Hacker News Reader

You make some fair, though invalid, assumptions.

1) It's true, I cannot magically produce an entire photo-editing app in two weeks, but this makes the assumption that I won't be very frank with what I will deliver. It also makes the assumption that I can't work with people multiple times. The point here is to define a unit of work. My unit of work in this endeavor is two weeks at a fixed cost. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I'm not here to prey on clients and if what I offer isn't a good fit for them, they'll know in our first conversation.

2) This makes two assumptions: that I am doing this to build a client-based business and that I'm in this primarily for the money. I'm not really trying to build a client-based business that works for everyone. I've been a part of such businesses and I really disliked my time there. As such, I don't mind my frankness being a filter for who I do or do not hear from. Which brings me to the second assumption; I'm doing this for the fun of working with other people to bring ideas to life, not to make money. So while my clients pay me, they're getting a good deal and it really is up to me whether or not I wish to continue working on their project. That's not me expressing attitude, that's me being honest right up front. :) Moreover, I believe service is exemplified in action and while you seem to think otherwise, if I take someone on, I'm there to help them the best I can.

3) This hits the same point I made before, if the idea changes, there's no reason I can't work something out with my clients. There's also no reason that we can't set up another two week iteration.

While I understand your points, they seem tinted by negative experiences and though it may sound trite, part of why I'm doing this is because of my own poor experiences in client work.

1. "My unit of work in this endeavor is two weeks at a fixed cost." Most clients aren't interested in a "unit of work", particularly for these kinds of projects; they're interested in work product. In other words, to the client, your value is not in your time but rather what you say you can actually produce in a particular amount of time. You are not saying "Hire me for my expertise. I will help you turn your idea into a reality for $10,000/month". You are saying "I will build a prototype for you in 2 weeks for $5,000." There's a huge difference.

2. "Which brings me to the second assumption; I'm doing this for the fun of working with other people to bring ideas to life, not to make money." I hate to break it to you, but when you charging money for your services, you are working for money and building a client-based business. You may not need the money, but your clients don't really care; they expect that when they cut you a $5,000 check, you're going to be 100% committed to delivering what you promised them.

3. "There's no reason I can't work something out with my clients. There's also no reason that we can't set up another two week iteration." How exactly do your clients "work something out" with you? Is it based on you loving their idea? What happens when the complexity of what the client is seeking increases? Are you going to make yourself available, or are you going to cut out and take on a $5,000 engagement that you can knock out without breaking a sweat? Again, your official pitch is wham bam thank you ma'ma.

I'm sure you're a nice guy Chris, and based on your background, I wouldn't be at all surprised that you're capable of building great things.

But...anybody who has been in this business for any length of time knows all too well about talented individuals who try to play the role of service provider but delude themselves into thinking that they don't have to operate like one. It's sort of like taking a job as a police officer, but trying to limit what type of calls you'll respond to in such a way that you're no longer doing the work of a real police officer.

Bottom line: when all is said and done full time contractors who align their interests with their clients are almost always more productive than "I'm doing this for fun" freelancers who think their impressive resumes entitle them to $xx,xxx/month in short-term client engagements.

"Most clients aren't interested in a "unit of work" I disagree. A prototype, especially for these kinds of projects, is absolutely crucial. To have a concrete version of their idea before shelling out $10,000/month seems to be something quite a lot of people would be interested in.

"You may not need the money, but your clients don't really care; they expect that when they cut you a $5,000 check, you're going to be 100% committed to delivering what you promised them." This makes the assumption that Chris will not be 100% committed to delivering what he promised.

"Again, your official pitch is wham bam thank you ma'ma." His official pitch is that he will build a prototype for someone in 2 weeks time for $5,000. Nothing about that indicates to me that just because he has set a time limit on it, he will not have his clients best interests at heart or that he wouldn't be willing to work with his clients to figure out a next course of action should the work increase beyond 2 weeks time.

"when all is said and done full time contractors who align their interests with their clients are almost always more productive than "I'm doing this for fun" freelancers who think their impressive resumes entitle them to $xx,xxx/month in short-term client engagements." Entitled is certainly a strong word to use. If he is as capable as he says he is, I'm not sure why he shouldn't get paid for a service he is providing for people who need it. I'm also not sure there's as big a difference between contractors and a "I'm doing this for fun" freelancers as you make it out to be. Contractors are allowed to pick what they work on, same as freelancers. :)

I agree with you on all those points, except this:

> As such, I don't mind my frankness being a filter for who I do or do not hear from.

Even if you're are trying to filter out a certain group of people, it doesn't call for being borderline rude and arrogant. From what I've gathered through your other comments, you are neither of these. Therefore there is no reason for you to give people the wrong impression.

That's fair and that's not my intent. Honesty is a fickle friend. :)

I'll give it a quick update.

> What happens when I send you dozens of wireframes for a complex web app that would realistically take an experienced programmer a month to prototype well?

An experienced programmer working with slow tools will work slowly. That's why languages like Clojure were invented - Rich Hickey is an experienced C++, Java dev.

> Your clients pay you; you're not doing them any favors.

Clients pick you because you bring something to the table they can't get anywhere else. If you're as good as you say you are, you are doing the client a favor.

> If the client isn't willing to invest in Clojure and you're (likely) gone after $5,000 and 2 weeks, where does that leave the client?

With their money's worth of a prototype that demonstrates whether the idea is or isn't total shit.

You don't see the value proposition. Somebody else will. If Chris is as talented as he says he is, your loss.

3. The idea "it shouldn't matter what language this is written in" sounds good on paper, but it is actually quite flimsy.

Perhaps, but I do think it's commendable that he picks the language he feels he is best with and sticks with it.