I've been a contract developer for a while and noticed a pretty wide gap between perception and reality of the market. Am I way off? Is anyone out there living the dream of a laid-back client paying $300/hr for a variable commitment averaging 20 hrs per week or less?
Perception: There are so many businesses out there struggling to find software developers that it's easy to find $150+/hr jobs.
Reality: Yes, they are desperate and frustrated, but they also don't have the money to pay those rates. If they do, their expectations about what they get for that amount are so high that the stress is not worth the money. It's only the people who have gone down the cheap route enough to know that quality always costs. These clients are very hard to find and have developers banging down there door for any position they post.
Perception: Developers hold all the cards on a project and can dictate timelines.
Reality: Developers are handed deadlines after being left out of the discussions that produce them. That's because deadlines are mostly decided by politics, budgets, and business goals rather than an understanding of the problem, the proposed solution, or the technology. But luckily developers are also to blame when those timelines are invariably blown to pieces.
Perception: Some developers are good at estimating how long things will take, others are not.
Reality: No one really knows how long things will take. Whether a project delivers on time seems to mostly depend on luck, an ability to redefine success as the project develops, and client expectations. Not the skill or discipline of the people involved. Of course there are exceptions, but this seems to be the situation in the middle of the bell curve.
I thought I was one of the good ones until I got unlucky several times in a row. Even developers at the highest level find themselves uttering the refrain, "... but that took longer than I thought it would, of course."
Perception: With all the UI component kits and frameworks out there (Bootstrap! Foundation!) It's now relatively cheap and easy to make something that people like to use and looks good.
Reality: "Fast, cheap, and good. Pick two," is what a former coworker would always say, and that still holds true. Choosing a UI kit or framework really shouldn't lower the design budget at all. If you want things to make sense to users and be something the client is happy with, it's going to cost time and money. Design is something a certain type of client (perhaps the most common type) expects, does not want to pay for, and blames you for not being good.
The only way I can see actualizing the perception that we all seem to echo is this:
Some old-school, non-techinical-yet-super-profitable business suddenly decides they need a website. This website is not connected to any KPIs or revenue growth projections. The boss just thinks the company should have one of these websites he's been hearing about.
They don't know how to go about finding a developer so they ask around in the office. Your buddy happens to work there and suggests you for the job. Your buddy has heard that developer salaries start at $300/hr, so he says that's what your rate is. They don't bat an eye and have your buddy bring you in. A couple weeks later the pet project is mostly forgotten. To people at the company, any progress you show looks like magic and blows them away.
So I guess my question is, does anyone here work at this company?
Top comments (0)