The central thesis of the article seems to be stated in the first sentence
"The environment that nurtures creative programmers kills management and marketing types--and vice versa"
Are you saying this is not true? I've been trying to think of a company that is an exception to this, but i can't. [EDIT maybe Apple?]
I know that Google managers complain that engineers are taken more seriously in Google then themselves. As for engineers aversion to marketers you are completely on the money about that.
The true genius of Jobs is his ability to understand, lead, motivate and inspire hacker-types (while not really being one himself). Woz, of course, being the first example.
My read on Apple is that they're not a software company - they're a hardware design company that feels passionately about the software not sucking and detracting from the design of the hardware.
Last time I knew, Apple's turnover on engineers was fairly high, higher than I expected for a company of that stature.
That depends entirely on your definition of "good software", something which the article has already addressed.
Like soldiers or artists, you don't care about the opinions of civilians. You're building something intricate and fine.
I think the use of the words "marketers" and "managers" in the article is misleading and only causes hostile knee-jerk responses. Rather, what's important in the article is the description of what happens when drones take over a software company, i.e. a stifling environment, which hackers cannot stand, and for good reason. Better people than I have written about this. For example, PG.
Those in authority tend to be annoyed by hackers' general attitude of disobedience. But that disobedience is a byproduct of the qualities that make them good programmers. They may laugh at the CEO when he talks in generic corporate newspeech, but they also laugh at someone who tells them a certain problem can't be solved. Suppress one, and you suppress the other.
Comments
Post should be titled
"The 437th Time You've Read About Programmer's Tribal Aversion to 'Marketers', Except This Time Written By Orson Scott Card"
P.S. Let me take a whack at the bee's nest: good software that can't be marketed, isn't.
The central thesis of the article seems to be stated in the first sentence
"The environment that nurtures creative programmers kills management and marketing types--and vice versa"
Are you saying this is not true? I've been trying to think of a company that is an exception to this, but i can't. [EDIT maybe Apple?]
I know that Google managers complain that engineers are taken more seriously in Google then themselves. As for engineers aversion to marketers you are completely on the money about that.
I've yet to meet a superb marketer or manager who thrives in a stifling environment.
That repeated stereotype among techies reflects the closed-mindedness of cliques rather than some supposed 'liberated' viewpoint of hackers.
If a marketer or manager thrives in such an environment, there is a good chance they are mediocre at best.
Creative people keep banging against the limits corporate rules impose on them. Those who don't bang are not creative.
"[EDIT maybe Apple?]"
The true genius of Jobs is his ability to understand, lead, motivate and inspire hacker-types (while not really being one himself). Woz, of course, being the first example.
My read on Apple is that they're not a software company - they're a hardware design company that feels passionately about the software not sucking and detracting from the design of the hardware.
Last time I knew, Apple's turnover on engineers was fairly high, higher than I expected for a company of that stature.
That depends entirely on your definition of "good software", something which the article has already addressed.
Like soldiers or artists, you don't care about the opinions of civilians. You're building something intricate and fine.
I think the use of the words "marketers" and "managers" in the article is misleading and only causes hostile knee-jerk responses. Rather, what's important in the article is the description of what happens when drones take over a software company, i.e. a stifling environment, which hackers cannot stand, and for good reason. Better people than I have written about this. For example, PG.
Those in authority tend to be annoyed by hackers' general attitude of disobedience. But that disobedience is a byproduct of the qualities that make them good programmers. They may laugh at the CEO when he talks in generic corporate newspeech, but they also laugh at someone who tells them a certain problem can't be solved. Suppress one, and you suppress the other.
Come to think of it, PG probably makes the same point in a more neutral (and productive) manner --> http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
It's still good software, but good software isn't necessarily successfull.
I like the article for the beehive analogy.