Please expand on why you think so.
Edit: Any why this is the case, in this situation. Please explain?
(I'm not from the US - I may be missing something.)
Edit: Any why this is the case, in this situation. Please explain?
(I'm not from the US - I may be missing something.)
I.e. economic shrewdness is not equivalent to morality.
To put this in a different light - people (here among all places) are especially sick of firms like Accenture/IBM/etc. of loading up projects with unexperienced junior people and putting absurd markup on their services. Which one do people want? Paying for soccer teams full of inexperienced people learning on the job or promising inexperienced person experience and exposure as compensation for their services?
For the record - I'm speaking about this from the perspective of market dynamics, not regulations/morality. I personally think a co like Netflix is in the wrong here.
If someone is less good, pay them less, but still a living wage. If they're not worth that much, and you don't want to train them to be worth that much, then don't hire them.
But that's all assuming the price of a contract is roughly proportional to the cost to implement it. Any "absurd markup" is a totally different issue.
Are people sick of the inexperienced teams, or are they sick of being scammed? IIRC, that business model usually starts with a bait-and-switch - they company will send their best people first, to make an impression and get the client to sign the contract, and then switch the project over to the cheapest team.
After escalations, they finally noticed client got angry and suddenly there was someone skilled at the other end. But I suspect it was exception and only for a short time.
I am a SWE engineer with photography as a hobby.
If a tv show contacted me to do a wedding shoot, I'd be excited for the coverage and I wouldn't feel exploited since doing shoots is fun for me.
I could see how there are parallels to the "background actor" industry where, by law, you have to pay all of the talent on screen, even if its a nominal amount and the actor would of worked for free.
But that doesn't the case here?
If a TV show contacted you do create a web app, would you do that work for free? Would you give up other opportunities to get paid to do so?
So, say no? (I've done that a couple of times in similar situations.)
No, because it is not fulfilling.
I do use my career skills to teach under privileged students how to program for free.
I too have a photography hobby (or did, pre-kids). I release everything I do that's any good via Creative Commons attribution-only licenses. My pics have shown up on articles in USA Today, Forbes, Yahoo Finance, and many many other places. Plus they are in a number of free and paid wallpaper apps. People sell prints of them on Amazon. I can go buy a cup with one of my photos on it right now. I was even interviewed for a small Discovery Channel video.
I think it's awesome. As long as they stick my name on there and follow the terms of the license, more power to them.
I've had people (especially in the local photographer's club) tell me that I'm being horrible and helping to kill the professional photography industry etc. But in my view there is just nothing wrong with giving away your creative output in exchange for credit.
Do you think people get paid when they give a radio interview? They are using the radio as a platform for selling.