“I hired a developer on Elance to build my first iPhone app, this was my experience”

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2013/11/03/hired-developer-elance-build-first-iphone-app-experience/

A story on a topic we often discuss here, hiring foreign freelancers to develop ideas.

This guy whines a bit but I think he got a great deal. Only $800 and 2 weeks wait for a very polished app which I just bought. And he has no coding experience at all! I had to laugh at this bit:

However, the frustration that went along with the process, dealing with someone on a completely opposite schedule, and constant battling over the nitty-gritty left me feeling like I should learn how to do it myself. And that’s exactly what I’m doing. Next time around, I’ll be able to bring my idea to life without worrying so much about increasing costs, code being held hostage, and dealing with future issues

KonFusion

Sometimes with stuff like this, I try and put it in a perspective of that of another industry, as I'm obviously biased.

So if I think of it like:

"I hired a builder from a Second World country to build me a simple house for less than minimum wage under a tight time frame and it passed Irish building regulations and now I may be able to sell it on for a profit"

Which is kind of similar...wait....that actually happened. But I'm pretty sure nobody said "Well, next time I can save me some pennies by learning how to build a house and doing it myself!"

I'm curious to see how much his app sells. Especially on the back of the press garnered from this.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Learning more about this, I think this was the rare thing, a good deal for both sides. I found out since all the graphics were done by the client which are very good IMO. The app itself is fairly basic, I would definitely have done this job in my lean years of 2011 for $800, maybe even $500.

His sales are alright so far, 120 since it went live on Nov 1st. He's already trying to sell it:
https://flippa.com/2990667-iphone-app-approved-11-1-19-paid-downloads-already-and-website-3-5k-visits

But that doesn't include the jump he might get from the publicity.

ChRoMe

Read this yesterday, sounds like the client from hell.

fl4pj4ck

ChRoMe wrote: »

Read this yesterday, sounds like the client from hell.

how exactly?

ChRoMe

fl4pj4ck wrote: »

how exactly?

The "standard changes" sort of stuff, that's pretty much the prime destroyer of a developers profit margin without correct change control. People try that crap all the time, deviate from the agreed spec and then look confused when you charge them for it.

fl4pj4ck

Ok, I can understand that, the dev pointed that out after which the customer realized that's not the way to go.
But to me it looks like:
- developer didn't want to release the code prior to being paid (against what was agreed upon signing the contract)
- developer didn't want to release the code prior to a 5 star review
From the text it's clear the dev wasn't a newbie and these are shady practices to me - at least.

I don't see the guy being in wrong here, correct me if I'm wrong.

Talisman

From another perspective ... there are two important things to remember:

1 - The client works in digital marketing.
2 - The client is trying to sell a package including the app, website and domain name.

It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility for the client to fabricate / embellish the story of the development of the app. In writing the story he has generated web traffic to both the website and the app. The traffic is likely to increase sales of the app and also the bids for the package offered on the Flippa website.

Maybe I'm just cynical but I've worked with marketing and PR people enough to know that the scenario outlined above is not beyond the bounds of possibility - the story itself is nicely packaged and there are a number of pull quotes there for different niche markets to tackle, so there is ample opportunity for different blogs/sites to pick it up. Client from hell vs Shady developer / Elance is open to abuse - You're discussing it here and in doing so have linked back to his website which has increased his traffic further.

jester77

Talisman wrote: »

From another perspective ... there are two important things to remember:

1 - The client works in digital marketing.
2 - The client is trying to sell a package including the app, website and domain name.

It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility for the client to fabricate / embellish the story of the development of the app. In writing the story he has generated web traffic to both the website and the app. The traffic is likely to increase sales of the app and also the bids for the package offered on the Flippa website.

Maybe I'm just cynical but I've worked with marketing and PR people enough to know that the scenario outlined above is not beyond the bounds of possibility - the story itself is nicely packaged and there are a number of pull quotes there for different niche markets to tackle, so there is ample opportunity for different blogs/sites to pick it up. Client from hell vs Shady developer / Elance is open to abuse - You're discussing it here and in doing so have linked back to his website which has increased his traffic further.

