How To Make Money From Software Design

Lesson One:

Stage One: You have a client and a project. You get it done for them, you get paid. On the way, you see possible improvements that the client might like but you don't do them. Insert several need loop functions to slow the program down.

Stage Two: They come back asking for those extra improvements you asked for. You put those in, or perhaps even just take out the %% from the code in the relevant section. Make some of the loops smaller. Bill them for more hours than you worked because it was a whole "new" project", then mention than you might be able to speed things up.

Stage Three: New Project! The client wants things sped up, you tell them "Oh sure, it may take a few more months though", bill them for those months. Spend a couple of minutes removing the loops from the code.

Stage Four: Hookers and blow.

Dang, that's where I went wrong. I became a software engineer with this pesky "code of ethics" thing.

Yeah, those are so pesky when they get in the way of profitability.

You mean the speed-up loop?

Be careful to avoid it being optimized away by the compiler.

Huh... if I ever get into software engineering I'll have to ask about this. :p Seems like most software has enough issues on its own without intentionally crippling it.

Of course, could backfire if your client goes to get a second opinion. Or if they looked at this thread and just remove all the % by themselves.

edited 20th Apr '11 6:57:35 PM by Shichibukai

Truly, SSOT has ruined the gravy train for all software engineers!

Who then charge extra, because they've been told to deal with someone else's code.

Damn. It's a conspiracy >_>

Heh, reminds me of things from the earlier ages of computing. Stories, that is; I'm not that old. As I recall, DEC had a system where there was a "slow" version and a "fast" version. You could purchase an upgrade from the slow to the fast. Turns out the upgrade involved a DEC technician showing up, opening a cover or two, and flipping a switch.

...That's essentially what Intel did with a recent line of processors.

That's how a lot of stuff works. Like ASUS had the same screens installed on their low-range and high-range PD As a few years back, but the low-ranges are force-locked into using only low resolutions. Custom firmwares took care of that swiftly =)

It actually cuts costs if you have one production line producing one marginally expensive component which you then limit or repurpose somehow to create the low-end model - simply because you can crank out more of them than if you had two production lines making two different component types. Same thing applies to all things that are made via conveyor belt logic, be it software, hardware or LEGO pieces.

edited 21st Apr '11 4:52:07 AM by Noelemahc

Never let ethics get in the way of profits.

There's a big gap between intentionally crippling custom-designed software and offering products with different capabilities at different price points despite the fact that the difference is artificial. When you're contracting someone to write software for you, the assumption that they'll do the best job they can is built in. When you're buying something from someone, you pay for the capabilities you're given.

Why the Double Standard?

Why can employers demand loyalty but clients can't demand the best job they can get?

I believe in the opposite position. Employers deserve nothing: The less they get, the fairer things are. As for clients, they're usually right. Their money, after all.

What the hell are you talking about, employers vs clients? That has nothing to do with it. Either way it's one company buying something from another.

If Bob sells two products, Computron 1000 and an increased-performance Computron 2000, Alice might look at the two products, decide that Computron 1000 is good enough for her, and choose to buy it over the more-expensive Computron 2000. The fact that the difference between Computron 1000 and Computron 2000 is a flipped switch or a cut wire is irrelevant; both parties knew what was being offered and how much it was worth to them.

But if Alice commissions Bob make her a product called Computech, and they agree on what it should do and how much it will cost, then Alice expects Bob to provide her the best possible product that does that thing and costs that much. If Bob intentionally creates a bad product, and then turns around and says "by the way, how would you like to upgrade to Computech2?", a superior version of the same thing, then Alice has a right to be pissed, because Bob should have given her Computech2 in the first place.

tl;dr, when you buy something off the shelf you pay for what you get, but when you pay someone to make something for you then they should be doing the best they can.

edited 21st Apr '11 10:10:57 AM by NativeJovian

To give a more empathetic example than hardware, look at software, like the difference between Photoshop and Photoshop Elements, or for that matter the offering of an academic price. The only area where this cheeses me off is when it's done dishonestly, or if no version of the product with all the features enabled is offered (game consoles and cellphones fit both criteria.)