Ask HN: Solve a problem or build something cool? - <AUTHOR>

HN, like most of you, I want to be successful. My dream is to build something to the likes of Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat. (I like consumer apps).
However, I've done a lot of reading on the origins of these products. In the early stages of these products, you really couldn't tell if there was a $b future or not. I'm sure the founders had some idea of the problem they were trying to solve, but I doubt any of them validated their ideas outside of a small circle of friends. In short, I don't think they really knew the problem they were solving. They just built it because it seemed cool. Defining and explaining "the problem" is always easier in hindsight.
However, I know that there are thousands of programmers and entrepreneurs who built cool stuff, but whose products failed and never gained any traction.
Thus, on the path to success I am lost. It feels like building something cool and solving a problem are two lines, where the intersection is your brilliant product.
If I want to fulfill my dream of having an app with 100m users, what should I do? <comment><USER2> > If I want to fulfill my dream of having an app with 100m users, what should > I do?

If one of your readers knew that, why would he tell you? Why wouldn't he instead fulfill his own dream?

> However, I know that there are thousands of programmers and entrepreneurs > who built cool stuff, but whose products failed and never gained any > traction.

Yes, and the difference between those stories and that of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg is ... to a large extent chance.

Well, chance and persistence. Successful people try hundreds or thousands of things until one of them works.

"We now know a thousand ways not to build a light bulb" -- Thomas Alva Edison

</comment><comment><USER3> My advice would be to focus on the customer and validate. There are so many variables when it comes to big name success stories. It could almost be considered a waste of time to break it down into a success formula, there are just too many variables. The only constant is the fact that they gained traction, which means that customers wanted the product they built. So in this sense, understanding the customer (or potential customer) is one of the most important aspects of success. It is also one of the hardest things to understand/master because in many cases, even the customer does not know what they want. This is why you end up with scenarios where it appears a big success was found "by accident" or "unknowingly"

</comment><comment><USER4> You should stop making posts about it on HN and start writing code :) I'm being serious. Go!

There is no mystery, no magic sauce, no secret recipe. When your product (or idea) inevitably sucks, it's okay to be depressed. And after you're done with that, try again. You might get lucky. Or you might not. You might be the next Zuckerberg. Or you might not. The only way to find out is to get off Hacker News, Facebook, Reddit, etc. and give it a shot.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its not a matter of doing, I'm motivated enough to put time in. The problem is what to build.

In any set of ideas, some are more obvious in their usefulness. Some just seem cool. If you look at the biggest consumer apps in their earliest stages, they almost all were ideas that "seemed cool" and lacked obvious usefulness (it was hard to see what problem they solved).

The problem is that way more of those apps fail vs ones that have utility. Hope that clarifies what I'm confused on.

<comment><USER5> _The problem is what to build._

You're over-thinking things. Easiest actionable advice is to build whatever excites you. A great way to do this is to build something that would have at least one user: _you_. Maybe it's "just" something "cool" or maybe it solves a pressing problem.

Don't get caught up in all of this up-front analysis where you try to build the perfect thing timed with some magical market moment. Instead, build a quick prototype if and when you feel excited about an idea. If your enthusiasm wanes early or you finish it and you realize it's not going to work out, it's _OK_ ... wrap a bow around it and move on to the next thing.

edit: You seem to be looking for a magic bullet in the form of a Paul Graham essay. If so, this may be your best hope: [http://www.paulgraham.com/startupideas.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/startupideas.html)

<comment><USER4> Pretty much what this gentleman said! :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Personally, I think I initially leaned towards "building something cool" \- which led me to build something which "I" thought was cool only to realise later that there aren't that many people sharing my same thought.

Above leads to an unprepared development of a product because you don't know whether there is a need/problem out there.

I think that's why it's so important to know the market + customers.

I think if you do find a problem to solve, then you can build something "cool" to solve that problem.

But if you have to compare the two, "solving a problem" seems objective, whereas "cool" is... just... too relative + subjective.

</comment><comment><USER7> Study and maybe you will get lucky. There are no shortcuts to success.

<comment><AUTHOR> Study what? I'm not looking for shortcuts, I'm looking for ideas that help consolidate the concepts of 1) building things interesting to you, and 2) solving real problems

<comment><USER2> > Study what? I'm not looking for shortcuts, I'm looking for ideas that help > consolidate the concepts of 1) building things interesting to you, and 2) > solving real problems

You're suffering from a misconception -- that a commercial success results from a deterministic sequence of choices and events. This isn't true -- there is a large element of chance involved in modern success stories.

If this were not true, people could apply the known laws of success, become successful, and retire, without ever having to think creatively. In fact, a computer could automatically apply the rules of success without brooking human interference.

Success depends on a combination of creativity, hard work, and chance. No amount of creativity and hard work can eliminate the role played by chance.

> I'm looking for ideas ...

With all respect, if you become successful, it will be because of ideas you discovered on your own.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough, but I believe there are patterns to success, and I believe there are people's opinions worth reading. PG's essays have mostly been true to my experiences.

Build something people want, have a co-founder... I don't necessarily need to learn those lessons on my own, yet understanding them gives me a vast advantage over someone who doesn't.

<comment><USER2> > ... I believe there are patterns to success ...

Those patterns are illusions that rely entirely on hindsight. How can I be sure? If there really was a meaningful pattern to success, a computer could carry it out like a recipe, and achieve an automated success each time it was executed.

> Build something people want, have a co-founder... I don't necessarily need > to learn those lessons on my own, yet understanding them gives me a vast > advantage over someone who doesn't.

Really? "Build something people want" is a lesson? It's a self-evident and self-referential proposition. And the advice to have a co-founder is a silly proposition that's probably wrong more often than it's right. Bill Gates because successful only after getting rid of his co-founder. Steve Jobs because successful only after marginalizing his co-founder. Steve Zuckerberg became successful only after cheating his co-founders. Elon Musk because successful partly by avoiding the advice to have a co-founder.

You don't need the useless advice of sages, you need life experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry, but I still don't follow where you're trying to go with this. You don't strike me as someone who is particularly well informed with the modern startup, or the principles of turning an idea into a business.

If you were, you'd know that cofounders are important because building a business is difficult, and going the path with a partner has numerous tangible benefits. You'd also know about the pitfalls that kill startups, things people believe to be important but are not, and may get in the way of "building something people want". It is not useless advice, its actually quite good advice that can save you a lot of time and energy. That's why I don't dismiss it, I seek it.

<comment><USER2> > I'm sorry, but I still don't follow where you're trying to go with this.

You don't understand what I mean when I say there are no secrets of the winners? That success is what success does? How is that either difficult to grasp or in any way controversial?

> You don't strike me as someone who is particularly well informed with the > modern startup, or the principles of turning an idea into a business.

So the fact that I have been a successful software developer for decades doesn't count? That, as one example, I turned my idea for a word processor into a product that became a worldwide best-seller doesn't count? You need to show a little respect, given that you're presuming to pontificate about something you've never accomplished, to someone who has.

> If you were, you'd know that cofounders are important ...

You know what? Thinking is important. A respect for evidence is important. Your belief in the value of co-founders is falsified by the history of successful businesses, and I already provided a list of obvious examples where co-founders only got in the way.

> ... going the path with a partner has numerous tangible benefits.

I guess that would explain why the most successful companies were started by individuals, or teams consisting of a leader and followers (which contradicts the meaning of "co-founder").

> You'd also know about the pitfalls that kill startups, things people believe > to be important but are not ...

Like believing there are surefire rules for successful startups? The thesis that there is a winning formula is as true in business as it is in war -- it's proven false over and over again. In business and war, whatever strategy you choose, your enemy will adapt to it, which means you have to ... wait for it ... think original thoughts, thoughts that by definition aren't on a list of surefire ways to succeed. Thoughts your adversaries won't anticipate.

> It is not useless advice ...

It is useless advice simply because it's out there -- everyone has it. What you need is not more canned formulas for success, but more life experience and less respect for formulaic "solutions".

"When we started out, I had six rules and no children. Now I have six children and no rules."

> That's why I don't dismiss it, I seek it.

And eventually you will stop wasting your time trying to find the magic potion.

But, contrary to what you say, your writing so far only proves that you are incredibly rigid in your thinking, incapable of hearing anyone's advice, and you already have your mind made up about what constitutes a successful business strategy. You are neither flexible nor open to new ideas. You can't be bothered to listen to the advice of people who've had successes you can only dream of.

<comment><AUTHOR> This has gotten too personal and no longer has any substance. If you want to reply to get the last word go ahead, but I won't be replying to you any further.

If you presented any worthwhile ideas, I could discuss them. But all you've presented is that success is unmeasurable chaos and therefore any discussion is pointless and awash.

You have such a strong disposition, you even call it magic potions and canned formulas. Your last paragraph describes you as much as me, think about that.

