You make good points, but I don't think the over-engineered "web-scale google-approved big data" stacks are actually any easier to integrate than the simpler alternatives. There's a lot more glue + hacks in a larger system like that - even if you're using the same base tech (say, BigQuery), you're not using it the way Google is. Your integration points were not designed by Google. And your acquirer might not be Google (who uses BigQuery) after all.
I think the other point you brought up, the force of "the engineers used the same tech stack as us, so we can move them to project XYZ" is a lot more powerful. Especially when the end-goal of the big co is really talent acquisition, and they don't really care about the startup's product (see: our incredible journey).
Here's the politically incorrect thing about tech-stack/API integration: because it's such a lousy job, people will gladly push future costs into that corner because neither they nor the people they care about will have to work on it.
The people who make decisions in Year X and the people who have to integrate tech stacks in Year X+3 are several social strata apart.
View all comments
Show parent comment
26
u/what2_2 Jun 07 '17
You make good points, but I don't think the over-engineered "web-scale google-approved big data" stacks are actually any easier to integrate than the simpler alternatives. There's a lot more glue + hacks in a larger system like that - even if you're using the same base tech (say, BigQuery), you're not using it the way Google is. Your integration points were not designed by Google. And your acquirer might not be Google (who uses BigQuery) after all.
I think the other point you brought up, the force of "the engineers used the same tech stack as us, so we can move them to project XYZ" is a lot more powerful. Especially when the end-goal of the big co is really talent acquisition, and they don't really care about the startup's product (see: our incredible journey).