Not cynical at all, first thing I thought of as well and I would say it is most likely the real story. Create a little story that will get both sides debating, throw it up on reddit, get bloggers talking, throw in limited low price offer on the app store along with a few reviews about how kids love the app, generate high traffic to your site and you have a marketing campaign that no amount of money could buy.

There are companies that like to throw big money at apps that show potential, I'm talking 100k plus. A campaign like this would get their attention, quick sell off and you have a nice pay day.

Draco

jester77 wrote: »

Not cynical at all, first thing I thought of as well and I would say it is most likely the real story. Create a little story that will get both sides debating, throw it up on reddit, get bloggers talking, throw in limited low price offer on the app store along with a few reviews about how kids love the app and you have a marketing campaign that no amount of money could buy.

Well from the link to the site where he's auctioning the app off, he's only gotten about 20 sales in the last two days and I wouldn't expect it to do much better than that. Not exactly a stellar campaign.

Trojan

I commented on the original post a few days back, here's a relevant excerpt:

My Comment on original article wrote:

During your project, the developer complained about “scope creep”. This is a very real issue in outsourcing of development tasks where low bids are frequently chosen by the hiring party and so literally you are paying for “the bare minimum”. The hiring party is consciously or unconsciously choosing not to pay for more than the bare minimum and so cannot reasonably complain when features not specifically requested and listed in the original spec are deemed to be out of scope. (I’m not saying that’s definitely what happened in your case, just that it’s something that happens often.)

The other thing is that I hope you made an explicit note in your review of this provider of the pressure put on you to leave a positive review. I say this somewhat selfishly – as someone who uses reviews as a factor in evaluating bidders on my projects – those are important. Your developer will not see the review until after both reviews (yours of them, and theirs of you) have been posted after the project completion. Apart from the moral imperative to leave an honest review, it should make the developer more aware of acting properly in future projects.

The Corinthian

Based (or biased, given the author) on the article alone, I get the impression that the developer was inexperienced.

To begin with the core development was completed after two days. Even if one adds a few more days for bug fixes, the odd minor change, deployment and so on, USD 800.- isn't a bad bit of money if you're based in a country where the local rate is relatively low. Problem is that it didn't work out that way and you could already see scope creep after the first delivery.

As such, I suspect that the developer underestimated how long it would take to develop the app.

Secondly, the developer tried to renegotiate the agreement on one or two occasions. Other than being a big no-no, it betrays the likelihood that they didn't negotiate or even consider a decent agreement on their side.

Going in without an agreement to cover your ass to deal with things like scope creep (you have to explicitly include procedures and rates to change requests) or otherwise deal for when things go off track also tends to be a sign of inexperience.

Another cardinal sin I noticed was that the developer went off-spec with the first delivery and 'reworked' said spec, most likely to save time.

This is not to say I've any sympathy for the author here either. My own gut feeling is that they've not told the full story, even if they've not lied. That the 'standard' changes also included some pretty 'non-standard' ones along the way and that they were a lot greater in number than he suggests.

Also, he's not really in a position to suggest if a change is easy or not. Changing one PNG for another PNG isn't a two second drag-and-drop affair; you've to open up your development environment, change the image, recompile, test that the changes, and so on. Of course, that's not where the problem lies really; it's when you start demanding multiple 'standard' changes one at a time, that it becomes a time wasting exercise - but then again, that's something that developer should have covered in the agreement (how changes are handled).

But ultimately I don't understand what the author is complaining about. He got what he wanted and he got it at a very good price - what is this expectation that you are entitled to get something cheap and of high quality?

You don't go into Aldi or Lidl and expect that what you'll buy will both be one third of the price of M&S and of the same quality, do you? Sure, if you're lucky you'll find a good deal which is both cheap and high quality, but that's because you're lucky, not because you should be expecting it.

