However, he says he used common estimate of $150 per hour for a software engineer -- based not just on salary, but also "recruiting, office leases, support staff," and much more.
They are correct -- but only from a mathematical standpoint.
But they are wrong from a cost standpoint based on reality.
The costs that they folded in (""recruiting, office leases, support staff,") are fixed costs that won't change regardless of how fast the computer is. They certainly won't change by saving the 20 minutes a day they are estimating.
So, if those costs don't change, they should not be included in the "salary".
So, how does that work out with a more realistic estimate of, say, $50 an hour ($400 a day) ?
Saving 20 minutes out of a 480 minute day would reduce costs 4% -- from $400 a day all the way down to $384 -- a savings of $16 a day. So, it would take 220 days to recover the cost of a $3,500 machine. That's roughly a year.
But, to be fair, you can't just use a cost of $3,500. You really need to use the difference in cost of the M1 Max vs whatever else they would have bought -- assuming the existing machine would have been replaced at all.
On the flip side, it could even be considered that, if the engineer is paid on a salary basis, that that cost is fixed as well -- so the savings would be zero (assuming the engineer spends the 20 minutes bullshitting around the proverbial water cooler). Or, to put it another way, the savings of 4% would only be saved if you had a staff of 100 engineers and were able to lay-off 4 of them.
... To put it another way: if costs don't change then all you did was spend money, not save it.
Cost accounting (like all statistics) can be used to prove almost anything you want. So, it has to be done honestly, correctly, and in context with the existing conditions and how they might change.
... Reddit needs to hire a cost accountant -- or least find a capable one.
Umm…. The cost alone is not the point. If the only thing that matters is the cost then why are they in business at all?
No, the time saved is put towards getting the product out the door sooner or some other productive outcome that adds to the business in some way….
Unless, if there really is absolutely nothing else those devs can add to the business with their extra time then they would have to lay off 1 from 25 (they don’t have to have 100 devs and lay off 4 for that to be a saving) to offset the MacBook costs - the difference not the $3500. As you say. In which case the $150 is still valid.
But the more likely scenario is they’re constantly growing and are constantly balancing what needs to get done, what income each dev ultimately generates (even if indirectly), and how much those devs cost per hour to produce what they produce - in other words if the team is now 4% more productive that’s 4% more time the hiring decision maker can wait before spending $150 per hour more on the next much needed newly added dev.
One way or another that $150 is valid.
The claim was that a $3,500 outlay would save money based on a 20 minute a day savings at $150 an hour.
Without going back through all the detail I already laid out, the synopsis still says it all: If costs do not change then no money was saved. And, most of the costs they included in that $150 an hour would not change. There would be some savings, but no where near what they claimed.
The other things you site such as quicker turn around still may (or may not) be beneficial.
But the claim did not include them and neither did I since I was responding to that claim.
Ok... you want to nitpick... that's ok (really. I'm not saying that to be snarky). Let's do it!
There's two parts here:
The correct cost for each dev.
Whether the 20 minutes per dev timesaving has any value, and if so how?
So a few points:
Your comment started with "bullshit", quoting the article's $150 cost of employee. Really, that's not BS at all. That's what they've figured out the dev costs (regardless of whether the Mac translates to saving them any of that or not).
You asserted at first that the non-salary costs are fixed, therefore invalid because they're not "saved". You eventually (correctly) noted that the salary is also fixed therefore it's not validly "saved" either. But you still did all your calcs based on the $50/hour. That doesn't really add up (pun intended). Regardless of if or why we do or don't care about the dev cost, it's still everything, not just the salary, so that $150/hour as the cost of the employee is valid...
So then... if we're going to calculate the value of that 20 minutes, then it's all or nothing. It needs to be done with either the $150/hour (= $1200 per 8hr day), or zero, depending on how the dev and/or company uses that 20 minutes.
So... If 60 minutes per dev costs $150 per dev, then 20 minutes per dev costs $50 per dev. If it's 20 minutes out of a 480 minute day then it's still 4% but its cost is still $50 per dev per day (not $16).
Ok... but is it "saved"?
The claim was that a $3,500 outlay would save money based on a 20 minute a day savings at $150 an hour.
That statement is not quite correct. The Reddit guy -- Jameson Williams -- started with the basic premise of weighing the outlay against the opportunity cost of not spending that, and concluded (claimed) that the $3500 outlay will pay for itself (both are different to saving). He went into detail about the value of the time saved (the $150), without going into detail about how he does or will turn that time saving into the $ value that will pay for the outlay. It could be by laying off 4% of the dev team, or (unlikely but hypothetically) cutting their cost by 4% (which would be mostly salary as the most liquid part of their cost, essentially) and letting them have the time back for themselves, or possibly other ways of turning it into saving money. Or it could be by making more money (the most likely outcome).
