> In fact, a reliable engineer ought to be comfortable working on products people hate, because engineers work for the company, not for users.
I prefer to take pride in my work. This sounds like hiding ones neck to collect a paycheck.
I prefer to have hard discussions about pivoting or making changes so that we can improve the product, or company, for our users. Anything less is simply "not doing the job", or at least making a serious consession, in my opinion.
Saying that "engineers work for the company" is a very reductionist take, taking away personal conscience, judgement and moral compass, leaving only "get in, do work, collect reward, go home" cycle. This what robots do. This is what algorithms do. Humans shall and are much more than that.
When I was the tech lead of a Linux distribution, I fought my teeth to make that thing work for the target audience who will be using it, and developers who wanna work and develop on this thing. It was not volunteer work either. It was my paying, day job.
I don’t know. I agree with the point that indifference is worse than hate but I would not take a lot of this article’s advice.
I’ve spent my career finding and working on things people love. I’d join a less stable company to know I’m actually putting products out that are worth spending time on.
This article comes across as coping to me, “it’s okay to ship junk, just comfort your tears by rolling in your pile of money.”
The nature of feedback is that the most vocal express their dislike of a product more loudly and are noticed. The people who like the product won't often take time to express it. So it would certainly help you to take the criticism with some salt.
I had an epiphany about the software industry when I stayed at my parent's place and used a microwave that had the worse UX of any machine I had ever seen. Basically there was no start button, there was no way to increment the timer after you started, there was no '10 second or 1 minute preset' like every other brand and the only way I could figure out to make it 'work' would turn on a super loud fan which would keep running even after the Microwave had been stopped; I had to pull the plug on the thing to make it stop.
It was a popular brand and I suspect it probably sold well. The mind-boggling dysfunction may not have been obvious at a glance when the consumer made the purchasing decision. The UX was so bad, I still have nightmares about it.
As I was trying to use the damn thing and kept running into one hurdle after another, it reminded me of the experience of debugging complex software and I thought to myself "F***, I chose the wrong career. I'm cooked." kind of moment. In that moment, I understood that getting replaced by AI was the least of my problems.
I just thought about the software engineer who had to implement this retarded UX... I imagine they would put on their resume "Wrote the firmware for <popular electronics company>" and it would sound really good. The worst part is that it's probably not even their fault.
Anyway it just made me realize how unmeritocratic this industry is. We could do a great job or a horrible job and it has almost nothing to do with career progression and opportunities.
I spent a couple of years of my career working on a multiplayer / social game. We definitely got some angry feedback on that, but overwhelmingly the users loved it. Our game hovered around a 92% approval rating. I even got fan art! I think I’ll always look on that period as an absolute highlight of my career. I shifted industries to renewable energy driven by a personal mission to work on a greater cause. It’s B2B so I’m back in the familiar place of having users who I imagine would rather be doing something else than using our product. If my work means they get to spend less time at their computers then I’m happy.
Don't attach your pride to how well a product you work on is received. You can still take pride in improving a poorly received product, or even in just trying.
Most software is just there to get the job done. I’m building compliance tools that most users would very much like to never use as they’re just adding overheard over what they consider real work. You can still strive to make the software in a way that makes the unpleasant task of having to use it as painless as possible.
I worked a lot of food service jobs when I was younger, and as much as those jobs can suck, one big thing that is nice is delighting customers.
Assuming of course that you aren’t working at Slop Burgers, but even then… almost everyone is happy to get an ice cream cone, or a hamburger with fries, or just food in general.
It’s a shame that white collar professions typically have such a distance between make thing and give it to customer, who’s excited to receive it.
In a perfect society, companies would find that the more negative externality they create, the more difficult a time they'll have finding people willing to do it for them. One case in point is when a civil-oriented software company starts taking on military contracts and putting their people to work towards death and destruction. In a perfect society, the reaction we would get is the employees going "wait a second; I liked this company when I joined, but I never signed up for this." … and even in our less-than-perfect society, we do get some of this; what we need is more of this, not less.
The lesson is that the general definition of success is warped. Say instead, for example, “the most profitable businesses are the most harmful to society”. One word change. Decouple “success” from being rich.
Honestly I don't see a big difference between that sentiment and "I was just following orders".
That kind of mindset eventually leads to situations like yesterday's headline about the Artemis astronauts finding out that their computer inexplicably runs two instances of Outlook which both do not work [0].
Situations like Windows updates causing data loss by updating and rebooting without the user's consent.