<comment><USER2> > If you presented any worthwhile ideas, I could discuss them.

Translation: "In my search for surefire rules to success, I am going to avoid any advice from successful people." Sadly noted.

> But all you've presented is that success is unmeasurable chaos ...

And? That's correct. The only problem is that you have the modern equivalent of a religious outlook, i.e. there are rules that, if followed, assure success. It's false, but you can't accept that.

The fact that life is unmeasurable chaos doesn't mean people can't be successful. Those who are successful accept life as it is, not as they would like it to be.

> You have such a strong disposition ...

Just like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, an a thousand other successful people. But you have a belief in authority, in the power of rules, so you don't need to learn anything from successful people. Dream on, pilgrim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd work on redefining the dream. Dreaming of being one-in-a-milllion person can, in the long term, lead to frustration.

</comment><comment><USER9> that is easy. just pay attention to what you and people do and how they do it. if you find a way to simlify that, you got an idea.</comment>


A Proposal for a Consent Based Society - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@unlocking/a-proposal-for-a-consent-based-society-843b27b33430 <comment><USER2> So, when is consent revocable? Should it be presumed by default?

How do you prevent someone yelling fire in a crowded theater using only consent? or spam for that matter.

How does consent work with humor or theatrics? Just shoot me... did I just consent to being killed?

If I know the outcome will harm you do I have any obligation to you? What if you are unaware it will harm you? is it different physically versus financial?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey sharemywin,

Thanks for reading the article and for the thoughtful questions.

> So, when is consent revocable? Should it be presumed by default? These are > technicalities that would need to be spelled out in law. But as a short > answer consider our current system for how purchases are made or how jobs > are taken. For purchases, once you make the purchase, you may be stuck, but > some companies allow returns. For jobs, generally a contracts is written up > where someone commits to a certain period of time, or an at-will contract.

> How do you prevent someone yelling fire in a crowded theater using only > consent? or spam for that matter. Yelling fire in a crowd is generally > considered to be violence in the same way that punching someone is, because > you're causing a panic that can cause physical harm to people. In a consent > based society, people own their bodies and their property and any violence > against either would be illegal.

> How does consent work with humor or theatrics? Just shoot me... did I just > consent to being killed? A judge would have to determine when consent was > given. In this case, it wouldn't be any different than our current laws. No > judge would say that someone would be bound by a contract if in a joke they > said "Well if you're so much smarter than me, then why don't you just take > my whole house!"

> If I know the outcome will harm you do I have any obligation to you? What if > you are unaware it will harm you? is it different physically versus > financial? This seems to basically ask "What if someone takes advantage of > someone else?" In a consent based society, it would be illegal to defraud > someone. The basic idea is that if you were fraudulent in your contract or > proposition, the consent wasn't genuine. Again, there would have to be some > sort of court system to arbitrate this dispute.

I loved the questions. Hopefully my responses were clarifying. Let me know if there's anything else that piques your curiosity.

<comment><USER2> Smog? did you commit violence against me?

Government property? Parks?

Taxes? how does the court system run without funds?

Excessive profits? Aren't monopolies a form of coercion?

billboards with porn?

<comment><USER2> Is a trade secret a form of coercion?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> How does consent work when there's an imbalance of information or power? I would say that consent is a necessary but not sufficient principle on which to base a just society.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fraud would be illegal. But still, yes, some people will always have more info or intelligence than others and will probably benefit from it. Though also in a free market, businesses will spring up that offer to provide information services.

You say consent plus something else. What is your something else?</comment></comment>


How an Associate Engineer Training Program Recruited Senior Developers - <AUTHOR> https://technology.cloverhealth.com/how-an-associate-engineer-training-program-recruited-senior-developers-80227a5e55a8 <comment><USER2> not what I've seen, i worked at a place that decided to only hire junior junior debs for a year because they're cheaper and everythig went to shit, most the seniors left</comment>


Online gambling in the USA - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/05/state-by-state-america-keeps-betting-on-online-poker-and-gambling/

<comment><USER2> I really miss being able to easily play online poker. More than that, I miss being able to easily play against Americans.

On another note, now that I'm living in the US I'm left wishing I could use my online poker accounts to easily move money back home to Australia for FAR less than the going rate of "normal" money transfer options.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> re: TFA, legalization of gambling in the USA has increased drastically over the last 15 years. Mostly starting in native-american reservations, and then trickling into other areas wanting to cash in.

Though I personally love playing poker for cash, legalization should be reversed, not expanded. Being a tax windfall for governments isn't a justification for the ruin it brings upon families (ignoring the idiot actually responsible).

<comment><USER3> So should we ban cigarettes too? Or how about people who "bet" on the stock market and lose a fortune? Or people who sink money into a startup? In every scenario people are going to do stupid things, that doesn't mean those things should be illegal.

<comment><AUTHOR> i don't know if you are arguing for the sake of arguing, or you really feel (re my statement) that gambling is in the same ballpark?

to respond:

1) killing yourself with cancer in 20 years isn't as insidious as loosing your families accumulated wealth.

2) betting on stocks is somewhat similar, but the barriers to entry make it a non-issue to society.

3) startups, same as 2 but moreso

more details on my position: I have 1 extended family member who lost their immediate family (9 or so people) everything (aprox 1mil usd in savings) due to gambling obsessions. i know 1 friend who was in a similar position, and 2 aquantences with similar stories.

<comment><USER3> Saying that your family had gambling problems is anecdotal. Seeing someone in a hospital bed with a tube down their throat because of smoking is an argument you could have made too. There are going to be outliers with every vice (alcohol comes to mind too), I'm just saying that we shouldn't always jump to prohibition.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tablet and Notebook Redefined: Asus Transformer Prime In-depth Look  - <AUTHOR> http://www.androidauthority.com/tablet-and-notebook-redefined-asus-transformer-prime-in-depth-look-31624/

<comment><USER2> This is not an in-depth look at all, unless you consider someone making wild conclusions about a press release, and showing 3d-models "in-depth".

Going on about the real battery life, when the machine may not even exist yet just screams amateur hour.

<comment><USER3> Seriously. This is a rehash of a press release/slide deck. You would think an in-depth look would at least include some hands on impressions. This is more "Asus Transformer Prime Press Release In-Depth Look".

One thing that stuck with me about The Verge's Asus Ultrabook review is how bad they found the keyboard to be. And here the "article" states:

 _Extremely thin tablet+extremely thin keyboard, both made from aluminum and packed together – what more could you want?_

<comment><USER4> I haven't seen anyone complaining about the keyboard on the Asus Transformer though, which would seem more relevant, right? Amazon has it as 4* with 138 reviews.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use the first generation Transformer and i can recommend it to everyone as a netbook replacement. If you invest in a few good productivity apps you can do everything as well as on a netbook, but with a whooping 16hours of battery life...

Even rdp works, but its not perfect because right click with a mouse doesn't get send over, atleast with the built in solution.

</comment><comment><USER6> This seems to be a really good idea coupled with what looks like a good execution.

I don't think the article mentioned a price, but it seems it will start at around $499 for 32GB storage space. I think this could easily replace the sort of notebook most people get for that amount of money, and with 18 hours (!) of battery life, it would probably serve them better as well.

If this sort of product takes off, it could really be the year of Linux on the laptop--just in the form of Android. At the very least, I can dream...

</comment><comment><USER7> I bought the original Asus Transformer about 6 months ago and have been using it almost daily ever since. At the time it was quite difficult to find one as it was sold out almost as it arrived in stores. It is a fine product if not quite as good looking as the iPad 2. However it was cheaper, has IPS screen with gorilla glass, sdcard expandability and around an 8-10 hour battery life. In the months since I bought it I've seen the number of quality apps in the appstore grow considerably. I now use the device at home about 90% of the time I need to use a computer.

If the Transformer Prime is along the same lines as the original transformer - with these better specs, I would say its a potential winner.

</comment><comment><USER8> There is something I find truly funny. The image shows us that there is a 40 pin connector. How is that important to an end user? Are 40 pin connectors better than 39 pin connectors?

<comment><USER9> I think it's meant as a more information dense version of "non-USB connector", though many users won't realize it means custom connector :-\

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This reminds me. Haven't we seen a post about Asus doing nothing but shamelessly copying Apple on top of the first page some time earlier today?

<comment><USER11> Which Apple product is this a copy of?

<comment><USER9> This is a shameless copy of that hybrid iPad/MacBook Air thing Apple just anou.. oh, right, that didn't happen.</comment></comment></comment>


Overcast's 2014 sales numbers - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2015/01/15/overcast-sales-numbers

<comment><USER2> I wrote a little post to put those numbers in perspective: [http://www.upbeat.it/2015/01/16/putting-marcos-numbers-in- pe...](http://www.upbeat.it/2015/01/16/putting-marcos-numbers-in-perspective/)

</comment><comment><USER3> That's not really a lot of money. Going forward, it looks like he might average $20k/month, at best. If he wanted to hire another developer, for example, he really couldn't afford it. Sure, it's nice for now, but it's not a long-term business.