Regardless, the absence of the how in his claim, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Of course it's happening one way or another, and it's not unreasonable to assume so (otherwise he wouldn't be in business), and that is all that is required for his claim to be valid. As you noted, one of the only ways that 20 minutes won't have value to the company is if it's spent goofing off instead of doing something productive.
Now, granted, the AI article's title and first line refer to "saving" money. That's entirely this article's author's interpretation/extrapolation, and I'm pretty sure he's not a cost accountant so it's not an unreasonable interpretation given that you've acknowledged at least one way that that is possible (laying off 4% of the devs). I gave a couple of other possibilities too (eg. more growth possible before needing to hire again).
(As for the $3500, not that you were calling BS on this part, but just to be thorough, since I'm highlight the "pays for itself" bit: $3500 / $50 per day = 70 days = 14 weeks.* So, as long as that 20 minutes is converted to $ value one way or another, then in just over three months the Mac pays for itself in entirety. Although that's before you count the cost of whatever they'd have instead so it's really only difference (as you noted). If it's a $3500 machine instead of say a $2K one, then the difference: $1500 / $50 per day = 30 days = 6 weeks.*)
So at worst, some extrapolation is required, if it even is, but either way:
The $150 cost of the dev is valid, and
The idea that 20 minutes time saved per day will turn into $ value one way or another is hardly a stretch (nor "bullshit").
---- (*at 5 days per week.)
Nope, not nit picking at all.
The part you (and they) missed is that the $150 is the total cost per employee. But that is worthless for the purpose they are using it for. Instead they needed to break that down into the fixed and variable costs per employee -- because the fixed costs WILL NOT CHANGE (particularly over a paltry savings of 20 minutes a day).
So, as I said, if costs don't change, you didn't save anything. In this case, they saved some, but nowhere near what they claimed. So yeh: BULLSHIT!
No I didn’t miss it. I addressed it in detail in my post. So you either didn’t read that or you missed where I clearly addressed it.
Also, It seems the same is trrue for the article.
So once again:
The Reddit guy didn’t claim anything about saving on costs.
Sorry -- but fixed is still fixed. And when costs don't change you can't count them as savings.
It's just how it works.
(And, to be honest, it is YOU who ignored the points in my original post and are trying to avoid the facts)
Fixed or not it’s irrelevant. What part of “he never said savings” do you not understand???
The part where it said:
"Following an initial claim that the fully-loaded new MacBook Pro will save Reddit money and engineering time, the company has broken down the figures to show when the shift will pay off."
And then went on to [incorrectly] calculate how much those savings would be.
You originally made a couple of good points, but you've contradicted yourself and taken quotes and comments out of context. Therefore your conclusions are basically wrong.
I've written multiple paragraphs to show how you've done that, but you won't discuss or counter any of that. You know... if I'm wrong you could point out how, instead of just regurgitating your position.
So it seems there's no further conversation to be had here.
However, he says he used common estimate of $150 per hour for a software engineer -- based not just on salary, but also "recruiting, office leases, support staff," and much more.
They are correct -- but only from a mathematical standpoint.
But they are wrong from a cost standpoint based on reality.
The costs that they folded in (""recruiting, office leases, support staff,") are fixed costs that won't change regardless of how fast the computer is. They certainly won't change by saving the 20 minutes a day they are estimating.
So, if those costs don't change, they should not be included in the "salary".
So, how does that work out with a more realistic estimate of, say, $50 an hour ($400 a day) ?
Saving 20 minutes out of a 480 minute day would reduce costs 4% -- from $400 a day all the way down to $384 -- a savings of $16 a day. So, it would take 220 days to recover the cost of a $3,500 machine. That's roughly a year.
But, to be fair, you can't just use a cost of $3,500. You really need to use the difference in cost of the M1 Max vs whatever else they would have bought -- assuming the existing machine would have been replaced at all.
On the flip side, it could even be considered that, if the engineer is paid on a salary basis, that that cost is fixed as well -- so the savings would be zero (assuming the engineer spends the 20 minutes bullshitting around the proverbial water cooler). Or, to put it another way, the savings of 4% would only be saved if you had a staff of 100 engineers and were able to lay-off 4 of them.
... To put it another way: if costs don't change then all you did was spend money, not save it.
Cost accounting (like all statistics) can be used to prove almost anything you want. So, it has to be done honestly, correctly, and in context with the existing conditions and how they might change.
