If I were a better developer, would I have worked on more products people love? No. Even granting that good software always makes a well-loved product, big-company software is made by teams, and teams are shaped by incentives.
If I were a better developer, would I have worked on more products people love? No. Even granting that good software always makes a well-loved product, big-company software is made by teams, and teams are shaped by incentives.
Perhaps it’s just me, but to me this article feels like belittling the problem by not differentiating between “hated” products and “harmful” products.
If a company makes you work on something that is hated, it’s fair and good to have sympathy. If a company makes you work on something that is harmful or unethical, like many perceive Co-Pilot to be, then an article about getting user hate that doesn’t talk at all about ethics feels a little tonedeaf.
I don’t know, perhaps that’s just me. I certainly don’t envy the writer for being employed to work on it.
This entire article feels like cope.
Exactly!
Hated product? Oh well. My paycheck still cashes.
Harmful product? Oh shit. Sorry boss. I’m still working on that. It’s been confusing, but we almost got it. Annnyyyy day now, boss. Pretty sure we will get it on track next sprint. Or the one after. (Source: I once got well paid to “accidentally” kill at least one truly shit-head idea. It probably cost me a pay raise, but I left soon after for more money, and I’m still proud of that every time I reflect back on it.)
“Harm”? What is “harm”? There are only well-made products or not-so-well-made products!
A well-made online gambling “game” is harmful