How much time before you boss says: "OK, during the last 3 months you told me that all these tool would save you in total 1 dev/year... so I will reduce your team by 1 dev but keep the work and deadlines" ? ;-)
826 karma · joined April 3, 2014
But it doesn't work when you need corp IT for corp IT integration
... because we are also in charge of:
- the bills for the servers/networks/storage to "self host" your new shiny application
- the installation/upgrade/administration/support of the servers/networks... and of your application (because the finance department doesn't know how to do it)
- the integration of your "self hosted" application into the AD (for the SSO), mail system, slack, backup/restore system (in case of crash or hack)... and the maintenance of all of it
- eventually ensure that the application datas can be exported to other apps or migrated (when the new shiny self hosted app will be less new... and a new new new shiny self hosted app will be bought)
- the cybersecurity of your "self hosted" application... and of the whole corporate IT !!!!! Remember: a single application is enough to compromise the whole corp IT (OK... it can be segmented, 0-trusted, and so... be it increase attack surface and cybersecurity cost anyway)
In fact: BUYING a "self hosted" application is the EASY part, the HARD part is to make it RUN, DAY-TO-DAY, for AS LONG AS REQUIRED for the business (including legal requirements sometimes to keep datas for long time)
OK, when "local IT" ask for application, they usually can manage part of it technically but... either they wont (because they just dont have time! Remember: they want the tools to do their job, but the tool is NOT their job) or they cant (because they're devs and not admin sys/net sys and they dont know)
At most: they can use some "sandbox" unconnected to "corp IT", but then they either need to forget all nice things (like backup systems or AD) or to implement it and maintain it (shadow IT)...
IMHO, that's part of the explanation for the "SaaS" and "Cloud" development: externalizing all of these costs
In the end, markets will optimize to have 2 or 3 big players in each fields to avoid that kind of problem...
Let's make things clear: so called "mixed society" is actually a mix of "friends of the Mayor and allies" and poor-enough people that will vote for the so-called socialist Mayor. It's not about having a philosophical or idealogical view of society, only a practical view of election (a kind of "gerrymanding" if this concept is more understandable for US).
There has been frequent scandals with ministers still using "low income" housing for themselves or families. The article starts with the interview of some Ms Vallery-Radot, and that uncommon name prompted me to look on internet and wonder if she is related to the https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallery-Radot which was until the 2000 ... State Advisor.
So please... do not think that Paris is some kind of wonderful place where intelligent and humanistic leaders are working for the good of the french society as an example to the world. It's just usual political shady business, nepotism (and you'll see by yourself that the results will be bad during the Olympics for example)
The ultimate goal of an organization (and society) is to stay alive, with minimum changes. It will evolve if it needs to, but it won't if it's not necessary.
Disrupting happens in a really really competitive enironment, and is only ONE of the different possible strategies to survive. Most of the time, disruption happens to the whole domain, not to the organization.
Others might be to "buy" the competitor, to build "regulatory barrier"...
It's nice to have a software for entertainment... but it takes more trust to have some software controlled brakes
* this client is giving me xxxx $
* it costs me yyyy $ for salary team... so there's so gains... so let's no lose the client (even if it means dumb work for the team)
Moreover: it's easier to justify the contract's cost (we have to monitor closely your infra to get your IT business running... here are the numbers of tickets that we processed) than having to explain: "OK, we did nothing this month BUT you pay us because MAYBE SOMEDAY something bad may happens"... because the client might either think that he doesn't need the support contract or that he doesn't need to pay that much...
All in all: it's not a bad thing for the team to leave that kind of bullshit job
So why pay more to hire an experienced IT man that will not know the latest techno-fad when all you need is a junior that knows them a little bit and is waaaayy cheaper.
Moreover - from a management & HR point of view - there's always IT problems. You know: nobody notice when everything run smoothly (and it's a signal to let go some people) but everybody notice when there's an IT problem!
So let's take the cheapest...
BTW I'm 52 in France and notice this too here. And I don't know how to explain why experience matters... :-(
The problem is definitly NOT THE REGULATION but the way that websites have become a data/cash machine...
- some questions requires "urgent" answers (for example: missing info in a meeting)
- some interactions may be processed "in the flow", during the day, when time is available
- some interactions are "human noise", people just chatting
Right now, with teams & others, everything may be "urgent" so you'll have to check and see (so interrupting your work)
Moreover, when it's not urgent, you may decide to answer later... and just forget it (because it's not a new message anymore)
So maybe that's a place where AI could help: show only what's urgent... and reminds at a later time for other kinds of chats
Just an idea
Actually, at work, I'm either in 2 situations:
- I need a quick answer for a simple problem ==> chat (because it's more about getting a simple info and I need it now if possible, or the sooner)
- I need a complete/correct/thoughtfull answer ==> email (because I need someone to really think about it before answering and that person is not available all the time and has other things to do too... so quality of answer is worth waiting)
It may happen that complex email need some clarifications... but if the subject is complex, it usually requires a meeting
It may happen too that a simple answer lead to a complex question... but then we're back at email.