... Reddit needs to hire a cost accountant -- or least find a capable one.
Umm…. The cost alone is not the point. If the only thing that matters is the cost then why are they in business at all?
No, the time saved is put towards getting the product out the door sooner or some other productive outcome that adds to the business in some way….
Unless, if there really is absolutely nothing else those devs can add to the business with their extra time then they would have to lay off 1 from 25 (they don’t have to have 100 devs and lay off 4 for that to be a saving) to offset the MacBook costs - the difference not the $3500. As you say. In which case the $150 is still valid.
But the more likely scenario is they’re constantly growing and are constantly balancing what needs to get done, what income each dev ultimately generates (even if indirectly), and how much those devs cost per hour to produce what they produce - in other words if the team is now 4% more productive that’s 4% more time the hiring decision maker can wait before spending $150 per hour more on the next much needed newly added dev.
One way or another that $150 is valid.
The claim was that a $3,500 outlay would save money based on a 20 minute a day savings at $150 an hour.
Without going back through all the detail I already laid out, the synopsis still says it all: If costs do not change then no money was saved. And, most of the costs they included in that $150 an hour would not change. There would be some savings, but no where near what they claimed.
The other things you site such as quicker turn around still may (or may not) be beneficial.
But the claim did not include them and neither did I since I was responding to that claim.
Ok... you want to nitpick... that's ok (really. I'm not saying that to be snarky). Let's do it!
There's two parts here:
The correct cost for each dev.
Whether the 20 minutes per dev timesaving has any value, and if so how?
So a few points:
Your comment started with "bullshit", quoting the article's $150 cost of employee. Really, that's not BS at all. That's what they've figured out the dev costs (regardless of whether the Mac translates to saving them any of that or not).
You asserted at first that the non-salary costs are fixed, therefore invalid because they're not "saved". You eventually (correctly) noted that the salary is also fixed therefore it's not validly "saved" either. But you still did all your calcs based on the $50/hour. That doesn't really add up (pun intended). Regardless of if or why we do or don't care about the dev cost, it's still everything, not just the salary, so that $150/hour as the cost of the employee is valid...
So then... if we're going to calculate the value of that 20 minutes, then it's all or nothing. It needs to be done with either the $150/hour (= $1200 per 8hr day), or zero, depending on how the dev and/or company uses that 20 minutes.
So... If 60 minutes per dev costs $150 per dev, then 20 minutes per dev costs $50 per dev. If it's 20 minutes out of a 480 minute day then it's still 4% but its cost is still $50 per dev per day (not $16).
Ok... but is it "saved"?
The claim was that a $3,500 outlay would save money based on a 20 minute a day savings at $150 an hour.
That statement is not quite correct. The Reddit guy -- Jameson Williams -- started with the basic premise of weighing the outlay against the opportunity cost of not spending that, and concluded (claimed) that the $3500 outlay will pay for itself (both are different to saving). He went into detail about the value of the time saved (the $150), without going into detail about how he does or will turn that time saving into the $ value that will pay for the outlay. It could be by laying off 4% of the dev team, or (unlikely but hypothetically) cutting their cost by 4% (which would be mostly salary as the most liquid part of their cost, essentially) and letting them have the time back for themselves, or possibly other ways of turning it into saving money. Or it could be by making more money (the most likely outcome).
Regardless, the absence of the how in his claim, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Of course it's happening one way or another, and it's not unreasonable to assume so (otherwise he wouldn't be in business), and that is all that is required for his claim to be valid. As you noted, one of the only ways that 20 minutes won't have value to the company is if it's spent goofing off instead of doing something productive.
Now, granted, the AI article's title and first line refer to "saving" money. That's entirely this article's author's interpretation/extrapolation, and I'm pretty sure he's not a cost accountant so it's not an unreasonable interpretation given that you've acknowledged at least one way that that is possible (laying off 4% of the devs). I gave a couple of other possibilities too (eg. more growth possible before needing to hire again).
(As for the $3500, not that you were calling BS on this part, but just to be thorough, since I'm highlight the "pays for itself" bit: $3500 / $50 per day = 70 days = 14 weeks.* So, as long as that 20 minutes is converted to $ value one way or another, then in just over three months the Mac pays for itself in entirety. Although that's before you count the cost of whatever they'd have instead so it's really only difference (as you noted). If it's a $3500 machine instead of say a $2K one, then the difference: $1500 / $50 per day = 30 days = 6 weeks.*)
So at worst, some extrapolation is required, if it even is, but either way:
The $150 cost of the dev is valid, and
The idea that 20 minutes time saved per day will turn into $ value one way or another is hardly a stretch (nor "bullshit").
