It might be just me, but the name leads me to believe that these guys are just a bunch of stoners. "Hey, what if we call our company 'Hashrocket'?" [takes, another hit off of the bong/pipe/spliff] "Great idea, man...."
They have two "in progress" projects. I guess we should come back in three business days (say, Thursday, Jan 24) and see what new projects they're doing instead. ;)
Their site doesn't render properly @ 1280X800 either. Also, the rendering is inconsistent - if I refresh the site, it will render with "Building a success web application is rocket science" over "our products"... hit refresh and it renders correctly... hmmm...
Also, you would think that for 30 grand you'd get to pick the language of your choice?
Also, you would think that for 30 grand you'd get to pick the language of your choice?
That is actually the problem with many companies. The programmers are not the ones that decide which language to use. They're forced to use Java or .NET because the higher-ups want them to.
Why would you try and limit the productivity of a programming team by forcing them to use tools they may not like or tools that are weak.
"Zed Shaw thinks he's cool, and that's all the credibility I need."
This is a very dangerous way of thinking. You should judge people by more than "X says ..." . There are any number of competent people who think Obie is mostly blowing smoke and leaching off rails's popularity.
Obie essentially gave Zed a job when he needed one. You will never catch Zed say Obie isn't cool after that.
If you know someone at Thoughtworks, where people actually worked with him (and from where Obie left under a cloud ), talk to them to get a different opinion.
of course, the best way to judge someone is to look at their code/work with them for a while than "X says Y". You can get people saying anything about other people if you look hard enough. I wouldn't want to bet my company (or 30,000 $ for that matter) on such flimsy evidence.
And even if Zed really means it when he says "Obie is cool" , that doesn't make it right for your to bet your company on him. Quotes are no substitute for doing your own research.
I can't educate my guesses that much. Like you, I'm not in a position where betting 30K on some dude I read about makes any sense. However, some people are in that position. Big companies regularly pay consulting companies like McKinsey hundreds of thousands and even millions for projects. The pay hundreds of dollars an hour for IBM coders. People who pay these prices may well be better served with a 30G project from Obie and a 14G website from Electric Pulp than with whatever IBM and McKinsey charge.
NB: I don't know the numbers. However, I recall the ballpark as being around 300 dollars an hour for a software engineer, and 400K for a study on the return on investment of a marketing campaign for a retailer. The first number is according to Joel Spolsky, and the second is according to Steve Levitt. I'm aware I'm risking arguments from authority here, too.
I can't educate my guesses that much. Like you, I'm not in a position where betting 30K on some dude I read about makes any sense. However, some people are in that position. Big companies regularly pay consulting companies like McKinsey hundreds of thousands and even millions for projects. The pay hundreds of dollars an hour for IBM coders. People who pay these prices may well be better served with a 30G project from Obie and a 14G website from Electric Pulp than with whatever IBM and McKinsey charge.
NB: I don't know the numbers. However, I recall the ballpark as being around 300 dollars an hour for a software engineer, and 400K for a study on the return on investment of a marketing campaign for a retailer. The first number is according to Joel Spolsky, and the second is according to Steve Levitt. I'm aware I'm risking arguments from authority here, too.
Good luck to them if they can get this. I'm sure that the 3-days will have some caveat and they did say 1.0 in this time. If you were large enough, and had the funds, you might go to these guys to get something out the door quickly. From a PR angle also this will definitely get into the press. Interesting to watch
Assuming they are working day and night, night and day that is close to $417/hr. The aspect of hiring high-class code hookers (or if you find that offensive, Ruby on Rails ninjas) aside, building a successful web site seems to be more about your network's influence when you launch.
Yes, good point. Cheaper than a small team of lawyers. I remember a build-a-website in 24 hours contest nine or so years ago - perhaps Obie and his team might volunteer their productive capabilities for a deserving non-profit? I think the right pro-bono project would generate good PR and better karma.
I am interested in seeing what (assuming the who, who comissioned the site allow it) kind of customer experience can be built in three intensive days.
The fact that their own web page doesn't render on every major browser or at every standard resolution screans louder than anything they say on it.
If you disqualify "laggards" as prospects, maybe you don't deserve to succeed.
And if you think that servicing one type of customer is at the expense of another, maybe you're not yet senior enough to be my vendor.
ADDENDUM:
Why is it that my hardest learned business lessons get downmodded so quickly? Who here is such a good hacker that they could afford to leave money on the table?
I'm saying there is a strong correlation of laggards across fields. If you have a new service, people that lag in another are not likely to take it on initially. So if you have design choices to make, make them to sell to the people that are likely to start using your service first.
Worrying about the rest is a waste of time -- and new companies don't have time to waste.
And I'm saying if you claim to be an expert web app developer (implicit in the "3 day claim"), dynamically rendering to any resolution should be a piece of cake.
Here's a business lesson: don't implement features that cost more than your expected marginal increase in revenue. e.g. supporting edge case platforms at the expense of most of your users.
Will someone please explain how being able to dynamically render to the requesting browser (whatever resolution) is at the expense of anything. These are experts, remember.
This started out very simply. I can't read their "About" page at 800 x 600. wtf? An HTML <TABLE> does that automatically for crying out loud.
If they can't do the easy stuff, why should I trust them with my hard stuff?
Indeed. But ultra portable approaches the mobile space. I suppose with the meteoric rise of celltop and ultra portables, it should be a more prominent issue. It's interesting to think that the average pixel count might actually decrease.
My celltop has zoom but the best sites just have another version for it.
2007 was the first year that more laptops than desktops were sold. If you consider browser enabled cellphones, I wonder how those numbers change.