<comment><USER4> It depends on how much time he spends on this on a daily basis. I am guessing its only a few hours a week now. If you take that view then I think numbers are very good.

This saved time will allow him to do other things and spawn off other interesting projects which is pretty cool imo.</comment></comment>


Facebook Is Gaining Ground On Google In Time Spent On The Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/12/18/facebook-is-gaining-ground-on-google-in-time-spent-on-the-internet/

<comment><USER2> Somewhat misleading comparison. Google's goal is to make visits short: to rapidly and profitably send users on to what they're looking for.

<comment><USER3> But what about gmail and google apps?

<comment><USER4> Loss leaders and brand builders.

<comment><USER5> Anyone know what GMail's revenue is? It must be millions...maybe enough that it's profitable?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> > There are now 52,000 apps on Facebook, created by 660,000 developers.

That doesn't add up!! If that's true, then it's about 11 developers per app. My experience, at least in SV, is that it's more like 11 apps per developer.

<comment><USER6> A lot of people ( like me ) registered as a developer to try out the api but never officially released an app.

<comment><USER4> I'm 'squatting' on about two dozen app names right now</comment></comment></comment>


Mass Infection of IIS/ASP Sites - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sucuri.net/2010/06/mass-infection-of-iisasp-sites-robint-us.html?iscsans

<comment><AUTHOR> More details:

<http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=8935>

[http://nsmjunkie.blogspot.com/2010/06/anatomy-of-latest- mass...](http://nsmjunkie.blogspot.com/2010/06/anatomy-of-latest-mass-iisasp- infection.html)

According to the articles, more than 100k sites hacked.

</comment><comment><USER2> Yawn. Sql injection again. Can happen on any platform.

Hint: Use SPs for all your data access and don't give your app direct access to the tables. Makes stuff like this infinitely less likely to work.

<comment><USER3> By using SPs you more or less double the effort to port your application away from whatever database you are using.

Better to use an ORM.

<comment><USER4> You mean, except for the part where ORM-based applications are usually still injectable.

<comment><USER5> Same can be said for sprocs. Any popular ORM will have proper handling for parameters. In both cases you can't rely on the tool, you have to know what you're doing.

<comment><USER4> It's true that stored procedures can be injectable, but it's extremely rare, and you can find the 0.1% of them that might be with a simple grep regex, unlike ORMs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I got hacked similarly on my blog and it went undetected when my wordpress code files were changed. Now I can detect the website/server is hacked using this php code [http://www.webdigi.co.uk/blog/2009/how-to-detect-if-your- web...](http://www.webdigi.co.uk/blog/2009/how-to-detect-if-your-webserver-is- hacked-and-get-alerted/) (like tripwire)

This helped me a couple of times and once when a hack on my wordpress blog only showed different page links to the google bot!

</comment><comment><USER7> Can anyone give me a technical reason to deploy on a IIS and ASP platform instead of Apache/Nginx and one of the dozens of open source solutions for deploying a web application? From where I'm sitting, it seems to me the reasoning is "I drank the Microsoft Kool-Aid". Surely there's a better reason than that.

<comment><USER8> Is this a real question or a silly jab at Microsoft? I think you're underestimating the number of existing businesses who have .NET at their core, in which case the question is what justifies moving off of .NET? In my experience .NET can be - while not as hip - a very solid framework.

<comment><USER7> Yes it was a real question, and I note that you've failed to answer it.

>I think you're underestimating the number of existing businesses who have .NET at their core, in which case the question is what justifies moving off of .NET? In my experience .NET can be - while not as hip - a very solid framework.

I wanted to know why you'd deploy on that platform initially. Of course if you're already fucking using it, you're probably not going to switch.

<comment><USER8> Sorry, I thought you were being intentionally daft by stating the only reason to deploy on IIS would be "Kool-Aid" etc. In any case, you quoted my short answer to what I thought was not really a question to begin with ("a very solid framework").</comment></comment></comment></comment>


In favour of a single-forum forum - <AUTHOR> http://www.eteanga.ie/in-favour-of-one-page-forum/

<comment><USER2> I think going overboard with forum subcategories when setting up is part mimicry, part wishful thinking about member numbers, and part the overly taxonomical mindset of the classic webmaster.

It definitely happens a lot with these vBulletin/phpBB type sites, though I wouldn't define overboard as >1

</comment><comment><USER3> A pretty active single-forum forum I was once part of decided to divide it up into several topics. The immediate result was a major decrease in threads and posts.</comment>


Ask HN: Mobile Application Developer Salary - <AUTHOR>

What's the salary range for mobile application developers? <comment><USER2> This varies greatly by location among several other factors. The range can be quite large. It's like not answering the question at all. Would be helpful if you provided more details.</comment>


The Pixelbook Go Is a Smaller Cheaper Google-Made Chromebook - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/the-pixelbook-go-is-a-smaller-cheaper-google-made-chrom-1839059378 <comment><USER2> I want to live in the world where 650 USD is cheaper.

<comment><USER3> Cheaper than the previous model. The original Chromebook pixel was 1000 usd

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks a lot like the Asus C403 but without the SD card slot.</comment>


Unthink: an all-in-one social media platform - <AUTHOR> http://unthink.com/About <comment><USER2> I can't take this site seriously, for some reason. Like, I don't want to think about it. I wonder why.</comment>


Open offices are a dead end - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/wework-adam-neumann.html <comment><USER2> I think I'd have a less negative reaction to open offices if it weren't for the attempt to sell it as a _productivity booster_.

The article even mentions how they're "sold to workers as a boon to collaboration — liberated from barriers, stuffed in like sardines, people would chat more and, supposedly, come up with lots of brilliant new ideas". Thankfully the author also quickly refuted that. Yet the insanity remains, and people (often times the Agile evangelist types companies hire) continue to try to convince developers that open offices are good.

I could buy into it if the rational is it's far cheaper to fit more employees in less space. That's a fine reason. It sucks to work in, but I can at least hear that without rolling my eyes and dismissing everything else that person says as incredulous.

<comment><USER3> I think part of the problem is that (in my experience) open offices actually do boost productivity somewhat, but only when the office is a small 2-5 person pod. I lose productivity when I get dropped in a huge floor of people chatting and talking about things not related to what I'm working on.

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't call that an open office though, just a team room.

A shared space is fine with <5 people, can become problematic at 5-10 people and the frequently 20+ large floor spaces are just unworkable without noise cancelling headphones.

<comment><USER5> Agreed, it's just a small room with people in it. BTDT.

I worked in london in an open plan office maybe 40ft wide and getting on 200 ft long. _That 's_ open plan.

It's fine except for the noise. It's always the noise as the problem, all else is ok.

(edit: not a single company, a collection of small and medium businesses)

<comment><USER6> _> It's fine except for the noise. _

And the utter lack of privacy. Want to tell your colleague that Alex is a dick? Better do it in another building, or the entire office will hear it.

<comment><USER5> It's probably best not to use such language at work or one may be labelled a dick oneself. Keep it polite and any complaints formal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I could craft the perfect job for me, the one I work at would be it

\- an intelligent straightforward manager who will speak his mind bluntly and can take it just as well as he can dish it out. He's mostly concerned with results not whether you kiss his ring.

\- small company without a lot of bureaucracy -- I have full access to our entire AWS infrastructure

\- relatively generous PTO

\- a decent free family health plan

\- Pay is line with the market

\- up to date with technology and great chances for resume building.

\- coworkers are decent

\- easy commute.

 _But_ , I'm still debating on whether I should leave in a year and find either fully remote work, a job where I can have an office or at least a quiet work area because of our open office where you have sales people (B2b), customer support managers, and developers from different teams in one office where it gets noisy.

<comment><USER8> > Pay is line with the market

Presumably pay should / can be lower in a place where you actually _want_ to work for than in a shitty work environment?

> up to date with technology and great chances for resume building.

What do you mean "up to date with technology"? IMO most "recent" technology is mostly hype and/or vaporware, and as I get more experienced, I see more and more value in old, reliable, well-supported technology. I mean, I'm not _dissing_ on _all_ new tech (Rust?), just saying that just being "new" doesn't make it also "good".

<comment><USER7> _Presumably pay should / can be lower in a place where you actually want to work for than in a shitty work environment?_

My major _want_ is to get money deposited into my account. I'm at an age where I need to focus on building wealth. But that's the other dilemma -- I _could_ go into working for a consulting company as a "digital transformation consultant"/"cloud consultant" where I would be travelling or working from home a lot, but that doesn't excite me either -- thus I stay where I am until I can make up my mind.