If you're going down the budget road, all you should expect is to get what you pay for. And the author got that.

beauf

Sounds like a typical outsourced IT project. Vendor want the money as fast as, the buyer has stand their ground to get everything delivered as the spec. Any scope creep has to negotiated.

Graham

And the final result is a sale price that probably approached less than 1% of the value of the free publicity it received.

Freddio

Most of the app world expect fifa2014 for the price of a mars bar so he will be bitten by his own expectations. In my experience what client's will say they assume is a 'minor change' usually isn't and is broached in such a manner as to cajole the developer into a freebee.

Changing a button from green to red is minor. Changing a button from 'calculate route' to 'draw route' isn't especially if the initial request has been developed.

The Corinthian

Freddio wrote: »

Changing a button from green to red is minor. Changing a button from 'calculate route' to 'draw route' isn't especially if the initial request has been developed.

There's often more to a change than the change itself though.

Take changing one image resource of another of identical dimensions. Just overwrite the old image with the new - three seconds, right? Not quite.

You've to open the project for a start (you may not be working on it and this is the only reason you'd be keeping it open). Then your quick overwrite. Then you have to compile it again. Then deliver it for review by the client. Then update your source and version control. Not so quick as you might think if you add all of those up.

If it happens only once, then that's not too bad, but consider one of those clients who want to tweak their app, one change at a time - for them, each tweak, each change, is minor. For the developer you're going through a time consuming process for each individual change that ultimately adds up to real billable time.

Only way to deal with such wasteful, piecemeal changes is to knock this way of seeking change requests, or even bug fixes, before they even start; agree, prior to commencement of the project and in writing, that changes/fixes should be done in specific project phases together and none of this "I had a dream and a red background would be better" nonsense.

stevenmu

I'm on the Author's side on this. I think he did definitely make some mistakes, such as asking for changes during the development, but nothing really beyond what you get from 90% of customers, and it's a part of a developers job to manage this. And he did get a great deal in the end, it sounds like $800 was a very good price for what he got, but that's not what he was complaining about.

The developer was dodgy as f*ck. Demanding to be paid before the agreed upon milestones, refusing to hand over the source until a good review was written, and trying to back out of some of the commitments, are all completely out of order.

This behaviour reflects very poorly on the developer involved, but it also reflects badly on the industry as a whole. It's these type of shenanigans that have given people like mechanics or car salesmen a bad name.

beauf

Would you saying the experience of buying a €5 watch from china, that its reflects badly on the Swiss watch industry?

That's the sweeping generalisation you're making.

If you want to cut the bottom out of a industry by outsourcing, so its done at a cut throat price, its going to be a compromised experience. It will be all about the money.

stevenmu

beauf wrote: »

Would you saying the experience of buying a €5 watch from china, that its reflects badly on the Swiss watch industry?

That's the sweeping generalisation you're making.

If you want to cut the bottom out of a industry by outsourcing, so its done at a cut throat price, its going to be a compromised experience. It will be all about the money.

I think people would be far more understanding of the difference in value between a cheap Chinese watch and an expensive Swiss one, not least because it's something you pick up and feel the difference in quality first hand. Watches are also something people understand much more, they might not know the specifics of how it works, but it's very easy to simply look at a watch and determine if it is working or not. Finally, most people will own multiple watches over their life, so they have a frame of reference to draw on.

Software development is a much more mysterious process. Most people have very little understanding of how it works, or what difficulties may be encountered. It's much harder to explain to someone why spending €10,000 with an on-shore developer is going to be better than spending $800 with an off-shore one. And because many people will never be fully able to understand the development process, they must put a lot of faith in the developers they hire. When experiences like this happen to people, it makes it harder for them to put their faith in the next developer.

And tbh, it's not really just an outsourcing issue, there are plenty of cowboys out there, both on- and off-shore.

Trojan

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's often more to a change than the change itself though.

Take changing one image resource of another of identical dimensions. Just overwrite the old image with the new - three seconds, right? Not quite.

+1

I don't think non-developers can appreciate the huge complexity or knock-on effects that seemingly trivial changes can sometimes have.

