Beyond spez (and the fact that he is a greedy little pig boy), I’m curious about the corporate dynamics that prevent a company like Reddit from being profitable. From an outside perspective, they make hundreds of millions per year via advertising, their product is a relatively simple (compared to industries that need a lot of capital to build their product), and their content is created and moderated for free by users. Could any offer some insights or educated guesses? Additionally, I’m curious how this all ties into the larger culture of Silicon Valley tech companies in the 2010s.
This might be a stupid question, but how much waste (if any) is there typically in corporations like this? Useless HR cruft and the like.
Definitely not a stupid question, it’s a big topic, and there are people whose entire job is dedicated to removing that cruft as much as possible.
At a micro level, for instance if you only look at the people I directly know and work with, there’s actually little cruft at all. We sometimes get stupid wasteful mandates from execs, and they waste a bit of everybody’s time, but it’s rare, and typically very small amounts of time. Other than that, I can tell you what every single person is useful for, and I can’t think of a single person who isn’t pulling their weight.
But at a macro level is the hard part, and I don’t think anyone can really know. An organization can’t scale if it doesn’t get seriously decentralized. As a worker, you need to make bold decisions for yourself and the teams around you, without having to know what the hundreds of other teams are up to. That means I can’t tell you for sure that there isn’t another team far from mine (for instance, from an acquisition or something), who is doing 95% the same thing my team does, but that we don’t know about.
Execs are constantly trying to identify those possible collaborations and introduce relevant teams with each other, but even they can’t know what everybody is doing.
I worked at Apple for a while, and since it’s a very secretive company, they had a very odd way of embracing it completely, which I’ve never seen elsewhere. I worked part-time 3 months on a project, before finding out that a team under the same VP had already solved the problem years ago. I whined about how inefficient it is to my director and he basically told me that unlike other companies, at Apple it’s by design. Basically, they’d rather have duplicate efforts, in order to maintain the project secrecy for the goal of “surprising and delighting” customers, and also in order to find always new and innovative ways to solve problems if the new solution turns out to be better. (Mine definitely was not. 😂) Apple really has an unusual innovation culture in general, I liked some of it, but definitely not that part.
Thank you for such s measured response. Many developers would want to see any manager burn in hell as they tend to feel like they always know better. And while on a technical level that might be and if is true, on other levels a good manager can have a massive impact.
Sure! I think I used to be a bit more annoyed by managers in general, before I got myself in the crazy situation where I actually was an engineer manager myself for a few years! I went back to an IC role since, and I don’t miss it, but now I feel that while there are incompetent managers (and incompetent people in all positions), most are just doing their best. It’s a tough job, it’s made of a lot of navigating between one rock-and-a-hard-place situation to the next.
On one level I definitely see the appeal of that way of innovating though. At the early stages of solving a problem, one solution might appear superior, but then unforseen problems come up further down the pipeline. Having completely disconnected groups work on the same problem in one way reduces the chances that everyone falls into the same trap.
In a sense, that’s how we work in the scientific community: You have different, more or less disconnected research groups researching the same problems, and even when someone publishes a solution, another group may realise that they are on the track of a better solution that they can publish a year later. We still collaborate quite a lot, but a lot of what a research group does is quite disconnected from the rest of the world until someone publishes.
Oh yeah, absolutely, I’m not saying it doesn’t make sense; particularly if you’re called Apple, which was the most valuable company in the world at the time, and therefore had insanely deep pockets. It absolutely makes sense that they would prioritize augmenting the odds of serendipitous events over cutting costs, because they’re far more likely to die of lack of innovation, than lack of funds. Really only saying that I didn’t like that part of it much for myself. But I agree, it did make a lot of sense for their situation.
Also, to be comprehensive, there are more things that I liked about the Apple culture, than things I didn’t like. They had an very extreme approach to individual ownership, which was very empowering, and which I’ve been missing since.
This is probably the best summary for how tech business works
Thank you!