 _What do you mean "up to date with technology"? IMO most "recent" technology is mostly hype and/or vaporware, and as I get more experienced, I see more and more value in old, reliable, well-supported technology. I mean, I'm not dissing on all new tech (Rust?), just saying that just being "new" doesn't make it also "good"._

"Up to date with market" _and_ "resume building". The only "value" I get out of any technology is the ability for it to get money deposited into my account. "Old reliable, well supported technology" doesn't get recruiters beating down your door. At 45, I can't afford not to be competitive and keeping up with new technology and then whine about "ageism"

I don't care about Rust or any other new technology until I see it appearing on a lot of job reqs.

<comment><USER9> I've always considered the technology treadmill to be optional. You can ride it and be successful, or you can become a good generalist on old technologies and be successful too.

I've never even thought about messing with Rust or React or Angular or Ember or Node or Haskell. I don't know what a Kubernet is and I think Docker is what happens when you take "it works for me" and turn it into a software deployment tool. I don't surf the Blockchain or care about Tensorflow. There are just too many companies (big and small, FAANG and fun) who offer rewarding jobs working on mature, boring tech for me to bother.

Maybe there will come a time when nobody on Earth is using C++ and Java anymore but I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.

<comment><USER7> Are you willing to move "anywhere on earth" to find a job? It doesn't matter whether _anyone_ will hire you, what matters is if anyone will hire you in a place that you are willing to move or allow you to work remotely and at the pay you want.

Also how old are you? I've seen too many people in their mid 40s who couldn't get a job because they called themselves "generalists" when a company could just as easily hire someone cheaply that could hit the ground running. Also there is a difference between the "right job" and the "right now" job. The "right job" for me would be architect, consultant, team lead, or consultant. But those jobs aren't as abundant. If I have three or four months to plan and look, I can get the "right job". If circumstances dictate that I need to get the "right now" job or contract (and get on my wife's insurance), I need to find a job quickly and be marketable.

<comment><USER9> Good point. There is a technology treadmill and a "moving around for work" treadmill. I'm in my 40s and have been ok with the moving around treadmill all my life. Not for everyone though. Landed in SV ten years ago and haven't run into the need to move again so far. Fingers crossed the bull market runs on...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Of all the places I have worked over the years, my preferred office layout so far is conference rooms. That is, each team has their own room. Open within, closed to noise from other teams. Depending on how well you get along with your teammates, you can turn on some music, decorate however you like, etc. Of course it won't work for everyone, or for every type of job, but as a developer it is the arrangement that I enjoyed the most. And anecdotally, my coworkers also seemed to prefer it to either open space or cubicles.

<comment><USER11> This is the arrangement at the place I've been working at for the last 9 years and I have to say, I prefer it to everything else. Our team is all in the same room so useful impromptu conversations happen semi-regularly. We don't have to reserve a conference room for daily stand-up. Asking questions (e.g. useful interruptions) is encouraged. If you want to be in the Zone for a few hours with no interruptions, there are places in the building where no one will bother you, or you can work from home that day.

Certainly, it's not for every kind of personality. But that's why companies evaluate for cultural fit as well. If you can't stand being interrupted ever for any reason, you're probably better off with a remote gig working from home. It doesn't work for extroverts who are compelled to strike up conversations regularly or who can't think without also talking because these things interrupt the whole team.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have a visceral response to that photo in the article. I do not need folks right on top of me like that.

My solution is that I often wear Shooting Earmuffs (you guys who listen to music all the time, i don't get it, i can't do that) to lower my awareness of all the chatter... even when I do have an office.

Fortunately folks around me are understanding.

<comment><USER13> I just recently discovered I have a super power: easily zoom out from a lot of chatter in a crowded small room.

The secret is that I am a non-native English speaker working in the US. I can understand and speak very well... when I am focused on it. If I am not consciously making an effort to understand the chat in the room, it is almost like white noise.

<comment> saiya-jin Same for me and all the french/swiss french colleagues around me, I don't think its that special of a skill. I can easily block them talking right through me and they don't interrupt my thought process.

English is a bit harder since I am much better at it and subconsciousness catches up. Never worked in open space in my native language so no clue, probably the hardest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The best office I ever worked in was an open office... with an open remote work policy. On any given day, only 15-30% of the office would be in; meaning while the office was "open", it was also usually empty and quiet.

People came in when they had in-person meetings, and teams generally fell into a loose schedule to come in on the same days 1-2 times per week.

I thought it provided a good balance; the company need to have a huge space to give people private offices etc, and it was quiet even if someone nearby was on a call.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think offices are a dead end.

With 4G, Slack, Zoom, and Google Docs we're able to work from anywhere. No need to commute anymore. And no need to constrain your team to the city you have an office in.

The only thing is that remote should not be an afterthought but you should organize for it [https://about.gitlab.com/company/culture/all- remote/](https://about.gitlab.com/company/culture/all-remote/) just like you invest time to run an office.

<comment><USER16> I agree to an extent. I think remote work is a swing in the opposite direction of open offices, but it can go too far. Remote work does not allow developers to collaborate easily; sometimes getting several people at a white board is necessary and efficient. Offices or very small cube farms (of 4-6 people in an enclosed area) seem an ideal middle ground where people working on the same thing can talk while not being bothered by others that have nothing to do with their current team/task.

<comment><USER17> Remote situations are also difficult to manage. I'm in management role at a new (to me) company and despite having a virtual meeting with one of my reports virtually every day, I've got a better understanding of the psychology of people that I see around the office casually even though they are in a completely different and unrelated department. Those interactions are unscheduled, have no agenda, and have no goals. And I'm realizing those interactions are _invaluable_ at understanding what makes people tick.

And that's not even opening the can of worms regarding remote productivity. To be Captain Obvious for a moment, it seems much easier for remote employees to hide a lack of productivity, especially in roles where productivity is hard to quantify (like software development). Sure, people like Nilay Patel (who was mentioned in the story) work from home with great success because it allows them to control their environment. But people like Nilay Patel are extremely unique in their motivation, commitment, and aptitude. Companies should be extremely cautious to extrapolate success stories like his onto their own resources.

We moved to open workspaces because of success stories and consultant pitches and hip office trends despite its obvious flaws. The move to everyone being remote has the ingredients of a fad, too.

<comment><USER18> > To be Captain Obvious for a moment, it seems much easier for remote > employees to hide a lack of productivity, especially in roles where > productivity is hard to quantify (like software development).

If you can't trust your workers to get work done without surveilling them, you should fire them, and focus on hiring employees you feel capable of truly trusting, not lament your inability to surveil them.

An under-discussed benefit I've found in years of remote work is that it tends to come with a much higher percentage of supervisors who are actually capable of _trusting their employees to be professionals and get work done_ , rather than managers who pay lip-service to ideas of trust but then use butts-in- seats-I-can-see as a security blanket to assuage their fears that employees are somehow "getting one over" on them. I find the latter sort of manager infantilizing and insulting.

I also can't really say that I find it difficult to judge the productivity of remote software developers, having been in position to evaluate it for remote reports over a number of years. It's actually, in my experience, more or less identical to judging the productivity of local developers? I don't really understand what work output you'd be not seeing from a remote developer that you would see from an in-person developer, that would impact your ability to assess their productivity? Are you just attempting to count butt-in-seat hours and call that productivity, or something? Do you not have rough estimates of how long work items should take? Estimates in software miss constantly, of course, because consistently and correctly evaluating the complexity of a task _a priori_ is well-understood to be very hard, but when a task misses estimates due to unexpected complexity, the extra complexity of the task will generally be obvious in the code you see in the eventual PR. Is the end work you see in PRs from your remote team consistent in terms of size/complexity/quality with the time that daily standup updates indicated was devoted to it?

If the former seems "consistently inconsistent" with the latter team-wide, have you looked at how your project management processes might be causing a loss of productivity that you're misinterpreting as being related to butts- not-being-located-in-the-magical-seats-you-can-see? If it's "consistently inconsistent" with only one or a small subset of your team, have you devoted time to jumping into regular pairing sessions with those team members, to evaluate whether it's a skill-gap situation, or them perhaps struggling with a lack of detail (or too much detail) in the tasks they've been assigned, or if it's truly just a lack of effort situation (in which case, again, _fire them_ , don't imagine that somehow a magical seat-in-your-sight will fix their fundamental lack of professionalism. Open offices are not even remotely immune to the presence of freeloader developers).

Even apart from evaluating the effort, quality, and complexity of output you're seeing in PRs, or tickets they're writing, or solutions to problems they're proposing, in my experience daily standup updates are pretty qualitatively different between people who are doing the work versus people who aren't and are just spinning bullshit, and that's no less true on a remote standup than an in-person one. It also becomes _instantaneously_ obvious the second you say "hey lets jump on a hangout after standup and you can walk me through the problems you've run into and we can brainstorm some work arounds".

