I am asking because I am working in a company with similar business model and I am trying to figure out what category does my work belong to.
thank you.
EDIT: fix msg
I am asking because I am working in a company with similar business model and I am trying to figure out what category does my work belong to.
thank you.
EDIT: fix msg
when you ask whether business will halt and die if the system you are responsible for is down or suddenly absent
or
it is going to be a mild inconvenience.
I think, defined like this makes it less ambiguous
edit: fix msg
This is a great way to put it.
I also ask myself the question: "who are the rockstars" at a company. The folks that are celebrated.
If it isn't a developer/engineer, you aren't at a category 2 company.
Then you have something like a Raytheon. They're a far purer "technology" company than any FAANG other than Apple. Hardware and software is literally all they sell. No ads, no media, no communities. But very few of the products made there are owned by the company. They're made on behalf of third-party buyers, usually the US military, which puts you in category 3 according to this kind of breakdown, but that is extremely misleading. You're not a cost center. The pay tends to be lower compared to silicon valley standards because of government acquisition laws and the huge number of hiring constraints that have nothing to do with technical excellence, but you're still the primary value creator and the military program you're working for will treat you that way. This one is arguably even weirder because the actual "product" of the military is war and the superstars are the soldiers, pilots, line officers. Technology developers are always in a support role, but that isn't any different from working for Apple or Microsoft. Whoever is actually using those products isn't deriving value simply from using a computer. They're doing real world work with it and that work is what they really care about. Technology is always an enabler. Nonetheless, technology developers for the military make a lot more money and have far easier jobs than even a four-star general, so which role do you really want?
it is hard to say almost 99% product is not engineering but what it enables company to do. In a sense this division is psychological: either company cares about engineering and makes it a priority or it doesn't.
I think good proxy would be tooling which company uses, niche languages like Clojure/Erlang, open source activity, well known people in decision making positions rather than specific business type.
AWS is indisputably a software org, so it's clear that their senior leaders value software engineering. But I think that even Amazon's marketplace sees itself as a software org. From the early days, they always saw software as being a competitive advantage.
Honestly a good manager will do more for your job than anything else.
As an immense e-commerce site, the software enabling all the sales was the key differentiator to the competition.
Then they brought in external sellers, making the e-commerce platform more directly a product.
Then of course they started selling the infrastructure directly as a product, as AWS. Which of course relies on software to automate the provisioning, operation, and monitoring of those computing resources.
It can have its main product not in software, but it can bet on R&D in order to outrun their competition.
And the other way around is true too, that is how you get bad software products which somehow always stays afloat because of exclusive focus on sales.
I agree that AWS is indeed a software product, this one is obvious.