Between 2014 and 2018, Uber built several "wheels," such as the service discovery tool Hyperbahn, the task queue Cherami, the MySQL-based NoSQL Schemaless, the resource scheduler Peloton, and the service deployment platform uDeploy, among others. Now, with layoffs affecting even engineering teams and stock prices falling below 15-year valuations, were these "wheels" a success or a failure? Should startups hire people to build wheels, or should they adopt existing solutions?
Management is a pyramid; it’s people lifting people, and individuals rise through the support of others. The first lesson in political acumen for any manager is to recruit as many people as possible. Hiring a large number of engineers in VC-funded companies is also an interesting metric because investors, lacking technical knowledge, often believe that companies with more heads naturally perform better.
Thus, many individuals have a motivation to hire more people. But how do we measure the legitimacy of this motivation? This is relatively straightforward for mechanical work, such as in factories, where output is directly measurable. However, it’s less clear for intellectual work, especially coding. Bill Gates once said that measuring development progress by lines of code is akin to measuring aircraft manufacturing progress by weight. I’ve even heard that Google has dedicated teams to calculate each group's contribution to the company.
Managers like to hire, while engineers enjoy building wheels. On one hand, creators inherently relish the joy of creation; on the other hand, engineers may develop an undesirable ego, feeling that using others' technology implies their own skills are lacking. Managers provide the "what they want," while engineers provide the "what they want to do," resulting in products that are a product of these two forces.
For instance, a traditional retail company hired a new CTO from Silicon Valley, who began hiring a large number of engineers for projects and insisted that once good talent was found, useful projects would follow. He also wanted to package some internal software as a service, even though these services still ran on a mainframe. The CTO genuinely believed in this approach. The key question here is whether these efforts yield a positive ROI (return on investment).
If ROI cannot be known in advance, how can we effectively balance hiring on demand and avoiding resource waste? The answer lies in focusing on "building prototypes for proof of concept (POCs)." Test the waters with minimal investment; if it works, hire more people; if it doesn’t, don’t hire.
If ROI can be known in advance, then the answer becomes a simple arithmetic problem. For example, if HipChat charges 300,000. In contrast, hiring one engineer to modify open-source Mattermost would only cost $30,000 per month. Thus, "building wheels" could save about one-fifth to one-tenth of the original cost.
There are also companies that have built many wheels while thriving, where strong management and engineering culture play crucial roles. They advocate for simplicity and technical responsibility. If external wheels offer specialized, mature solutions, they will adopt them; if external wheels are overly complex and uncontrollable, they will build their own. I recall that one significant reason Uber did not adopt Cassandra immediately was the lack of internal experts on Apache Cassandra, leading to technical unpredictability.
The principle of simplicity does not conflict with attention to detail. For example, you might first choose an expensive, cumbersome ERP from Microsoft, SAP, or Oracle, and then write some services yourself for areas that require special handling closely tied to your business, ensuring those services are concise, efficient, and easy to maintain. Conversely, many new-generation startups fail in ERP because they neglect details, even failing to implement the most critical "audit" functions, such as double-entry bookkeeping in accounting.
I came across "bozo management" on the Blind App, and find it's a very interesting concept. Steve Jobs coined this phrase.
If you cannot watch the video, here are the words from him.
We went through that stage at Apple where we thought, 'Oh, we're going to be a big company, let's go out and hire professional management.' We went out and hired a bunch of professional management; it didn't work at all. Most of them were Bozos. They knew how to manage, but they didn't know how to DO anything.
If you are a great person, why do you want to work for somebody you cannot learn anything from? And you know what's interesting - you know what the best managers are? They are the great individual contributors who never ever wanted to be a manager, but decide they have to be a manager because no one else is able to do as good job as them.
Facebook is a very profitable company. Its operating margins = 42%
operating margin = operating income / net sales
operating income = gross income − (operating expenses + depreciation and amortization)
When it is transiting into a privacy-centric super app, there are three challenges.
Traditional wisdom tells us that losing trust happens quickly, while gaining trust takes time. However, this is not entirely true. The renowned British mentalist Derren Brown, in his reality show "Derren Brown: The Push," utilized various psychological techniques to lead a kind-hearted ordinary person to commit a horrific murder by pushing an elderly man off a building—all within 72 minutes.