<comment><USER17> Perhaps I don't have the skills to make such remote discernment as you seem to be able to do. Perhaps I've only had the wrong resources. Or perhaps the projects you're managing have a different sort of complexity and domain knowledge required than the projects I manage. After all, some projects might lend themselves to remote teams than others. Who knows?

There are some scenarios (domain knowledge, budget constraints, lack of office space, etc.) that justify people working remotely, so don't take my original comment as a statement that remote teams never work. Clearly they have, and clearly they do. But even if you're just some sort of management Jedi that I'm not, I think there are inherent flaws in remote teams that aren't solved by just having the _right people_.

<comment><USER18> > Perhaps I don't have the skills to make such remote discernment as you seem > to be able to do.

If you're a non-software developer managing software developers, that's (in my experience) a profound organizational issue that simply does not work in any situation, open office or remote. If you lack the skills to actually evaluate the work output by your reports, then you're left with piss-poor proxies that are more noise than signal and frequently have no correlation to what productivity actually looks like in the field.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure things are as universally true as you're saying. I've been managed by developers, non- developers, and people who haven't written a line of code in 20 years but were once developers. I can't say I've really noticed any quality/effectiveness differences correlated highly with their ability to develop software. And I've been both on-site and full-time remote.

Evaluating ability, progress, and effort can be done as more of a human problem than a technical one. Heck, current or former developers are more prone to overconfidence in their assessments, especially when they're not personally neck-deep in the exact area.

A good people manager can smell a slacker based on a wealth of signals from 1-1 meetings and the overall flow of work. But the strongest signals come from what the manager picks up from your coworkers, who are almost certainly going to be more qualified to evaluate your progress than the manager could be.

People can still slack off and put up a bullshit screen that'll fool their coworkers for a while, because they're not watching for it. That's not their job anyway, that's the manager's job, and they don't need to be able to hand- code an encrypted distributed hashtable to smell a rat.

That said, it depends on who you have. Some developers need oversight from a knowledgeable manager, especially when remote. Some don't. The purpose of management extends well beyond evaluation, which is more of a cure that you'll need inversely proportionately to how well you do prevention (team dynamics etc.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Unpopular opinion, but I actually think open offices make me more productive. When I'm in a private office, the temptation to watch YouTube, or otherwise read/do unrelated work stuff is _much_ higher.

However, I do like having a private office to eat lunch.

<comment><USER21> Even if you're an outlier, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the _overall_ output of an open office is substantially less for virtually everybody. People get sick more frequently, and lots of time is lost in non- work-related conversations. This has been measured, and I don't know that it's really up for debate.

<comment><USER22> I think it is very much up for debate.

Let's hypothesize that 60% of people work better in private offices, and 40% work better in open offices. You force everyone to work in a private office, and they perform slightly better than if you force everyone to work in an open office--that perfectly explains the results of the studies.

But obviously if this hypothesis is true, then the best solution would be to let the 40% who work better in open offices work in open offices, and let the 60% who work better in private offices work in private offices.

Sure, if you're going to force everyone into one style of office, the evidence probably says we should force them into private offices. But why are we forcing everyone into one style of office?

<comment><USER23> If you google around, you will find lots of studies on that subject have already been done, and most of them find, that open offices are for the most part are less productive.

The only way to find out if you are right is to test it. Until that is done, it makes most sense to go with, majority of studies.

That said, you suggestion (about having both types) might work in ideal world. In real world you wouldn't really have a choice most of the time, because if your team mostly works in open office, you will miss* out on a lot if working in closed office. And if majority of people work in closed offices, then you loose all the benefits that open offices bring anyway.

So you would end up in whatever team lead decided that its best.

* And likely be considered antisocial.

<comment><USER22> > If you google around, you will find lots of studies on that subject have > already been done, and most of them find, that open offices are for the most > part are less productive.

If you Google around, you will find lots of studies that tested which office style you should force everyone into, without considering the possibility that forcing everyone into the same office style might be a bad idea. That doesn't address my point at all.

> The only way to find out if you are right is to test it.

My entire career has been a test showing that I can't get much done in isolation. Open offices work great for me, and at this point, I will not take a job that requires me to work in isolation.

Again I'm going to ask: why are we forcing everyone into one style of office?

<comment><USER23> > Again I'm going to ask: why are we forcing everyone into one style of > office?

I addressed that in my reply: "That said, you suggestion (about having both types) might work in ideal world. In real world you wouldn't really have a choice most of the time, because if your team mostly works in open office, you will miss* out on a lot if working in closed office. And if majority of people work in closed offices, then you loose all the benefits that open offices bring anyway.

So you would end up in whatever team lead decided that its best.

* And likely be considered antisocial. "

> My entire career has been a test showing that I can't get much done in > isolation. Open offices work great for me, and at this point, I will not > take a job that requires me to work in isolation.

Well if the rest of the team, is in their own offices and you are alone or with people from other groups/teams how exactly will that work for you, you might as well be in coffee shop across the street.

I am not trying to say that you should like individual offices, but you can't really mix both of them together, unless your teams are huge (which I personally dislike).

Edit: Not sure if I explained myself correctly (I am not trying to say that some people don't work better in open offices), and I come of across as a bit of a jerk, which was unintentional.

Edit2: and its a moot point mostly anyway, because open offices are cheaper, so there will always be plenty of companies with open offices, whatever studies show.

<comment><USER22> > So you would end up in whatever team lead decided that its best.

That's poor leadership on their part.

> Well if the rest of the team, is in their own offices and you are alone or > with people from other groups/teams how exactly will that work for you, you > might as well be in coffee shop across the street.

If the rest of the team is in their own offices, sure. That hasn't been the case for most teams I've worked on, however (which may be self-selection on my part--but it's never been hard for me to find a team I work well with).

> I am not trying to say that you should like individual offices, but you > can't really mix both of them together, unless your teams are huge (which I > personally dislike).

1\. What's huge to you? The only team I've worked with which had a really mixed open/private space ranged from 6-10 people while I was there. There were 2-3 people who worked consistently together (let's call these extroverts, which includes me), 3-5 who worked consistently on their own (let's call these introverts) and 1-2 who floated back and forth (let's call these ambiverts). The shared space was mixed with other teams--it's also worth noting that even if the people around you aren't on your team, there still needs to be some collaboration between teams, so even if you're the only extrovert on your team, working in a shared space that still isn't the same as working in a coffee shop across the street. A team of 10 is starting to get a bit bigger than I like personally, but 6-8 feels pretty ideal to me.

Now I work for myself and I'm not seated with my client's team at all. But I tend to work in coworking spaces[1] frequented by other people working in my field, with people who frequently bounce designs and coding questions off of each other. This is a lot like your coffee shop idea, so that has some validity. But it isn't super ideal for me--if I continue getting consistent business, I may hire some people just to have some more direct collaboration in my life.

2\. There also doesn't need to be this kind of diversity in the same team. You can have a team that's all introverts, or a team that's all extroverts, and in those cases, picking a completely private layout or a completely open layout, respectively, is fine. The point is to assess the needs of your team and build your workspace around their needs instead of looking for a one-size-fits all solution for some "normal" team that doesn't exist.

I'll note that it's harder to integrate one extrovert into a team with a lot of introverts than the opposite. I don't really have a good solution for that problem.

[1] Not WeWork. They're so expensive and overcrowded! Just because I am an extrovert doesn't mean I want to be sitting on top of my neighbor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm not a fan of open office spaces, but I don't think the article fully captures the problem that the open office space is addressing. Our company has a team dedicated to the design of our office space, and they're trying to balance against multiple stakeholders' needs, from different functions (engineering vs legal), to work environment needs (1:1 vs meeting room vs quiet place), all shoved into a fixed and (relatively) small space. The result is you have to do trade-offs, just like normal engineering problems.

From my understanding, it's easier to scale environments that are open-office. For a startup that's always have to contend with finding space for their ever- growing teams, I can see why executives may reach for an understood solution to that problem, even knowing the downsides.

My guess is there's a necessary iteration to work environments in the future, since I don't think open offices truly optimize for knowledge workers. Presumably knowledge-based companies (e.g., tech) will eventually start thinking about how to optimize their internal efficiency as a lever to growth in addition to their product development.

<comment><USER7> _From my understanding, it 's easier to scale environments that are open- office. For a startup that's always have to contend with finding space for their ever-growing teams, _

I'm sure there is plenty of space if they let everyone work from home or come in on an ad gov basis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> All you need is some guy to talk loudly on the phone next to you all day and you'll soon come to abhor open offices. Not to mention the scrutiny of others - keeping an eye on how you work, how much you work, when you arrive, when you leave, what you eat etc. It can really be quite horrible at times, especially if your office is quite politically charged.

I run a small company in London, and we advertise our jobs with "closed" offices/remote as being a unique selling point! I think people prefer to work without being watched, and can really take ownership of their task without feeling conscious - they can get into that coveted state of "flow".

