Do you think IMVU would be the great company it is today if it started with two product marketing folks and one business "model engineer" and all the programming was outsourced to "commodity" coders in elance.com or getafreelancer.com?
that seems to be a reaction to an exaggeration of what Tim said. He clearly said(emphasis mine)
"I was the tech lead responsible for scalability/reliability at IMVU for a long time, but eventually our bottleneck clearly shifted from reliability back to marketing/product development. "
I read it as, "Once we got reliability sorted out, the bottleneck moved to marketing/product development."
He never said IMVU could have been built without good programmers(of which class, he is an instance), but product dev/marketing became (or were) equally important (or more important) and so he moved to that team. At least that's how I read it
I agree. However the point I was trying to make is that technology expertise continues to be a "scarce talent" which seems to be the opposite view of that supported by Tim's post.
Comments
Do you think IMVU would be the great company it is today if it started with two product marketing folks and one business "model engineer" and all the programming was outsourced to "commodity" coders in elance.com or getafreelancer.com?
that seems to be a reaction to an exaggeration of what Tim said. He clearly said(emphasis mine)
"I was the tech lead responsible for scalability/reliability at IMVU for a long time, but eventually our bottleneck clearly shifted from reliability back to marketing/product development. "
I read it as, "Once we got reliability sorted out, the bottleneck moved to marketing/product development."
He never said IMVU could have been built without good programmers(of which class, he is an instance), but product dev/marketing became (or were) equally important (or more important) and so he moved to that team. At least that's how I read it
I agree. However the point I was trying to make is that technology expertise continues to be a "scarce talent" which seems to be the opposite view of that supported by Tim's post.