Or situations like one year ago when I had to help an elderly person after MS suddenly replaced the easy to use Mail app with an enshittified one that wasn't just much more complicated, but also had an untranslated English interface because MS couldn't be bothered to translate it before forcing it onto users worldwide.
I work on a product that is so loved and hated at the same time. With some people it’s almost set off its own subculture, and they will roll with nostalgia if they ever used it.
On the other hand some other people will claim it’s the hallmark of enshittification, overchurned with features and a sinking mess.
I agree with both. It’s a strange situation and very difficult to move the needle towards more love at this point
IDK why these vacuous corpo tropes appear on the front page of HN every now and then. Sounds like exactly what a quasi-technical, management-leaning staff engineer would say.
Sure, in the end we work for these faceless, meat-grinding machines. But more or less, we all have some semblance of autonomy, and I absolutely can choose not to work on a product that people hate. I can switch teams before switching companies.
To some extent, I also just do what leadership asks, keep my mouth shut, and collect paychecks. But whenever that happens, I don’t gaslight myself by writing a post on why it's supposed to be this way.
To me, this seems like someone who is married to their paycheck and would do whatever necessary to protect that.
It is extremely possible to work on a product people don’t hate, and still maintain a realistic perspective on your engineering abilities or impact or whatever.
If you’re toiling on a product that’s actively making the world worse, quit now. There are better gigs out there.
> In fact, a reliable engineer ought to be comfortable working on products people hate, because engineers work for the company, not for users.
I prefer to take pride in my work. This sounds like hiding ones neck to collect a paycheck.
I prefer to have hard discussions about pivoting or making changes so that we can improve the product, or company, for our users. Anything less is simply "not doing the job", or at least making a serious consession, in my opinion.
It's a fatalistic attitude. Some kind of is/ought fallacy. This is why we need precepts like "Focus on the user and all else will follow."
Came here to say that.
Saying that "engineers work for the company" is a very reductionist take, taking away personal conscience, judgement and moral compass, leaving only "get in, do work, collect reward, go home" cycle. This what robots do. This is what algorithms do. Humans shall and are much more than that.
When I was the tech lead of a Linux distribution, I fought my teeth to make that thing work for the target audience who will be using it, and developers who wanna work and develop on this thing. It was not volunteer work either. It was my paying, day job.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
I don’t know. I agree with the point that indifference is worse than hate but I would not take a lot of this article’s advice.
I’ve spent my career finding and working on things people love. I’d join a less stable company to know I’m actually putting products out that are worth spending time on.
This article comes across as coping to me, “it’s okay to ship junk, just comfort your tears by rolling in your pile of money.”
The nature of feedback is that the most vocal express their dislike of a product more loudly and are noticed. The people who like the product won't often take time to express it. So it would certainly help you to take the criticism with some salt.
I had an epiphany about the software industry when I stayed at my parent's place and used a microwave that had the worse UX of any machine I had ever seen. Basically there was no start button, there was no way to increment the timer after you started, there was no '10 second or 1 minute preset' like every other brand and the only way I could figure out to make it 'work' would turn on a super loud fan which would keep running even after the Microwave had been stopped; I had to pull the plug on the thing to make it stop.
It was a popular brand and I suspect it probably sold well. The mind-boggling dysfunction may not have been obvious at a glance when the consumer made the purchasing decision. The UX was so bad, I still have nightmares about it.
As I was trying to use the damn thing and kept running into one hurdle after another, it reminded me of the experience of debugging complex software and I thought to myself "F***, I chose the wrong career. I'm cooked." kind of moment. In that moment, I understood that getting replaced by AI was the least of my problems.
I just thought about the software engineer who had to implement this retarded UX... I imagine they would put on their resume "Wrote the firmware for <popular electronics company>" and it would sound really good. The worst part is that it's probably not even their fault.
Anyway it just made me realize how unmeritocratic this industry is. We could do a great job or a horrible job and it has almost nothing to do with career progression and opportunities.
> Some beloved features have very shaky engineering indeed, and many features that failed miserably were built like cathedrals on the inside.
What's under the hood, the people who use the product, don't care.
Customers, and ultimately companies as well, only care that the product works, is maintainable over the long term, and is bug-free.
Cathedrals in the desert are useless, and over-engineering only complicates things when there's no need yet.
I've also seen several successful projects that were actually quite weak behind the scenes, but they were simple and functional.