As a manager, I also don't want to watch over my staff all day. I'm not their owner, I'm just their manager. My aim is to let them do what they're good at, and being comfortable enough to let them get on with things is the best way to keep them productive.

And if someone isn't productive, it's obvious from their results. No open office/constant scrutiny required.

<comment><USER26> Possible to reveal the name of the company please ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I used to think that noise was the worst distraction to deal with in an open office until I took a job where a coworker in our open office decided not to practice basic hygiene. The smell is just horrible. It's far and away the most distracting thing I've ever experienced in my career.

They dress up and put in effort to look nice in the office, but everyone instantly knows when they walk into a room.

Honestly, I'm hesitant to go to HR about it in case it's a religious/cultural thing, but I will never, ever complain about noise again in my career after this. Woof.

<comment><USER28> >Honestly, I'm hesitant to go to HR about it in case it's a religious/cultural thing

Oy vey.. do you know how absurd that sounds?

<comment><USER29> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patchouli#Perfume](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patchouli#Perfume)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The best office layout is the office layout that fits the needs of the people working in it.

Open offices aren't a dead end. I work really well in open offices.

I can barely get any work done in a private office by myself. Yet there are many people who work well in private offices, and would be as non-productive in an open office as I am in a private office.

It's _obvious_ that people have different work styles. The problem here isn't open offices OR private offices, it's people who look only at their own work style and then extrapolate that out to the entire rest of humanity.

The solution is to let people self-select the office situation that works for them. Ideally companies have a mix of open and private spaces that allow people to work in a way that's best for them, including the option to work remotely, but that's not always possible. Sometimes that means that someone isn't a good fit for a team, and should be self-aware enough to self-select to not work on that team.

<comment><USER30> This is hilariously accurate and reasonable from my experiences. Being surrounded by hard working people tends to help some work better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> In the four years at my current company we went full cubes -> half cubes (you get like 2-3 regular walls and one baby wall) -> open office -> open office no assigned desks. I can't wait to see the next iteration on this.

<comment><USER32> Cubes are worse than open office IMHO. You get roughly the same noise and distraction but it's also harder to actually talk to or collaborate with your neighbors.

<comment><USER33> While I agree cubes are worse, they aren't worse for noise and distraction. The felt walls absorb quite a bit of sound and reduce the audible range of a conversation. WeWork offices, on the other hand, are the complete opposite with their reverberating glass/hard-floor designs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> These kinds of articles surface every couple of months, and when they do I always leave a comment about how much I hate the open office design.

I have trouble focusing with people talking around me (like most people), and I have trouble focusing on coding when I'm listening to music. I don't have an office, so how am I supposed to get stuff done exactly? I could work from my basement office at home, and I do sometimes, but at that point, wouldn't it be better to have just given me a proper office (or at least cubicle) so that I'm actually in the building if people need me?

</comment><comment><USER34> What about libre offices?

<comment><USER35> This was the perfect comment to read with my coffee this morning. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I never see this mentioned, but one of the things I hate most about open offices is having people always looking at my screen. To be clear, I don't waste much time. Does this bother any one else as much as it gets to me? Regardless of what I'm doing, I'm not comfortable being constantly observed doing it. I previously worked in an open office where the manager would basically creep up on people, walking quietly throughout the office and looking to see who was doing what. Creepy as all get-out.

</comment><comment><USER37> I hate open offices. What software companies offer at least cubicles?

<comment><USER38> If you're going to choose a company based on whether they offer cubicles you're going to be very disappointed.

<comment><USER37> That is why I ask first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> In some ways open office designs are a symptom of company cultures that do not value deep work more than the perceived value open plans offer such as cost savings or "collaboration".

From my vantage, there are quite a few more companies installing places for deep work in offices.

But even if companies install these spaces, if the company does not value deep work away from your primary desk, employees will feel discouraged about using those facilities.

It was probably the same culture disconnect for companies who would put a ping-pong table in the office even though deep down they would not actually want staff spending time utilizing them during the day as opposed to sitting at their desk working.

</comment><comment><USER40> There is a Harvard study which says "Your Open-Plan Office Is Making Your Team Less Collaborative". Open office plans lead to more email less collaboration.

So it is better to have traditional office setup with collaboration areas than open office spaces.

link to study: [https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201...](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239)

</comment><comment><USER41> everyone wants to have offices in all the trendy downtown areas. a lot of the cost of the office goes to rent, so even if a desire for cubes or offices was there (which generally management doesn't because they are expensive) the budget won't be.

</comment><comment><USER42> At my first job space was at a sort of premium, and we all worked at a bench with computers on it. But, there were walls that separated about 6-8 workers. I think this is a very nice happy medium. I can openly collaborate with my "pizza-sized" team, but there's enough separation from other teams that I have a modicum of privacy. That said, I quite appreciate my 6'x7' cube my current company has me in.

</comment><comment><USER43> I don't have an issue with open offices per se but the person in front of me is from another culture and is literally 24/7 in skype calls which distracts me to no end, and the worst part is the he/she is literally /burping and farting/ without any shame. And I don't mean once a day, no, constantly burping and farting, it's honestly disgusting.

/rant

<comment><USER44> So, in other words, you do have a problem with open offices.

The fact that everyone has a different idea of what's acceptable behavior in a group setting is pretty much the whole issue with open offices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I've worked at three places that embraced the open office scheme.

What I've learned from those experiences is that I do not operate well in those environments. So much so that I now know that if a company uses it, there's no point in exploring employment with them as right off the bat I know it's a poor fit for me.

</comment><comment><USER46> There's a lot of hate for open offices, yet they're everywhere. There's high demand for developers, and accordingly, the salaries are high. Open offices mainly exist due to cost savings (lower sqft per employee), yet for most businesses salary costs will completely dwarf the cost of office space. Something doesn't add up.

Do places with open offices have a harder time finding people? I was trying to find some comparisons of average salary at places with open offices vs private spaces, but I can't come up with anything. Intuitively, I'd think the salaries would on average be higher at places with open offices, but perhaps that's not a consideration of most people.

How much more money would you need to be paid to make working in an open office worth it? Conversely, would you accept 5% less to get a private space? 10%?

<comment><USER47> The term that may answer your dilemma is "investor story-time" \-- open offices tell a story to investors, acquirers, etc. of a docile team that collaborates in a creative way, without too much annoying individualism. This story is in fact quite accurate. Possible cost savings are just extra.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> For some reason everywhere I've ever worked the POs get offices and devs don't. Why are we treated like sweat shop workers? Why don't devs get their own offices? We are paid so much money but have to sit in open offices or cubes like call center workers.

</comment><comment><USER49> I get a bit bewildered every time I see someone complaining about open offices as it always begs the question - what kind of alternative do they demand exactly? I have addressed this on many threads and comments but somehow I never gen an answer.

Only thing I can think of are cubicles but to me they seem a lot worse than the open office and they're definitely not a thing here in Europe. Out of all the companies and interviews I've been to and people in the industry that I know, I have yet to see a cubicle outside of a hollywood movie.

The other thing I suppose is where literally every employee gets their own office. But is that really a thing? Because I've never heard of something like that.

<comment><USER50> Cubicles, working remote, conference rooms. You ask for alternatives but automatically rule out the largest alternative (cubicles)? Feels like your expectations are the odd ones

<comment><USER49> As I said, they're basically non-existent here, so they're definitely not an alternative for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> More distractions have been introduced since open spaces had been "invented". Simple as that.

</comment><comment><USER52> In my city, mid-sized city in a larger metropolitan area with a few million people, I tried to work at one of the We-Work type places and found it completely overpriced.

If I can work from anywhere, then I don't see the advantage to renting an office for the day. The real appeal for an office is that you can leave stuff there and use it for a multitude of things. We-Work type places seem to be good for one thing, giving a desk to remote workers that don't like working at coffee shops or libraries?

Do sales people like them?

What exactly are the type of professionals that like We-Work type offices?

</comment><comment><USER53> As someone who started out working in an open office and now works someplace with half-cubes, I honestly prefer the open office.

The ability for an open office to foster pair-programming and intense collaboration was a real benefit, though it certainly doesn't suit everyone.

On the other hand, the half-cubes have all the same problems with regard to distractions, but are also major hindrances to working together in my experience. Developers are farther away, the space feels a little claustrophobic, and there are comparatively few good pairing stations.

<comment><USER54> > The ability for an open office to foster pair-programming and intense > collaboration was a real benefit, though it certainly doesn't suit everyone.

How much of your day do you spend in intense collaboration?

<comment><USER22> I've been at companies where I spent perhaps 7 out of 8 hour in a day pair programming, and it was the most productive I've ever been.

As the parent comment said, it's not for everyone. _Nothing_ is for everyone-- there are many different work styles.

