Leave The "Business Guys" Alone Already
felixoginni.com
felixoginni.com
Suggesting they learn to code might be inappropriate, but pointing out they need to be able to bring something to the table besides "ideas" -- any of the above skills would be a great start -- is exactly the sort of "sensible advice" called for, but that's often not enough to get through and make the point. When people start throwing around how much they're paid, they're trying to underscore what the "ideas guy" is competing with, to explain why that idea alone just isn't enough. When people start getting frustrated, angry, and ranty, perhaps it's because this isn't as rare as the author thinks. It certainly isn't rare in game development. Maybe a different approach would be appropriate, starting things off on "the right foot" by focusing on what they can bring to the table first, rather than the business opportunity. Resumes may get binned too, but not at the 100% rate. Focusing on the person rather than the idea also lets you focus on if you'd be a good fit for any project, rather than tossing one idea at a time their way... or if they're such a great fit you'd be willing to find a different business opportunity that suits both of you.
Maybe a different approach would be appropriate, starting things off on "the right foot" by focusing on what they can bring to the table first, rather than the business opportunity. Resumes may get binned too, but not at the 100% rate. Focusing on the person rather than the idea also lets you focus on if you'd be a good fit for any project, rather than tossing one idea at a time their way... or if they're such a great fit you'd be willing to find a different business opportunity that suits both of you.
I think if this is the common response the "clueless kids" get, there will much less clueless kids in the world. This response is infinitely more valuable than insults and rants.
He assumes that the reason that we who know how to write software don't (generalism) do his job is because we're "blind to those opportunities."
He sees himself as the architect and software developers as the grunts who lay the bricks.
A building architect can design and make a blueprint based on knowing the qualities of various materials and a final outcome/design. That design isn't likely to change [much] after it is approved, unless the architect omitted something (or screwed up) or there are material issues.
Most ideas presented to 'coders' are half-baked. "I have this awesome idea! Let's build a building! With four bedrooms that will sleep a family!" "That's quite the well thought out blueprint there! Where do I start building?!"
Does that make it justifiable to respond with insults?
Also no where in the article did it say or imply that "those who know how to write software don't (generalism) do his job is because we're "blind to those opportunities.""
You obviously didn't read the article before writing this comment
Really? I don't think so.
HN isn't populated exclusively with code monkeys. A lot of us have solid educational backgrounds, including some with graduate degrees and published research. To imply that you have our skills to 'some extent' is pure hubris on your part.
The problem is, developers are often very opinionated product guys, and they can execute! They typically don't have the insider knowledge on securing funding and navigating business politics.
The problem finally emerges when the developer is seen as only the executor of the vision, rather than a business man as well.
Definitely not comparing myself to a computer scientist, neither do I want to be one; I chose a Mechanical Engineering degree for good reasons.