Do they have the margins that allows them to pay equivalent salaries?
From what I recall, Meta and Google have gross revenues on the order of one million in revenue per employee, while SAP AG has revenue per employee around 200k.
From what I recall, Meta and Google have gross revenues on the order of one million in revenue per employee, while SAP AG has revenue per employee around 200k.
> They tried to lowball him badly. Like 1/2 the rate he asked for (contract) and probably 1/3rd or 1/4 what we made at Google
FAANG arrogance never ceases to amaze me. It's like these guys live in a different universe blissfully unaware of the world around them. Did it ever occur to him maybe Ford is paying normal average human salaries and not grossly inflated Google wages?
Remember Ford (and this analogy extends to most companies in traditional industries) still has to be able to sell cars to the average blue collar Joe at a price point he can afford, and still turn a profit. Outside SV most people don't drive $80k Teslas. Somebody's still gotta write software for the $16k econoboxes. I'm sorry but nobody deserves to get paid more than e.g. a specialist doctor to hack JavaScript code I don't care how smart you think you are, when there's a guy in India probably just or nearly as good at it who'll do the job for $40k/year. FAANG is swimming in money and can afford to piss away $$ in talent wars, artificially driving up salaries and the prices of everything else, which is why no average person can afford a house in SF anymore. Those that won the FAANG lottery and managed to cash in? God bless them. But don't let the reality distortion field make you think that's how the rest of the world works.
The unit price of the cars isn't really relevant to the cost of developing it's software. A low cost model that moves sells a lot of units, can likely afford to spend more on software compared to a high cost model that moves only a few units.
You didn't? Of course software costs are part of the unit costs for each car produced, just how those development costs are actually allocated is up to Finance (accounting and controlling) to decide. And of course those costs are relevant, as all the other costs of a car maker.
I once went for a job because of the money alone - it was the worst experience of my life and made me realize that money is not worth optimizing for beyond a certain point of comfort.
I've followed money in my job decisions in the past and it has worked out OK for me so far, but of course I have no clue how my life would look like with other choices. But living in cramped place like SF for double the salary (thats max) and double the costs... no thank you.
There's some misunderstandings here. For one thing, there are obviously skilled people working at every salary level. What you're missing is that this is largely irrelevant. Relative compensation (in software) is a shockingly good proxy for all the associated support and people investments to support them. Employees that cost less are less supported and thus less enabled to produce high quality work than their better-paid counterparts, as a very rough rule of thumb.
It's my experience that OEMs are significantly less invested in their developers and the quality of the software they produce than any FAANG. They don't consider software to be a core competence and they rarely invest in the technical expertise to understand quality or push it internally.
The scale of dev costs is also pretty minor for vehicles as a whole. Amortized labor costs are typically on the order of 10-20% per vehicle. Devs are a small portion (~100s-1000s) of the tens of thousands of engineers that work at major OEMs and their suppliers. An extreme 2-3x wage increase would end up as a few percent increase, but the truth is there are cheaper ways to do that than salary. "All" they have to do is care about the software components the way many do about the mechanical components. It's a cultural problem rather than a strictly monetary one.
Because it isn't for OEMs, theirbequipment is their core competency and aoftware, especially the entertainment side of things for automotive OEMs, is just part of that.
Modern vehicles are just distributed computers with tires, and self driving vehicles are worse. Virtually every feature is either massively supported or entirely enabled by software.
We must be using different FAANG software because the ones I use on a daily basis are slow and buggy as all hell. The last few versions of macOS/iOS have been atrocious. Every version of CarPlay I've used has bugs. Amazon apps are full of glitches. Compare that to developing engine ECU software which I think is a far more difficult engineering task that the average overpaid UI JavaScript slinger could not handle. You can't just update ECU software every week because you sloppily overlooked something. Unless you're Tesla of course.
I don't deny that there are many outstanding, technically excellent engineers at FAANG that deserve every penny they make. But the sad reality is many of them are just TC-chasing posers who got lucky and have subsequently deluded themselves into believing that whatever narrow expertise they now possess is worth far more than it is on the open market.
Conversely, if your ECU has minor glitches, will you notice? Unless it results in catastrophic failure, you will not even know if happens to result in the occasional 0.1 mpg increase in consumption.
And I’m sure VW and the other companies put a lot of resources into software engineering the exhaust emissions defeat workaround.
I think all this "ECU code is bad" stuff is just people who don't like the style of the produced code. Are you sure those edge cases aren't accounted for in other ways? Maybe they decided that everything should be "best case" code, and any error just resets the ECU which boots up before the next spark event needs to be triggered.
I just cannot square how much people complain about the code in ECUs with how utterly reliable they are. Consider the group that investigated VW cars cheating on emissions. The system was complex and obfuscated, but also powerful, reliable, and configurable by the manufacturer.
Things have improved significantly since the Toyota acceleration issue, in large part because all those details came out. Model-based design is now basically standard for most ECUs, which eliminates large amounts of buggy human-written code. Formal methods tools that don't entirely suck exist. However, most of the issues Koopman points out (especially memory safety) still exist in many places on modern vehicles and all of his points about the issues with relying on testing to surface quality problems remain relevant.
[1] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_...
It makes sense to invest in quality there.
I have made the point that ad revenue distorts FAANG practices elsewhere. I agree on this. You'll note that myself and my friend had no intention of seeking a FAANG salary elsewhere, it's unrealistic. However. There are limits. And sane practices.
The low compensation band reflects a lack of recognition of a) the importance of software and b) the economics of it. It isn't just that they pay bad, it's that they produce bad software because they don't get it.