<comment><USER55> That sounds like a great argument against open offices. I could not handle sitting near two people pair programming the whole day. If they went to a private office to do it that would seem ideal.

<comment><USER22> > That sounds like a great argument against open offices. I could not handle > sitting near two people pair programming the whole day. If they went to a > private office to do it that would seem ideal.

I don't understand. You can't handle working in an open office, so your solution is to force people who work well in an open office to work in a private office?

Why can't you go work in a private office if that works well for you, and let people who work well in open offices work in open offices?

<comment><USER56> Expecting your neighbor to be ok with two people talking to each other for 7 hours straight is just plain rude regardless of your office preference.

<comment><USER22> Please read the post you are responding to.

<comment><USER55> no_wave's reply is exactly on point.

You don't need the open office to pair program, you just need to be with one other person. So go to an office, because otherwise you are disturbing everyone else in the room with your pair programming if you are going to be talking 7 hours straight. In an open office that is plain rude and selfish.

And by the way I would love to work in a private office, but that is not an option. So everyone needs to compromise, and that includes not pair programming and talking all day out of respect for your co-workers.

<comment><USER22> Again, please read the posts you are responding to. You're _not_ reading my posts. I'm not your enemy here. You're just taking your anger at other people out on me.

If you would read my posts, you would see that what I'm proposing is a mixed office space with open areas for those who work best that way (like me), and private areas for people who work best that way (like you).

1\. I'm definitely _for_ you having your own, private office if that's how you work best.

2\. An open office with enforced silence is the worst of both worlds. The extroverts can't work effectively because they can't collaborate, and it's really never quite quiet enough for the introverts. This kind of "compromise" means nobody is happy.

3\. Being in the open office isn't just about talking with your pair, it's about being able to collaborate with people outside your pair too.

<comment><USER55> I think I am reading your posts - we are just focusing on different aspects.

I agree with your ideal - that indeed would be a nice place to be. My concern is more around the reality for most people which is that everyone is in an open office environment. How do you propose to handle that situation assuming no offices are available? Would you still pair program and talk all day? Would you at least first ask your neighbors if they are ok with that? And what would you do if they said no?

<comment><USER22> The emergent norm at coworking spaces seems to be that you keep the volume down (just above a whisper) and don't talk _to_ people if they have headphones in, as this signals that they're trying to concentrate.

Pair collaboration happens _all the time_ in this sort of setting. These days I'm not the one pair programming, since my coworkers are a 5 hour drive away-- it's other people. And they typically don't ask first.

But the reality is that if people are paying to work in an open office coworking space, they've chosen to be there and are at least somewhat extroverted. So those norms aren't likely to fit the needs of people who don't want to be in an open office.

The flipside of that coin is, I don't think introverts get to come into an open office space and determine norms for an office space they don't want to be in anyway. If a coworker communicated to me that they needed more quiet, I'd try to come up with a way to meet that need. But it's a bit aggressive to assume that I will meet your needs without you communicating them, and call me "rude and selfish" when I don't.

In the short-term, if you asked, obviously I'd just quiet down so you'd be able to get done what you needed to get done that day. But that's a short-term solution, and I'm not going to give up _my_ productivity forever. The longer- term solution would be to help you lobby management to get you the privacy you need. Can we designate conference rooms as "quiet spaces" when not in use? Can we schedule all the meetings for one day a week so the conference rooms are not in use the rest of the time? Can we re-examine why we're not letting people work from home? Whatever compromise arises is going to come from us discussing what we both want and coming to an agreement. And if management really isn't amenable to anything that works for you, I'd probably leave the company--I don't particularly like working for authoritarians, even if the open office mandate doesn't harm me directly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I refuse to work in an open office unless you're paying me to bother, er, "collaborate" with my coworkers. Want me to put my head down and focus? Give me an office.

</comment><comment><USER58> I've worked in every type of office in Silicon Valley: private office, shared office, cubicle, cubicle with low walls, and open office. My favorite is open office. It's a different way to work, but I do find it more social and more collaborative. I don't get distracted that easily and I recover easily if someone asks me a question so for me it works fine. I can understand if others feel differently, but for me, open office is definitely my favorite.

</comment><comment><USER59> Much as I hate open offices, I think Farhad overshot the premise. Open office culture didn't start with WeWork, neither will We's failure invalidate it.

</comment><comment><USER60> I disagree.

The headline photo looks claustrophobic -- we aren't sardines -- but I'm a fan of the "team pod" setup.

The primary alternative--the high walled land of cubicles--is a depressing, lonely world. Yes, I get pulled out of flow more often than I would if I had an office or a cube, and I'm occasionally annoyed by chatter, but I'd rather have some humans to coexist with and occasionally interrupted than depressed and flowing.

</comment><comment><USER61> Probably an unpopular opinion here, but I like open offices.

It's nice being able to turn around and have quick meetings without wasting time looking for a room.

It's also nice being able to scoot a chair over to work with a team member on a problem.

As a general rule people don't interrupt others if they have headphones on.

Maybe it's a problem for companies with product and engineering next to sales. Other than that I'm not entirely sure where all the hate comes from.

<comment><USER62> There's a difference between open team rooms and the kind of office where there's a whole floor of a building with nothing but structural obstructions from window to window. The former can be very nice, the latter is awful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> open offices are plain and simple about two things, neither of which is related to worker health or productivity.

cost: open offices, once built out are cheap in terms of cog pers square foot. marketing: airy, light, trendy open office make great photos.

I knew my present company had succumbed to the disease when a request for whiteboard desk dividers was denied because, to paraphrase: 'they don't fit in with the airy flow we were going for'

</comment><comment><USER64> Maybe there are fields of work where being in an open space helps, but most of my work is best accomplished in complete isolation.

</comment><comment><USER65> At one point in ~2009 I put together a business plan for a wework-esque office space company that was centered around each worker having their own most self- sustaining space, minus restrooms, but including sinks. I still like the idea, because the more I have worked in unicorns the more I have hated their push for open office spaces.

</comment><comment><USER66> I know this is an odd opinion, but I actually like open offices. It's akin to working in a coffee shop or public space.

I listen to music 90%+ time I'm working. I'm either using in-ear or closed- back headphones, so background noise isn't an issue. Having people milling around feels nice to me.

<comment><USER22> That's not odd at all!

It's entirely predictable that people have different work styles--some will thrive in an open office, and some will thrive in private spaces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> COMPETITION: A company should have some of each. Workers pick which they want.

The problem is when open offices are crammed on workers.

They should make half open offices, and half closed offices. Some places have rooms for 2 to 8 people to work in, which is a good alternative to open offices. See which workers select.

</comment><comment><USER68> Open office, very little productivity. Individual office,a lot of productivity. The employer chooses what it wants. I see open office as a request to slack off. I'm still using 100% of my mental energy, but not on productive stuff.

</comment><comment><USER69> I think they'd be more productive if they just left a basket of earplugs at the front. I use them and don't have a problem in open office space—-and this coming from someone with ADD.

</comment><comment><USER70> And thank the maker for noise cancelling headphones. I dunno how I would survive open plan office hell without it.

</comment><comment><USER71> We still have cube walls, seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

</comment><comment><USER72> I actually love open offices. Cubicles are too isolating.

</comment><comment><USER73> I wonder if remote work will become standard.

<comment><USER74> Not gonna happen. Working in an office is cultural, and as long as the majority of jobs require presence (read: almost every non knowledge-worker job) it won't change.

Personally I don't like the idea of remote work anyway - I think we're missing _a lot_ of valuable bandwidth. We're social creatures and no amount of technology will change that. That being said, I think the option should be there for those who disagree with me.

A good middle ground would be a mix of remote and in-person work.

<comment><USER75> > _Working in an office is cultural_

Culture changes, and there's a such thing as subculture. Many individual companies have created remote-only subcultures, and they'll become more influential over time.

(Wearing suits to the office used to be cultural and "never going to change".)

> _we 're missing a lot of valuable bandwidth_

But you're also missing lots of destructive bandwidth (interruptions, gossip, etc.)

Remote work allows you to create time/space for the good connections without also formalizing the bad ones. Socializing becomes opt-in instead of opt-out.

> _We 're social creatures and no amount of technology will change that._

People socialize outside of offices all the time. There's nothing stopping remote coworkers from meeting in the same place every day, going out to lunch, etc.

> _A good middle ground would be a mix of remote and in-person work._

This is a difficult line to toe. It works better if the company is 100% remote, or if going to the office is opt-in (like a free perk for those who want it).

If you start with onsite-by-default and try to transition to remote, the people who stay onsite become resentful of the remote workers, and everyone assumes the remote workers are lazier, distracted, etc.

<comment><USER74> > But you're also missing lots of destructive bandwidth (interruptions, > gossip, etc.)

These things are a component of being around others though. Gossip never goes away, it just migrates.

