hrs Or if you really want to play the fixed price game, better add a large buffer which you may keep should the project miraculously complete on time. You transfer the risk from the client by doing fixed price work and risk is expensive.
And of course, every client change, goes through a process that evaluates it for additional cost that gets added to the bill. I think this change process is a considerable money earner for consultancies.
But yeah, personally I always just charge a day rate.
twervle 10 hrs Consulting companies know this and they NEVER charge fixed price.
sdoering 3 hrs I beg to differ. Working at an consultancy and we had fixed price projects for large clients. We just had to plan a risk buffer into the price.
But I can also tell from experience that fixed price, more often than not, doesn't work out so well.
juskrey 8 hrs I can say, as a seasoned web apps outsourcing contractor, there are two sides of the medal.
The bright side: clients usually come to me with just an idea, plan or sketches, almost all of my projects were built from the ground up, I totally technically owned them. This is a delight for any coder (and I code a lot, not just manage the team).
The dark side: many startups and green business ventures fail, and the failure rate is around 80%, even larger in the longer run. And I do the apps from the ground up, nurture them.. but sometimes I feel myself a gravedigger.. out of any 10 projects maybe 2 or three are still there after a couple of years.
DonHopkins 11 hrs At least he didn't have to install Solaris on Sun executive's workstations.
http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/slowlaris/worst-...
skrebbel 9 hrs I feel like I'm missing something in that article. Probably some historical context. Is it really about execs at Sun pranking each other by installing Sun's own flagships OS on each others' computers? Isn't that like "pranking" Satya Nadella by making him use Windows 10?
avar 7 hrs Windows is meant for desktop use by managers, Solaris was never realistically meant for that sort of use-case.
So it's a bit more like replacing the BMW company car some VP at Caterpillar drives around with one of the 400 ton trucks Caterpillar itself makes. Yes it also has wheels, yes it's also a vehicle, but no, you can't really use it as a company car.
bdsa 8 hrs "On September 4, 1991, Sun announced that it would replace its existing BSD-derived Unix, SunOS 4, with one based on SVR4. This was identified internally as SunOS 5, but a new marketing name was introduced at the same time: Solaris 2."
I guess the execs didn't have a high opinion of their new product.
DonHopkins 8 hrs The Day SunOS Died
"Bye, bye, SunOS 4.1.3!
ATT System V has replaced BSD.
You can cling to the standards of the industry
But only if you pay the right fee --
Only if you pay the right fee . . ."
http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00070.html For context, the guy who wrote "The Worst Job in the World" email was Michael Tiemann, one of "open source's great explainers." ;) Now he's pranking IBM executives by installing RedHat Enterprise Linux on their mainframes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tiemann
fifticon 7 hrs More like making him use Windows Millenium.
lokedhs 5 hrs This seems weird to me. I was working for Sun at the end of the 90's,and everybody was running Solaris on their machines.
If McNealy or Zander was running something else, that would have been the exception.
jmartinpetersen 11 hrs Thanks for sharing. Good catch at the end. It's easy to forget this as a developer. But usually technically details are just that in the bigger picture - details. They're only important if the bigger picture is somewhat correct.
mathattack 4 hrs Sounds like the OP fessed up to the problem at the top: despite hating large companies, they signed up to a fixed bid project as an independent contractor. Given how big companies work, that’s recipe for danger.
Scale is very powerful, but it takes a lot of work to get things done. Large companies have a ton of waste, but getting to “this can work for all of us” has a very big impact.
pjc50 5 hrs
"how do we collect the referral fees?"
This is the underlying problem, and the reason why "disruptive" startups can be successful in the first place; making something more beneficial for the consumer in a big organisation can be at the expense of one of the individual units which can prevent it, even if the change would be advantageous for the business as a whole.
AnnoyingSwede 10 hrs This is something every freelancer have seen. Who ever introduces you to the job rarely knows what the end-product should look like and it really proves the value of creating a minimum viable product, showing it to customer and pivot from that to where you might need to go. It this case the MVP would have been the final product.
vmurthy 5 hrs Do you think this is why developers need to be made aware of user journeys? In my experience, just spending some time on thinking through the user journeys has done wonders to my understanding of features.