I spent a couple of years of my career working on a multiplayer / social game. We definitely got some angry feedback on that, but overwhelmingly the users loved it. Our game hovered around a 92% approval rating. I even got fan art! I think I’ll always look on that period as an absolute highlight of my career. I shifted industries to renewable energy driven by a personal mission to work on a greater cause. It’s B2B so I’m back in the familiar place of having users who I imagine would rather be doing something else than using our product. If my work means they get to spend less time at their computers then I’m happy.
I like GitHub Copilot, it's pretty okay!
Now, whoever worked on Oracle DB or Oracle Forms, or Oracle ADF, now those are some products I hate for a variety of reasons!
Don't attach your pride to how well a product you work on is received. You can still take pride in improving a poorly received product, or even in just trying.
Most software is just there to get the job done. I’m building compliance tools that most users would very much like to never use as they’re just adding overheard over what they consider real work. You can still strive to make the software in a way that makes the unpleasant task of having to use it as painless as possible.
I worked a lot of food service jobs when I was younger, and as much as those jobs can suck, one big thing that is nice is delighting customers.
Assuming of course that you aren’t working at Slop Burgers, but even then… almost everyone is happy to get an ice cream cone, or a hamburger with fries, or just food in general.
It’s a shame that white collar professions typically have such a distance between make thing and give it to customer, who’s excited to receive it.
In a perfect society, companies would find that the more negative externality they create, the more difficult a time they'll have finding people willing to do it for them. One case in point is when a civil-oriented software company starts taking on military contracts and putting their people to work towards death and destruction. In a perfect society, the reaction we would get is the employees going "wait a second; I liked this company when I joined, but I never signed up for this." … and even in our less-than-perfect society, we do get some of this; what we need is more of this, not less.
Are people really using Github CoPilot on their own volition or is it just "my employer only lets me use this tool"?
Companies don't want to delight their users! They simply want to take their money!
The most successful businesses are often the most harmful forces in society. There's a lesson there.
The lesson is that the general definition of success is warped. Say instead, for example, “the most profitable businesses are the most harmful to society”. One word change. Decouple “success” from being rich.
And another lesson: we define business success by how much money they make, not by how beneficial they are to society.
Sounds like how governments are installed, by force
> engineers work for the company, not for users
Honestly I don't see a big difference between that sentiment and "I was just following orders".
That kind of mindset eventually leads to situations like yesterday's headline about the Artemis astronauts finding out that their computer inexplicably runs two instances of Outlook which both do not work [0].
Situations like Windows updates causing data loss by updating and rebooting without the user's consent.
Or situations like one year ago when I had to help an elderly person after MS suddenly replaced the easy to use Mail app with an enshittified one that wasn't just much more complicated, but also had an untranslated English interface because MS couldn't be bothered to translate it before forcing it onto users worldwide.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47615490
Author mentions working on product people hate, GitHub Copilot. Honestly it ain’t too bad. Definitely better than a lot of “enterprise” software.
I work on a product that is so loved and hated at the same time. With some people it’s almost set off its own subculture, and they will roll with nostalgia if they ever used it.
On the other hand some other people will claim it’s the hallmark of enshittification, overchurned with features and a sinking mess.
I agree with both. It’s a strange situation and very difficult to move the needle towards more love at this point
IDK why these vacuous corpo tropes appear on the front page of HN every now and then. Sounds like exactly what a quasi-technical, management-leaning staff engineer would say.
Sure, in the end we work for these faceless, meat-grinding machines. But more or less, we all have some semblance of autonomy, and I absolutely can choose not to work on a product that people hate. I can switch teams before switching companies.
To some extent, I also just do what leadership asks, keep my mouth shut, and collect paychecks. But whenever that happens, I don’t gaslight myself by writing a post on why it's supposed to be this way.
To me, this seems like someone who is married to their paycheck and would do whatever necessary to protect that.
People talk a lot, but their wallet really speaks. I don't build for people's mouths. I build for their wallets. I'm happy with outcome.
Building for wallets only is fine, until a competitor builds a better alternative which can lure both mouths and wallets.
No business is immune. Always have to adapt.
Pure cope.
It is extremely possible to work on a product people don’t hate, and still maintain a realistic perspective on your engineering abilities or impact or whatever.
If you’re toiling on a product that’s actively making the world worse, quit now. There are better gigs out there.
Do you want to know what God thinks about money? Look around and see who he gives it to.
Seans quest continues gaslighting himself one blog post at a time. As usual on his pieces away from pure technology I have the opposite opinion.