> People socialize outside of offices all the time. There's nothing stopping > remote coworkers from meeting in the same place every day, going out to > lunch, etc.

True that, but arguably the best benefit of remote work is to.. well.. live remotely. If you're all states or countries apart (as remote teams tend to be) then this is obviously not an option.

> If you start with onsite-by-default and try to transition to remote, the > people who stay onsite become resentful of the remote workers, and everyone > assumes the remote workers are lazier, distracted, etc.

If it's optional and actually sponsored by top execs into the company culture, why would this resentment exist?

Obviously this is just my opinion, but I'd really hate to live and work in the same place. It's the same for me with side projects: if you get burned out of uncomfortable in your space, that doesn't go away when work's over. You risk disliking your own place.

Personally I just prefer a strict division between work/life and remote heavily fragments that relationship.

<comment><USER75> > _True that, but arguably the best benefit of remote work is to.. well.. live > remotely._

This is actually one of the biggest reasons for an employer to choose remote- only. It's very difficult to find everyone you need in a single city at a salary you can afford.

I should've also mentioned that some of my closest relationships are with people I almost never meet in person. The US is full of people who are close to their families, but only see them a few times a year.

Coworkers can maintain a good working relationship without being in the same city more than once a year. All the companies I've worked for have had at least one remote worker, and they didn't feel like less a part of the team.

> _If it 's optional and actually sponsored by top execs into the company > culture, why would this resentment exist?_

Because some people feel like going into the office is more productive. That's it. They pat themselves on the back for it and look down on people who don't.

> _I 'd really hate to live and work in the same place_

This is orthogonal to the issue of a remote-only employer. No one would be forcing you to stay at home. You could go to a library, coffee shop, co- working space, local college, friend's house, public park, or wherever else you choose to work from. You could be at a hotel in Tokyo, if you wanted.

<comment><USER74> > I should've also mentioned that some of my closest relationships are with > people I almost never meet in person. The US is full of people who are close > to their families, but only see them a few times a year.

I don't know man - there's something uncomfortable about the majority of our time being spent stuck to a computer. Even as a programmer being around and talking to others is a break from that.

Video calls will never be good enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> I got hit in the eye with a nerf dart once in an open office environment. Thank God I work remotely now. Open-offices are horrid.

</comment><comment><USER77> Editorialized title: should be

Open Offices Are a Capitalist Dead End

</comment><comment><USER78> you're a dead end

</comment><comment><USER79> This sounds like a condemnation of startup culture. I've seen some great startups thrive with open offices.</comment>


Writers: Bots Are Stealing and Selling Your Content. Here's How to Stop Them - <AUTHOR> https://www.justoutsourcing.com/writing/legal/badbots.php <comment> Pick-A-Hill2019 Oh LoL. Hit this and got presented with a blank page that simply says "U.S. Only".

F.U.</comment>


A new Firefox for Android experience - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2020/08/25/introducing-a-new-firefox-for-android-experience/ <comment><AUTHOR> They're kind of burying the lede with their supporting just a handful of extensions, which I guess will be a pain point for relatively many users here, but for me, the most important extensions are available (unlikely for practically every other major browser), and it's far faster than the old Firefox for Android. That alone makes it a far better experience for me.

I'm still figuring out the use case for Collections though...

<comment><USER2> Yeah, at least they don't bug you to use collections as much as they used too. But I haven't figured out why I would use them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Call me crazy but I wish we brought back the thing chrome did where each website was a separate "window" or "app" in android. It made switching between tabs so easy (you just use the native app switching functionality). For every other browser it ranges between awkward and super awkward (the new FF is on the super awkward side).

Plus windows nicely garbage collect themselves as I open more tabs and apps. As it is now my broswer just collects old tabs until I manually press the "close all" button. If I want them back that is what the history feature is for.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not extremely discoverable, but you can swipe the address bar to switch tabs now. Works pretty well.</comment></comment>


Why Vancouver Is Hot for Start-ups - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/6-reasons-vancouver-is-hot-for-start-ups.html Here's why Amazon, Microsoft, and Facebook are opening local development offices there--and why you might want to do the same. <comment><USER2> love the article...and thanks for the mention to ShareDesk!</comment>


A large list of ruby development resources - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/saberma/ruby-dev-bookmarks

<comment><USER2> 212

</comment><comment><USER3> cool resource</comment>


Why do human testicles hang like that? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=why-do-human-testicles-hang-like-th-2009-11-19 <comment><USER2> This article never answered a very basic question: so evolution exiled man's balls from the body because sperm are temperature sensitive - but why didn't sperm just evolve to be less vulnerable to high temperatures? Anyone have a clue on this one?

<comment><USER3> If the sperm are to be activated by the higher temperature inside the female body then they would have to be cooler initially. They evolved to be triggered into action by the normal internal body temperature.

<comment><USER4> But why use temperature to trigger them into action? Why not mix them with some kind of hormone for activation?

<comment><USER5> Zck's answer points out the fallacy of the "why" question, but in gneneral I would surmise that co-evolution of sex-linked traits like this are a harder hill to climb than simple evolutionary adaption of the sperm alone. Developing a "program" that is not much more than "when you hit body-temp it is 'go time'" is less susceptible to external forces or attempts at subversion by either other sperm or the female reproductive tract.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I always figured they were different heights to protect them from getting squeezed together by our thighs.

</comment><comment><USER7> It is believed that early Pacific Islanders were able to navigate long distances by reading the changes in the long swell as they sailed the Pacific; for instance, an island will have a "reflection" in the swell.

Longer but rambling explanation: <http://www.passengerplanet.com/softwarm.html>

</comment><comment><USER8> I love Scientific American.

> Now, I know what you're thinking. "But Dr. Bering, how do you account for > the fact that testicles are rarely perfectly symmetrical in their > positioning within the same scrotum?" In fact, the temperature regulating > function governed by the cremasteric muscle can account even for the most > lopsided, one-testicle-above-the-other, waffling asymmetries in testes > positioning.

</comment><comment><USER9> sciam blogs tend to be a little less than awesome... one of the problems i have with this piece:

" If it were true, we would expect to see scrotal testicles becoming increasingly elaborate and dangly over the course of evolution, not to mention women should display a preference for males toting around the most ostentatious scrotal baggage. "With the possible exception of colored male scrota among a few species of primates," write Gallup and his colleagues, 'there is little evidence that this has been the case.' "

Clearly this refers to us chaps having scrota that we could either puff up like a balloon or flatten out to wave around like a fan, or even change color (like so many of the mating displays of the wild). However, the author fails to recall the time of Shakespeare (and, in some cultures, still today), in which men would wear a codpiece to promote their wares:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece>

(interestingly, Codpiece is from the middle english 'cod' which means, scrotum)

I bring this up not to be pedantic, but because it's important to say what we mean. In this instance, the author's language suggests he isn't aware of the codpiece and, well, for scientific american - this feels like poor journalism. Better to say what you actually meant, if writing for the sake of oratory confuses the intent.

</comment><comment><USER10> I refuse to participate in this discussion

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that our ancestors lived in water at some point. :)

</comment><comment><USER12> _With a keen enough eye, presumably one could master the art of 'reading' testicle alignment, using the scrotum as a makeshift room thermometer . But that's just me speculating._

Not the kind of skill you'd want to brag about -- assuming you are a heterosexual male, that is.

<comment><USER13> I beat you to essentially the same thought by about one minute.

<comment><USER13> I thought it was a funny coincidence. Someone want to explain why that's an offensive observation? Does it need a smiley face or something? (Serious question)

<comment><USER14> I'm not really certain, since I didn't vote you down, but I suspect that whoever did didn't find is offensive so much as they found it unfunny.

<comment><USER13> It's all good. I was just wondering what the issue is since I assumed my initial joke would be the problem rather than this remark. A woman cracking jokes about male genitals in a 98% male forum has to be skating on some extremely thin ice. :-D Which is part of why I found it funny to see someone else make an extremely similar remark to mine. Presumably, they are male (at least the odds are good, given the forum). Since they got upvoted and I got downvoted, obviously there is some subtly that's lost on me.

Thank you.

<comment><USER12> Beats me why we got down-modded.

It was an odd quote, and didn't fit in with the rest of the article (which I thought was very good, btw) Plus it set off all sorts of sophomoric jokes at least in my mind.

It didn't fit. It was appropriate to point it out -- even in a slightly humorous fashion. A smiley might have helped, but who knows? Like you said, it's all good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> To sum it up: Air Con-ditioning. (But you knew that.)

In other news:

"With a keen enough eye, presumably one could master the art of " reading" testicle alignment, using the scrotum as a makeshift room thermometer . But that's just me speculating."

This might be a neat party trick at a nudist camp, but I imagine it would tend to scream "fag" if you are male or "tramp" if you are female. As a WAG: Not likely to catch on.</comment>