Edit : The article doesn't mention anything about user journeys. Hence the thought :-)
arethuza 5 hrs In an ideal world yes - but in some situations its just not practical. For example, I once worked on a (large) project for a company I worked for where we were the customer and developers were out-sourced about four levels deep - they weren't even clear as to who the top level customer was let alone what the user journey was.
zandokc09 10 hrs It's an amusing story, I've seen this countless times as well. I think what finally sunk in for me was that if you're focused on saving money or efficiency on small projects then the upper limit of benefit to the company is less than the budget for the project. Instead if you focus on optimizing for the market, the profits can be unbounded essentially, and any wasted money to get to market is simply part of the learning process.
And if you're the contractor having to run around as the plans change, well just make sure you get paid enough :)
Xylakant 10 hrs As contractor I like jobs where I can basically recommend “Just don’t build this at all.” For example the young startup that wanted credit card payment and automation for essentially a two digit number of invoices per year for a target market where bank transfer would be much more common. Replaced with an excel sheet. Customer happy. I don’t want to build crap just for the money that’s in building crap. Let me actually add value.
org3432 10 hrs Yeah same here, what’s strange is you have to explain that to clients too. They don’t get you’re contracting because you like to actually do things and helping them is part of the reward. Otherwise you’d just be an employee.
aitchnyu 7 hrs Umm... did you earn the kind dof money the pointless project would have gotten you?
lapnitnelav 4 hrs Probably no but they surely built goodwill with that company and as a result can help them build a good reputation. This is often overlooked but people will remember that.
Or they could just be satisfied with doing the right thing, rather than trying to extract as much money as they could.
perfunctory 1 hr Everybody who believes that private sector is by definition more efficient than public should take note.
hyper_reality 11 hrs Fun story containing a valuable lesson for developers thinking about going into consulting, especially for larger companies.
Iv 9 hrs In the end, something overpriced but usable was delivered. This project was a success. I wish I could say that of all the projects I have seen.
eXpl0it3r 9 hrs Wish the article would point out in the end, that this is a perfect example of why you have to talk to the "final" customer at the start of a project.
madprops 8 hrs I've been becoming less cynic about workplace bosses and their decisions. I'm not really talking from raw workplace experience, but from noticing things I've read. I think a boss order comes from a perspective that is probably right. They have an understanding that a developer might not have yet, their instinct could be accurate, maybe most of the time.
JoeAltmaier 4 hrs Another takeaway: Prudential skimmed fake 'referral fees' for a task that a web page could do just as well. Of course this was in the old protectionist days when the web was new. But what dense, backward thinking went into this final decision to keep the old phone/paper system in the end.
wazoox 2 hrs My shittiest project was conceiving, developing and deploying WorldCup '98 live TV graphics. I worked 100 hours/week for 4 months, put on 10 kgs, lost one tooth, and got like a 150$ bonus for the whole thing.
I've posted parts of the story as Quora comments, here's one:
A company named Compusport had secured the contract to provide visually impressive graphics with statistics for WC98, but had the hubristic project of developing the graphic stack from scratch — and that was too ambitious, and a few short weeks before the World Cup the guy in charge with this part threw the towel in… Uh oh.
My company stupidly proposed to help Compusport (the fools :D ). At the time I was CG operator on French TV, and the only person in Europe comfortable with a high-end, IRIX character generator program called Antero. So I teamed with a colleague to build a PC GUI in Visual Basic to drive Antero through the network, and that proved … tough :)
There was several technical hurdles: Compusport main selling point was advanced statistics (it was supposed to be fully automated, IA powered ball and players tracking. This didn’t actually work out, but this is another long, painful and interesting story). So we needed to feed the statistics to the TV screen, coming from a central server. Graphics had to be animated (then a world first at this scale), so the CG system had to be remote controlled from the mixing desk to launch animations and effects. Of course on the different sites there were different mixers (Philips, Sony, GVG, Thomson…) working in subtly different ways. We even had to build some custom electronics to interface some of them with our system… An horribly complex network of various hardware and computers using ethernet, ISDN, serial lines and video… a complete nightmare :)
As a “rehearsal”, Compusport has planned to use the French Football Cup finals on May 2, 1998. Oh, by the way he also “sold” the graphic design for this event. With noone in sight to actually do it, you know, like a graphic artist, and no budget either.