So, I'm not sure that your tool would fit my way of working and/or the places I work for. Moreover, I'm quite sure that "realtime" is one of the WORST possible way of working because it's giving other people a way to manage your time at work (interrupting, etc.)
BTW: I'm old enough to remember the "forums' days"... and actually, it really seemed to me that you just rediscovered forum (you know... threads that are bumped when there an update)
The only major differences I saw was:
- the UI is more "chat-like" / "facebook-like"
- forums where statically structured by an admin... but it looks like there no real way to structure your threads in folder or things like that (important on big orgs with lots of different subjects concurrently)
On the other side, mails may be (more or less) structured by "conversation" (sadly it's not a strong standard so not reliable) and conversation may be structured by personal folders
- there's "AI" and that's quite tiring these days. I see the point of having a dynamic summary of a thread... but
* either your threads are 'chat-like' so with simple content... and no summary is needed
* or your threads are 'mail/forum-like'... and I'm not sure how it will work (sincerly)
So I left the "physics" courses and went the "math" courses... only to learn 3 years later how to prove that this kind of approximation is mathematically sound indeed :-D
On the other side: if I buy something from my own country, I know that the law will protect me because the TLD tell me that the vendor has at least a company in my country, subject to my country laws
Moreover, it's a long time that VM have more or less same performances as compiled code (with JIT, AOT, etc.)
But you're free to buy an iPhone if you want. Just use the rights reasons (for example: don't compare a new top of line IPhone with an old budget Android phone... there's high-end android phones too, with performances in line with iphones... and same kind of price tags ;-) )
- "this is free forever" (remember FaceBook moto), killing the market using this and then, when there's no nore competitor (on specific age class for example), saying "OK, now pay"
AND
- "this is a charged service, but you may access it for free as long as you respect some limitations" : in that case, from day-1, you know that either you'll have a basic service or you'll have to pay someday.
Note: in the second case, when a "free tier" is degraded to force people to pay, it's the same problem as Facebook...
In fact, I think that the real problem here - and what people are fed up with - is the bait-and-switch
1) I promise that I'll promise something for free forever 2) People trust me and invest in me... so I kill the market 3) Then, when there's no real competitor, I try to charge
Even for capitalist, this way of doing business is just: how to build a monopoly to evade the market competition
So yeah... let's sue Facebook... and make it a clear example for all businesses around the world that this way of doing things is definetly NOT OKAY
They have a lot to lose to frontally challenge DMA (like ... some market shares from some administrations or big state companies)
On the other side, Apple/meta/Tiktok are only consumer-driven
OK Google... now I get why you behave that way with your users (no support, product graveyard...) ! ;-)
- Since "forever", laws apply to a specific PHYSICAL region (that's the basis for a concept of "government", be it democracy or other). These laws are enforced by "law enforcement forces", starting with "border law inforcement forces"
- Between "etatic entities" there is "treaties" agreed by parties
- But "the Internet" messed everything up: suddenly no law could be enforced because the was no VIRTUAL region with a "government" matching the PHYSICAL region
Different governement solved this problem with different solutions:
- China / Russia... used some kind of "Great firewall"
- US used some kind of "soft power" (owning the main infrastructure + main economic actors + extraterritorial laws)
Europe decided to find a mix between those: limiting US "soft power" with more rules (DSA, DMA), trying to develop European economic competitor... and limiting people abilty to escape to a "lawless internet with anonimity"
T. Breton is talking about EUROPE's REGULATION, not freedom of speech! And it's his job...
So:
* if you live in Europe (so are submitted to Europe's Laws):
- either you're European and if you dont like European Laws you need to vote for people with different opinions,
- or you're not European and then... well... leave Europe
Seriously ??????
Moreover, it's not just any business that can be promoted here as far as I can tell: it has to be "innovative" in some way... you can't just promote your dad's store here
Without more specifics (like your previsional results and your market and how your're positionned and...), I would say that your business is not worth a lot. Let's say $10k.
If I give you $120k, it means that I would own 92% of your company... that wouldn't have any sense as I'm "just" an investor, not the business owner.
Actually, as an angel, I wouldn't take more than 20% of your equity... but I would give you maybe 5-10% of the money because of risks. So I would only give you $120k if your company is worth at least $1.2M (and ask for 20% of the equity, so $240k)
But I'm not an angel...