> Investors need to start asking more probing questions about how organizations develop and deploy applications.
Does this even matter though? Shitty technology choices don't always translate to poor business outcomes.
Does this even matter though? Shitty technology choices don't always translate to poor business outcomes.
Of course it doesn't always play out like that (to every rule there are plenty of exceptions), but investors don't like to be associated with companies that fail or that blow up their reputations either because it makes their exit that much harder or even impossible.
I've seen investors that took the responsible route and made fixing major security issues or other undesirable elements of the target companies a condition to investment and typically these investments succeed in the longer term, not in the least because they cleaned up their act and could then turn that into a USP relative to the rest of the field.
Even so: better invest in a company with a mediocre product and a stellar sales team than to invest in a company with a fantastic product and a mediocre sales team. The first one will get you a better ROI, and tech can be fixed post deal.
Thank fuck I was just a contractor and not a founder or shareholder.