So here how the typical April day was: my colleague Eric was building the GUI that remotely controlled Antero, communicated with the video mixer (so that the FX operator could control Antero animations from the main mixing desk) and the statistics server (to grab game data to feed to Antero) from 8 A.M. to 10 P.M. or later. Way later. I helped him on the Antero API (“to display that page send this and this and then wait for ACK then send this and this”), while during the day working with Marc Tatou to set up the graphics and the animations : “make the red card come forward than flip. A bit faster. A bit closer. That’s it”. Of course there was no GUI to program the animations, I had to write scripts with coordinates and vectors in some weird domain-specific language (apparently similar to the one used on some Ampex digital effect hardware) and proceed by trial and error (that grows your beard).
The rest of the day (and night) was spent building the graphic charter for the French Cup finals myself — I became very proficient in Photoshop quickly…
Finally on May 1st, at 4 A.M., I was done with the graphics, I tapped Eric’s shoulder “look, I’m done!”. No response. I turned to him. He was sleeping soundly, his forehead firmly stuck on his keyboard. We had lost him. Burnt out without recourse. Fallen in combat.
Obviously the GUI wasn’t ready for prime time on national TV. The girl who was supposed to be in charge of CG graphics during the match bailed out in terror (understandably). So without having any sleep for the past 72 hours, I had to manage it during the match, the old way (without any automation whatsoever) which was quite tricky as Antero missed a critical feature, which is the timer (it could only display the system time). I had to write a quick perl script to manage the timer during the match… by resetting the clock at the referee’s whistle and switching the display from a static 00:00 page to the rolling counter. Would have been actually easier to use a good old Chyron Max! but hey, that’s how it went.
After that, we had to find someone else to develop the remote control program.
To be followed…
barking 26 mins This is a fantastic story, I remember world cup '98 very well, did you get a chance to enjoy France's victory at all?
raheemm 3 hrs I love reading stories like these. They are insightful and funny.
lostmymind66 3 hrs I decided to quit my job and travel around Asia about a decade ago and didn't want to teach English, so I worked as a remote software contractor instead.
The project was for a person that was running a side-company while working remotely as a project manager for a Fortune 100 company.
The development team was from various parts of India, Guatemala, and Mexico..and I was the only one that spoke English fluently (The project manager was from Guatemala and translated/managed all of the developers from Mexico..they didn't speak any English). I only got the position because I cut my rate in half, as my cost of living was really low, and I didn't want to have a project that was too involved/stressful.
Some highlights:
The company owner was obsessed with the Scrum process, most likely because this is what she used at her main job. We would have 3 hours of meetings almost every day. On Fridays, we would have an extra hour, where we would be required to tell fun stories or jokes. Since we were all from different countries and most didn't even speak the same language, it was just...awkward.
The interview process was a written English test (I had to take one too). The manager wasn't really that experienced and would give repo access immediately. The result was chaos. We spent an entire month with a broken repo because someone was overwriting the master branch constantly. I was paid during this time to just keep checking in changes from one particular bug fix, which would be working when I was finished with everyone's changes..and then the next day, the master branch would be overwritten.
Turnover was high. I was there for a year and we went through over 50 developers. We had one guy come into our meeting room after he was hired, keep interrupting us, and then eventually told us to fuck off. I think at some point, I stayed because I wanted to see where the train wreck was going and simply because I didn't feel like finding another gig.
The project was a way that made filling out government forms easier. There would be major form updates on a monthly basis, which required lots of code changes. The code base was originally written by an outsourced team, which was horrible. There were two, parallel versions running: original and beta. We were all working on the beta, which was supposed to be the better version. However, it was a complete mess of spaghetti code. I found code, written by the current project manager, where he had copy and pasted examples he found online and left the comments in explaining that it was sample code.
When I received a new task to be completed, it was very difficult to figure out what needed to be done. Bug fixes weren't difficult, but most feature requests were tickets from months or even years earlier and some of the requests weren't even relevant anymore. I would call the boss, to try to get clarity, and she had this way of using corporate speak and talking in circles to say lots of words, but never get the information that I need. When I did, it was almost always wrong. I resorted to just completing the task wrong (which I hated) and I would have to correct it later.
We all had to have our web cams on during the meetings. When the boss shared her screen. Every...single...time, she would forget that she had personal emails on the screen..and we would get to see her sexually suggestive emails she was sending to her boyfriend that day. One time I saw everyone's pay in a spreadsheet. Most developers on the team were getting paid $5/hour or less.
