zlacker

>>mattjh+(OP)
One thing I think is missing is an understanding of why there is such a top-down push for timelines: because saying "we aren't sure when this feature will be delivered" makes sales people look like they don't know what they are talking about. Which.... well.

They would much rather confidently repeat a date that is totally unfounded rubbish which will have to be rolled back later, because then they can blame the engineering team for not delivering to their estimate.

>>bgribb+Ir
I'm a dev, not a salesperson, but let's be realistic. A company tells you "yeah we're interested in signing at $1M/yr, but we really need this feature, when will you have it by?", to which saying "eh we don't know - it'll be done when it's done" will lead to the company saying "ok well reach out when you have it, we can talk again then" (or just "eh ok then not a good fit sorry bye"), and in the meantime they'll go shopping around and may end up signing with someone else.

Having a promised date lets you keep the opportunity going and in some cases can even let you sign them there and then - you sign them under the condition that feature X will be in the app by date Y. That's waaaay better for business, even if it's tougher for engineers.

>>pocket+st
“Sign up and pay at least part of it now and we’ll prioritize the feature”.

I’ve seen enough instances of work being done for a specific customer that doesn’t then result in the customer signing up (or - once they see they can postpone signing the big contract by continuing to ask for “just one more crucial feature”, they continue to do so) to ever fall for this again.

>>loloqu+Oz
Why do that if your competitor already has it? I'd just go talk to the competitor instead. If you aren't able to ballpark when the feature will be done, why should I trust you will once I pay part of the price?

>>wreath+PS
If the competitor already has it why are you talking to me? :)

>>loloqu+E31
Because you have other benefits, so we'd really like to switch over to you, but we can't unless you support this dealbreaker feature that your competitor we're currently using has.

>>stavro+Aw1
No, parent said they’d go talk to the competitor. They didn’t say they were already with them. Don’t change the scenario.

>>loloqu+CD1
Because you have other benefits, so we'd really like to use you, but we can't unless you support this dealbreaker feature that your competitor has.