Here's a blog post I like called There are no small changes. I really like the example Des has chosen and how he's explained the process, a fantastic example for non-techie clients.

beauf

stevenmu wrote: »

I think people would be far more understanding of the difference in value between a cheap Chinese watch and an expensive Swiss one, not least because it's something you pick up and feel the difference in quality first hand. Watches are also something people understand much more, they might not know the specifics of how it works, but it's very easy to simply look at a watch and determine if it is working or not. Finally, most people will own multiple watches over their life, so they have a frame of reference to draw on.

Software development is a much more mysterious process. Most people have very little understanding of how it works, or what difficulties may be encountered. It's much harder to explain to someone why spending €10,000 with an on-shore developer is going to be better than spending $800 with an off-shore one. And because many people will never be fully able to understand the development process, they must put a lot of faith in the developers they hire. When experiences like this happen to people, it makes it harder for them to put their faith in the next developer.

And tbh, it's not really just an outsourcing issue, there are plenty of cowboys out there, both on- and off-shore.

Does it matter if its on or off shore? its still outsourcing no? TBH I was making an even simpler point, that cost cutting in any industry will make all parties hyper sensitive about the price. Never mind doing it in a 2nd or 3rd world country. Its not reasonable for you to make such a sweeping generalisation about an industry based on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg

oscarBravo

Trojan wrote: »

Here's a blog post I like called There are no small changes. I really like the example Des has chosen and how he's explained the process, a fantastic example for non-techie clients.

I am all sorts of bookmarking that one.

Graham

oscarBravo wrote: »

I am all sorts of bookmarking that one.

+1

stevenmu

beauf wrote: »

Does it matter if its on or off shore? its still outsourcing no? TBH I was making an even simpler point, that cost cutting in any industry will make all parties hyper sensitive about the price. Never mind doing it in a 2nd or 3rd world country. Its not reasonable for you to make such a sweeping generalisation about an industry based on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg

I do agree with your general point about cost cutting.

The point I am making though is that I am not making a sweeping generalisation about an industry, rightly or wrongly the author of the article is. He is not saying that he is now against using cheap outsourced development, he is now saying he doesn't trust any developers and would prefer to do it himself. His experience of one dodgy developer has coloured his view of the entire industry. I would argue that as more people who work with dodgy developers like this, more people will also come to share his view. It may not be right, but that is how people will react.

ChRoMe

stevenmu wrote: »

he is now saying he doesn't trust any developers and would prefer to do it himself.

Yeah... wonder how long that's going to last. He will try to teach himself coding for a week or two and then quickly change his tune.

stevenmu

ChRoMe wrote: »

Yeah... wonder how long that's going to last. He will try to teach himself coding for a week or two and then quickly change his tune.

Yeah probably, I doubt he realises quite how difficult it will be. But on the other hand, many people teach themselves how to service/repair cars because they don't trust mechanics.

Fussgangerzone

I think "getting an app made" is the new vanity publishing.

professore

stevenmu wrote: »

I'm on the Author's side on this. I think he did definitely make some mistakes, such as asking for changes during the development, but nothing really beyond what you get from 90% of customers, and it's a part of a developers job to manage this. And he did get a great deal in the end, it sounds like $800 was a very good price for what he got, but that's not what he was complaining about.

The developer was dodgy as f*ck. Demanding to be paid before the agreed upon milestones, refusing to hand over the source until a good review was written, and trying to back out of some of the commitments, are all completely out of order.

This behaviour reflects very poorly on the developer involved, but it also reflects badly on the industry as a whole. It's these type of shenanigans that have given people like mechanics or car salesmen a bad name.

As others have said, he is not going to portray himself in a bad light, so I would take his side of the story with a large container of salt. Having said that, the developer did indulge in some shady practices, but what did he expect? There was no trust relationship built up, he was just some faceless guy, for all the author knows, he could be in a Chinese criminal gang, and now he has infected all his users with a dormant monitoring app. Also good luck if they decide to rip off the app .... copyright protection doesn't exist in China. Just say a bug or security hole is discovered .... which is inevitable .... do you think the dev will fix it cheaply or for free?