The protagonist of the story is Chris, a mild-mannered, sunny young man. Although he appears to be just an average person, he was meticulously selected for the experiment due to his strong tendency to conform to social pressures. Chris was unaware of the experiment's true purpose, as the production team informed him that he had not been selected, which allowed him to let his guard down. The team arranged for someone to impersonate a high-ranking executive from a charitable organization to contact Chris's company about a collaboration and invited him to help organize an event. To quickly establish authority, the event featured numerous celebrity endorsements, and Chris was tasked with serving drinks, carrying bags, and handling clothing to train his sense of obedience.
Then the incident began. With only the executive and Chris present, a wealthy old man suddenly "died." The executive persuaded Chris to consider the bigger picture and asked him to help hide the body, which he did. Later, the event host mistakenly thought Chris was the wealthy old man and called him to the stage to speak, and he complied. The executive instructed Chris to move the body, and he followed suit. Eventually, the old man's wife mentioned that he had a condition that made him appear dead during episodes, which relieved both the executive and Chris. Unexpectedly, the production team arranged for the old man to "wake up" and, using a recording device from his pocket, he "learned" everything that had happened since his "death," threatening to expose the two and refusing to donate a penny to the charity. In the end, fearing for his job and potential imprisonment, the executive urged Chris to eliminate the old man by pushing him off the edge of the platform. However, he… did not comply. In fact, Chris was the only one of the four participants who did not obey the "murder" command.
The fact that the other three "murderers" complied so quickly illustrates how rapidly trust can be established, allowing individuals to follow orders to the extent of committing murder.
So how is trust built? Psychologists have long had the answer: ==Trust equals competence plus approachability==. For instance, in the aforementioned murder-inciting reality show, the executive presented himself as sophisticated and high-status, and the entire charity event was backed by social elites.
Here, ==“competence” does not require someone to genuinely be competent; it merely requires them to appear competent==. For example, using a lot of jargon when speaking can make one sound like an expert. A more superficial method is appearance—driving a luxury car and wearing cufflinks can help people remember you. The key is appropriateness; don’t wear a suit and tie to a garage to fix someone’s car, and don’t show up in flip-flops and shorts to give a speech at a charity gala.
Another effective way to enhance perceived competence is through consistency between words and actions; no one will trust a hypocrite. If I lived in the world of "The Smiling, Proud Wanderer," I would certainly trust the honest rogue Tian Boguang, rather than the pretentious hypocrite Yue Buqun.
Competence, or "credibility," can be mutually reinforced between individuals and organizations. Both people and organizations can increase their credibility by joining exclusive associations, and when high-credibility individuals and organizations join, the association's credibility rises even higher. I feel that there is an old Chinese saying, "A flower-laden sedan chair is carried by people," which may express this very idea. The most direct product of mutual credibility is money; the easier it is to establish credibility through interaction, the more people trust each other, leading to increased transactions and a higher overall economic level in society.
Many national leaders give an impression of being "competent," yet are quite cold. To enhance public trust, each U.S. president adopts a dog. For instance, Obama had never owned a dog before moving into the White House, and his daughter Malia was even allergic to dogs, but he felt compelled to get one. After all, few things can make people feel as approachable as a furry, tail-wagging, wide-eyed dog.
This is the power of "approachability." A professor at Harvard conducted an experiment and found that on rainy days, when borrowing a phone from a stranger at a bus stop, simply saying, "I apologize for the rain," before making the call increased the likelihood of success fourfold. Research has shown that ==no matter how exaggerated the apology may be, this method consistently promotes cooperation in real life==.
In fact, ==to convey approachability, the way you speak is often more important than the content of your speech, and body language is more significant than verbal language==. Sitting closer, leaning forward, shaking hands, patting shoulders, and touching elbows can all powerfully express the intention to cooperate. ==When it comes to trust, face-to-face communication is extremely important==. I have a classmate from Yale who, after receiving an offer from Uber, directly negotiated his salary with his boss and ended up discussing it all the way to the director level, securing several thousand shares of stock!
Beyond these two dimensions, what other methods can enhance trust? The answer is exposing minor weaknesses. For example, "accidentally" dropping a pen, "accidentally" telling a bad joke, or "accidentally" spilling coffee.