We were expected to work all major US holidays and weekends (I just flat out refused to work on any weekend). We had a meeting on July 4th (since I was in Asia, I this didn't really matter to me) one time and she was in the midst of the aftermath of a party. She looked sloppy and there were people passed out on the floor in the background.
When I finally flew back home to the US, she called me up one day and told me that I was too expensive and she could hire 3 people from India for what it costs to pay me.
IloveHN84 11 hrs This is the typical case where starting small and simple helps you
1) save significant amount of time ahead
2) give your customer time to identify what they really want
3) help you iterate quickly on newer versions. If something doesn't work, it's easy to throw stuff away
jmartinpetersen 8 hrs It's absolutely true, and while he could have made a mockup showing how it would look for someone with a zip code in eg. Dallas, getting through the bureaucratic hoops to actually get feed back from those who eventually shot it down ... that's just really hard, most places. "We can't show this to customers/users/management, it's not completely done!"
It's a process problem and you can't solve it bottom-up.
You either get used to it and work to the specs, knowing they will change a lot, or you try to get closer to whoever makes the decisions. More often than not, that leads you to another company working on a different problem ...
Gibbon1 9 hrs All good advice.
Old army observation. No Battle Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy. Thus the sooner you get that over with the better.
shezi 8 hrs As far as I recall, that's actually a quote: „Kein Plan überlebt die erste Feindberührung.„ by General Moltke. Your translation is exact.
Just wanted to add a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder
yesbabyyes 2 hrs It's also said, about Moltke the Elder, that he only ever laughed twice in his life. The first time was when his mother-in-law passed away, the other time, when he saw Sweden's Vaxholm fortress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaxholm_Fortress
markdown 9 hrs
No Battle Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy
Mike Tyson said it better: https://i.imgur.com/Gy9TWiq.jpg
logfromblammo 2 hrs They could have a contact form with something along the lines of "click here to allow this agent to contact you", and then the affiliates pay for the leads.
They were so worried about getting paid, they forgot to invent a new way to get paid.
itronitron 8 hrs this is just a typical application development story
User23 8 hrs This reads like Conway’s Law, a novel. I love it.
draw_down 10 hrs That is pretty awful. But you know, and maybe this is just me being too fatalistic due to what’s happening in my own professional life, but most of what we do is a waste of time in some sense.
Just shovel the shit, get paid, and move on. They want it changed? great, change it. They want a form that does something stupid, fine, build it. A lot of people spend their work day ringing up plastic crap that people don’t really need, or whatever. Which is to say it could be worse.
Of course part of what sucks about this story is that the author failed to do the “get paid” part correctly, but I’m speaking generally. I just can’t get too attached to outcomes anymore.
RhodesianHunter 7 hrs This is depressing to read. It's still a very in demand line of work. If your day to day is that miserable try finding some place that isn't.
barking 13 mins I can empathise with his point of view. Sometimes all going the extra mile gets you is a shrug of the shoulders or worse, grief.
If tv didn't exist, people would be more impressed with you for inventing blurry 405 line b&w than high definition colour.
The latter makes it look easy, the former gives them some inkling that it's a technically difficult task.
They'll be more grateful and impressed as a consequence.
labster 10 hrs That was quite the shaggy dog project. I'd say more, but it would spoil the disappointing ending.
TheRealDunkirk 4 hrs Just a niggle, but "senior web engineer"... in 1995? Uh... given that Netscape Navigator was released in DECEMBER of 1994, can any of us say we were a "senior" "web" ANYTHING in 1995? Sure, I was doing Usenet back on Unix machines in the late 80's in college, but that's not "web." And in 1994, I was dual booting Win3.11 (with Trumpet winsock) and Slackware, and getting on the internet with a free SLIP account, but I was doing Usenet, IRC, FTP, and gopher. Come on, now. "Pretty new" doesn't even begin to describe it. Am I missing something here?
logfromblammo 1 hr Senior, Web Engineer
Which is to say making HTML web pages during my last year of high school. Just ignore the comma.
rb808 4 hrs Wow I searched the comments for agile and no hits. This is basic modern project management - get something in front of the customers and users as soon as possible and iterate from there.
xondono 3 hrs Yes, because that never goes wrong...
Maybe it’s because I’m a hardware guy, but if anything, agile has normalized a lot of bad practices (like developing before getting any specs) that can only be made to work in software development.
rb808 1 hr Perhaps you're right, but the article here says that is why spec's often dont work. The guy followed the specs, but the it wasn't what the customers wanted.