These are the real costs of outsourcing to a country like this, ESPECIALLY China. If you're going to outsource, stick to Europe or the US - don't get me started on India. If you want serious software you can support and stand behind, you need people you can meet with face to face, preferably employed by you. Take it from someone who has tried it all. Software is the single most complex product or service you can buy - and yet most people wouldn't even buy nails direct from China.

professore

stevenmu wrote: »

Yeah probably, I doubt he realises quite how difficult it will be. But on the other hand, many people teach themselves how to service/repair cars because they don't trust mechanics.

Servicing / repairing a car is a lot easier than writing software. There's no Haynes manual to write your next killer app !!!

The Corinthian

stevenmu wrote: »

He is not saying that he is now against using cheap outsourced development, he is now saying he doesn't trust any developers and would prefer to do it himself. His experience of one dodgy developer has coloured his view of the entire industry. I would argue that as more people who work with dodgy developers like this, more people will also come to share his view. It may not be right, but that is how people will react.

I'll have to agree, although I also would feel that for someone to conclude this based upon such an experience is rather self serving.

Remember the whole horse meat scandal earlier in the year? One of the things that struck me was that people seemed happy to go into supermarkets and buy eight hamburgers for €2 and then were shocked to discover that it wasn't premium quality beef.

Now, of course it still should have been beef, but when you get bargains like that, you're not going to get fillet beef. You're going to get the offcuts; hooves, offal, eyelids and parts I'd rather not even think about. And that's actually legal.

The author made the same, common, error. He bought the €2 hamburger pack and then got upset when it turned out that it wasn't fillet beef. The word 'idiot' comes to mind.

Funnier than that is that he now has decided that for next time he'll just learn how to code himself. Why? Because learning to code isn't like learning to ride a bike? Or how to make spaghetti alla carbonara? And he should know this, because it's not like it's the first time he's tried to learn how to code.

So keep keep watch on his blog. My guess is he'll likely get there and learn how to code, at least up to a point, because blogging about it means he will lose face if he fails again. But as you do, also take note on how long and how much effort it'll involve and ask yourself if he wouldn't have been better off concentrating on what he was already good at, so as to make money to be able to outsource to others who are already good at those things that he isn't.

professore

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'll have to agree, although I also would feel that for someone to conclude this based upon such an experience is rather self serving.

Remember the whole horse meat scandal earlier in the year? One of the things that struck me was that people seemed happy to go into supermarkets and buy eight hamburgers for €2 and then were shocked to discover that it wasn't premium quality beef.

Now, of course it still should have been beef, but when you get bargains like that, you're not going to get fillet beef. You're going to get the offcuts; hooves, offal, eyelids and parts I'd rather not even think about. And that's actually legal.

The author made the same, common, error. He bought the €2 hamburger pack and then got upset when it turned out that it wasn't fillet beef. The word 'idiot' comes to mind.

Funnier than that is that he now has decided that for next time he'll just learn how to code himself. Why? Because learning to code isn't like learning to ride a bike? Or how to make spaghetti alla carbonara? And he should know this, because it's not like it's the first time he's tried to learn how to code.

So keep keep watch on his blog. My guess is he'll likely get there and learn how to code, at least up to a point, because blogging about it means he will lose face if he fails again. But as you do, also take note on how long and how much effort it'll involve and ask yourself if he wouldn't have been better off concentrating on what he was already good at, so as to make money to be able to outsource to others who are already good at those things that he isn't.

Correct. If someone went out and bought a new "Tour-de-France ready" bicycle for €50 off Ebay, and the wheels fell off after a week, and then it rusted to pieces, would that put them off the bicycle industry, or give the bicycle industry a bad name???? Generally speaking you get what you pay for - unless like the Government you hire some faceless consultancy company to build your software at exorbitant cost as obviously having sales guys in expensive suits is a good indicator of how good they are at developing software. But that's a whole other story. Ask to talk to previous clients .... that will sort out the men from the boys.