---- (*at 5 days per week.)
Nope, not nit picking at all.
The part you (and they) missed is that the $150 is the total cost per employee. But that is worthless for the purpose they are using it for. Instead they needed to break that down into the fixed and variable costs per employee -- because the fixed costs WILL NOT CHANGE (particularly over a paltry savings of 20 minutes a day).
So, as I said, if costs don't change, you didn't save anything. In this case, they saved some, but nowhere near what they claimed. So yeh: BULLSHIT!
No I didn’t miss it. I addressed it in detail in my post. So you either didn’t read that or you missed where I clearly addressed it.
Also, It seems the same is trrue for the article.
So once again:
The Reddit guy didn’t claim anything about saving on costs.
Sorry -- but fixed is still fixed. And when costs don't change you can't count them as savings.
It's just how it works.
(And, to be honest, it is YOU who ignored the points in my original post and are trying to avoid the facts)
Fixed or not it’s irrelevant. What part of “he never said savings” do you not understand???
The part where it said:
"Following an initial claim that the fully-loaded new MacBook Pro will save Reddit money and engineering time, the company has broken down the figures to show when the shift will pay off."
And then went on to [incorrectly] calculate how much those savings would be.
You originally made a couple of good points, but you've contradicted yourself and taken quotes and comments out of context. Therefore your conclusions are basically wrong.
I've written multiple paragraphs to show how you've done that, but you won't discuss or counter any of that. You know... if I'm wrong you could point out how, instead of just regurgitating your position.
So it seems there's no further conversation to be had here.
And thus ends every conversation with George.
Ah. Well. Thanks. Good to hear it’s not just me. I usually enjoy most conversations here, even (perhaps sometimes especially) the disagreements. Good heathy debate and exchange is great. That particular conversation … not so much.
“shilling for Apple...” is the most common response here on AppleInsider when something positive about Apple is published.
Bitching about people saying something negative, before they’ve even said it. The most common post by @lkrupp ;
I'd be very unsurprised if there are far more of his bilious negativity then there are of people saying "shilling for Apple". This is a largely Apple-positive board.
I don’t know, seeing some Avon b7 type person with their insanely high likes…
Following an initial claim that the fully-loaded new MacBook Pro will save Reddit money and engineering time, the company has broken down the figures to show when the shift will pay off.
MacBook Pro
Just as Uber and Twitter have been giving their engineers fully-loaded M1 Max MacBook Pro models, so has Reddit. Now Reddit staff engineer Jameson Williams has detailed how the company came to its conclusion -- and why the new machines make such a difference.
Writing on Reddit's engineering blog, Williams repeats his original tweet before expanding on the point that, "engineering hours are much more expensive than laptops."
"The basic premise of the tweet was to weigh the up-front cost of buying some new laptops, alongside the opportunity cost of not doing so," he writes. "To start, I estimated that an average Android engineer spends 45 minutes waiting on builds each day."These results were obtained by using statistics and probability https://plainmath.net/secondary/statistics-and-probability according to resource with answers to any high school probability and statistics problems.
"We observed that the new 2021 M1 Max MacBook finished a clean build of our Android repo in half the time of a 2019 Intel i9 MacBook [Pro]," he continued. "That means an Android developer could save about 22 minutes of build time every day."
Williams does stress how it's close to impossible to really estimate the cost of a software engineer over the length of a project. "Let me be upfront: I honestly don't know what this is at Reddit," he says.
However, he says he used common estimate of $150 per hour for a software engineer -- based not just on salary, but also "recruiting, office leases, support staff," and much more.
Reddit's calculation of the costs of moving to new MacBook Pro, or staying with existing equipment. (Source: Reddit)
Then there's the cost of the new MacBook Pro. "As for the up-front cost, Apple.com offers the M1 Max MacBook for $3,299 before tax, shipping," says Williams. "Factoring in shipping, taxes, etc., let's call it $3,500 to get a round number. So if you buy nine (that's about an average team size), that's $31.5k. The question becomes: how long does it take to recoup $31.5k?
According to Williams, "we can see a pretty immediate break-even point," which for this fictional team of nine, "would happen after three months."
In Williams's full piece, he addresses criticisms he's received, including accusations that he is "shilling for Apple."
"So, hey, let's be clear," he responds. "The fact of the matter is that I shill for Reddit."
At the end of the day, most developers use Apple computers anyway. The market demand for these computers proved a long time ago that they are the biggest player on the market.
Comments