Competent individuals can consciously make small mistakes or reveal minor secrets to appear more relatable. In a previous MBA program at Columbia University, there was an executive student who intentionally included typos in her emails to seem more approachable, and her relationships with colleagues genuinely improved. This explains why Japanese employees enjoy getting drunk together after work and then singing karaoke off-key. The worse you perform, the deeper your bond with friends becomes.
Of course, revealing weaknesses must be done carefully. ==Before exposing weaknesses, people must recognize that you are genuinely competent==. Additionally, ==the weaknesses must be trivial==. A surgeon with shaky hands or a quarterback with butterfingers are not minor weaknesses; they are serious flaws.
In summary, ==Trust = Competence + Approachability + Exposure of Minor Weaknesses==. To be trusted, you must first be worthy of trust; you need to be competent. Not only must you be competent, but you also need to establish a connection with the other party, which requires you to appear approachable. Once trust is established, if you appear overly competent or too perfect, it can create a sense of distance and threat, so you must also expose minor weaknesses to bridge the gap with others.
We all know that Donald Trump is a very unconventional American president. Regardless of his political achievements, we cannot deny that his speeches are highly engaging. His persuasive power is discussed in detail in Scott Adams' book, “Win Bigly”, and I find it particularly interesting that he has a penchant for giving his opponents nicknames—he is truly a nickname enthusiast.
For instance, he refers to Hillary as “Crooked Hillary,” and others include “Little Marco,” “Lying Ted,” and “Low-Energy Jeb.” Looking at the following image from Jeb Bush's speech, where the audience appears to be dozing off, I think Trump has a point.
The importance of names is such that they can even determine life and death. A 13-year-old girl from Minnesota, Rachel Ehmke, took her own life after being bullied and called a “slut.” This is not an isolated case; researchers at Syracuse University found that when people use derogatory terms to refer to a certain social group, the suicide rate among that group tends to be higher.
Words can be frightening; when faced with harsh words, we must learn to protect ourselves. There are generally three ways to deal with derogatory terms: the first is to ignore them. Of course, if it were that easy to ignore, we wouldn't need to pay extra attention to them. The second is to eliminate them. For example, Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg believes the word “bossy” should be banned. ==Banning a word widely and comprehensively is quite difficult, so there is a third option: to change it. This strategy is common in business, such as when “ValuJet Airlines” was renamed “AirTran Airways” after a series of accidents.==
In addition to these three methods, there is a more advanced approach, and the key is that ==the meaning of a name is not fixed; you can proudly reclaim the use of derogatory terms==. This reclamation can unite members within an organization, and it can even create an exclusive zone. For instance, the term “negro” can be used by Black individuals but not by white individuals; Jeremy Lin can use the ID ChiNkBaLLa88, but ESPN cannot use “chink in the armor.”
Names are a very important weapon; they can harm people or unite them. Israeli researchers conducted an experiment with the same game: when it was called “Community Game,” 72% of participants chose to cooperate, while when it was called “Wall Street Game,” only 33% chose to cooperate.
This ==technique of controlling feelings through names== can be applied in practical work. Researchers at Harvard found that when people face stressful activities like public speaking, singing competitions, or math contests, if they can cheer for themselves and say out loud, “I am excited!” they often achieve their best performance.
The insight here is that ==giving an appropriate name to your inner feelings to channel emotions, rather than avoiding them, is the best way to process and utilize emotions==. If we can correctly understand the source of negative emotions, for example, “I feel angry coming home today because work was really frustrating,” we won't take our bad mood out on friends and family, avoiding actions that would hurt those we care about.
How can we maximize the creation of a long-term, billion-dollar non-transactional company focused on end users?
Establish sustainable user engagement through three levels:
User Growth: Focus on the growth of users completing ==core actions==.
User Retention: The longer the product is used, the greater its value, and the greater the loss when users leave.
Self-Sustaining: As users engage (or leverage) their participation, they create a ==positive feedback loop== within the product.
When customers evaluate a product or service, they weigh ==perceived value== against ==actual price==.
Here are 30 "elements of value."
Functional Value
Emotional Value
Life-Changing
Social Impact
Driven technology architect and entrepreneur with deep expertise in building highly-scalable, enterprise-grade SaaS applications. Full-stack specialist with a strong focus on designing flexible, scalable solutions that meet complex, evolving demands.
![[object Object]](/dog.jpg)