Slashdot Mirror
NYT Paywall Cost $40 Million: How?
An anonymous reader submits this musing from Philip Greenspun's blog: "Aside from wondering who will pay more than the cost of a Wall Street Journal subscription in order to subscribe to the New York Times, my biggest question right now is how the NY Times spent a reported $40-50 million writing the code (Bloomberg; other sources are consistent). Google was financed with $25 million. The New York Times already had a credit card processing system for selling home delivery. It already had a database management system for keeping track of Web site registrants. What did they spend the $40-50 million on?" Maybe the folks behind CityTime were free on weekends.
I can actually see how this happens. Large organizations spending millions and taking years to do something a small team could whip up (and probably do a better job of) in a few months.
Different team sizes are required for different tasks. Some companies get this and put small teams together and have flexible processes that can scale to project size. Other companies can only do things one way, and that’s where you end up with insanity such as this.
You end up with layers and layers of process controlling huge unwieldy teams. You spend months just drafting the process by which you’ll operate under, and then it needs to be reviewed and this is before development even begins! You end up with 5 layers of management, each providing no real value to anything... but adding lots of time and cost.
You’ll need to gather metrics of course, so you need to figure out what metrics you need, and how you will analyse them, and how they will feed back into the dev process. And of course you’ll need someone to actually facilitate all this with some kind of metric crunching tool (which has to be bought and admined as well).
Consulting.
What else offers so little for so much?
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2067216&cid=35703166
thank you, SilverHatHacker (1381259) for the joke
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Apples: Creating a search engine from scratch. The main hook is that it is simpler than existing products. User workflow involves typing in a term and clicking a link, and users are interested in it because it's different than competing products. No money (remember, this is before Google Ads) is changing hands.
Oranges: Changing the user experience for a major existing site. Users are already familiar with the existing site and already inclined to react negatively because you're now charging for what was free. Money is changing hands, so a complete system for handling disputes and showing purchase history is required. The whole system has to hook into existing customer service systems. Customer service systems behind the scenes have to be extended. Support personnel have to be trained. Legal considerations for multiple states or possibly nations may be involved. Management needs reporting features.
Great theory but Newscorp does not own the New York Times, it owns the New York Post.
you actually forgot one bit.
hiring 'shadow developers' (also known as retards) and inflating the team size from the 10 needed to the unnecessary 100+ with testers. the times still receives just the output from 5 good guys but gets a bill for 100+. and every new person introduced to the team is more profit, as the there's more hours and persons to bill for(so they hire an unnecessary new guy/gal to inflate the team, the new person costs say 5000$ a month, the client is billed for 6000$, the company ruining executives keeping the difference . and universities have been just inventing new professions so it's pretty easy to inflate the team with sheep experts, marketing advisors, accessibility destroyers etc. and every single one of them will try to come up with output that would change the end product somehow, to justify their job).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Look, we told them we had to program an autonomous artificial intelligence agent to proactively scan cyberspace for hackers looking to bypass the firewall using port cross-scripting. They bought it, don't screw this up for us.
I watched the Navy burn $27 million on a glorified CRM that used Siebel and never got any working components. While that clusterfuck was going on a small team of four people built a prototype type system that was eventually rolled out to production because it was the only one that worked.
The person responsible for the $27 million dollar disaster got promoted and took over management of the working system, which they promptly turned over to EDS to manage.
When it comes to software development, spending more doesn't necessarily get you more.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
You mean they're overbilling and using the overage to fund black ops projects like unmanned shuttles.
"You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?"
Having worked for the government, yes, I do. If it's a one off project. Or only a handful.
There's no "open market" for the government to allow to absorb research and development costs or to achieve economies of scale.
If you need a special inertialess (non-rebounding, not physics-violating) sparkless hammer that can be used in an explosive gas-filled environment, and you need, say, 3. The government will commission and buy 10. The initial development and testing costs all get rolled into the cost of those 10 hammers, no matter how many man hours and resources it takes.
And, having watched the USMC test a piece of equipment in a "shaker box" designed to imitate driving a HumVee over rough terrain, hearing the salesperson from the company say, "Oh shit, there's no way this is going to....." and watching the piece of equipment explode 6 seconds into the test, there's a lot of engineering involved in meeting weird military requirements.
Is there money hidden and wasted in there? Yes, probably.
Does that hammer really cost $20,000 to develop? Yes, probably.
Reeses
Supplier says "pay us $20k for a hammer and we'll throw in $15k of spare helicopter parts."
That's not how it works at all.
You want some helicopter parts thrown in? The military guys know to not even try that. That's not what happens at all. Everyone is covering their asses. If some military helicopter part fails, you can bet that the procurement chain will be examined. There has to be a paper trail for everything.
Supplier says "pay us $20k for your crazy over-spec'ed* hammer, and we'll jump through your stupid purchasing hoops, go through all kinds of extra work certifying things that have nothing to do with the performance of the item, fill out reams of unnecessary paperwork, send an employee to a special course so they can learn how to enter invoices in your arcane billing system (btw, commercial invoice ~1 page, government invoice ~30 pages), wait thirty days for our first billing to be rejected because of some minor issue (100% chance first billing is rejected, btw), submit corrected billing, wait 30 days for someone to tell us that the contract was shifted to another department and so it has to be resubmitted again (they knew 2 days after we billed them, but they're not required to respond until 30 days, so they don't), wait another 30 days to find that the billing was accepted, then wait 60 days for the payment to show up".
Many companies turn government business away, because the documentation requirements are onerous, the payment terms are ridiculous, and the project may be cancelled halfway through anyway.
*The requirements on military items would make your head spin. Making a tiny design change to a part to make it easier and cheaper to manufacture can trigger everything from having three government people sign off on the revised drawing all the way to having to run a live fire test at some proving ground where they strap your whatever it is to a tank and drive it around, attach it to whatever gun it's supposed to work with and fire 1000 rounds, or shoot at it, depending on what it is. All for a really minor change that was never going to affect how it worked in the first place.
You may think a $20k hammer is ridiculous, and it is, but once you see the paper and testing trail, it starts to look reasonable, assuming it's not an off-the-shelf-item (very few are). Now, if they're buying more than 10 hammers, that price had better come down, but for a one-off, $20k is a bargain. Heck, it'd probably win an award for cost savings.
Putting moderation advice in your