I had extremely good experiences with opening a subsidiary office in Sofia, Bulgaria (not outsourcing, but legit part of the company.) Code quality went way up compared to what was developed in the US/UK, somewhat less expensive (but not that much, like you said), and most importantly and perhaps also the most surprisingly, the attitude of the young kids working there is way more positive and well-adjusted that what we see when hiring in the US/UK (especially in the UK).

At this point it's not even about the money, it's just that they're more pleasant people to work with.

Can confirm, eastern europeans are above average regarding technical skills, though sometimes lacking on the social side. If I had to outsource, I‘d go east. They’ve got some amazing talent. I would avoid southern europe and india. And yes, I have direct experience with all of those.

> I would avoid southern europe and india.

Were you paying good salaries?

The problem is not that India doesn't have good developers, they do of course. The problem is that the average is brought down by the fact that a lot of people are only getting into IT because it is their best chance at living a middle-class life, not because its something they're interested in, and the volume business model of Indian outsourcing companies. Combine that with the "just do what you're told" mentality and its not a good deal, or only for certain projects.

The problems with southern Europe are similar. Hierarchical business culture, placing high value on keeping appearances, different work-life-balance mindset. Some countries produce world-class software that people around the world use, some don't, and its not hard to see why. Its not coincidence.

You did not answer the question.

Yep, am in the UK. I have mainly outsourced design work (most to Belarus). Work is better, cheaper, faster, and the general attitude is better I would agree...I would even say they speak better English.

In the UK, you will ask someone to do something, you wait a week, ask where it is, and they haven't started, need more information to start, and want more money. Jokes.

I am not going to go on about it but, as a Brit, our tech is way way behind...and that is despite having all the advantages in the world.

Where did you try to outsource in the UK?

I can't imagine trying to find an outsourcing firm in the UK. London can absorb all the good developers between tech companies, banks and startups. There is little reason to work as a freelancer trying to compete with Eastern Europe.

>Btw, some places are very good for outsourcing (Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Belarus)

I've had just as many problems working with outsourcing firms in Russia and Ukraine as I have with Indian firms. And I've had the same problems working for companies that tried to hire very cheap US based developers in house. I think the problem occurs whenever developer cost is your primary metric.

It's not where you outsource to its the mere fact of paying people who don't work for you or care for more than billable hours (at least the leadership if not the consultants too). You can get that down the street too, though it's easier to check up on what's going on. Having employees you vetted/hired overseas is way different than hiring some firm to provide bodies who are unknown to you and come/go all the time.

True. My point was more to highlight that I don't actually have a problem with work being outsourced to another location. You are correct, when cost is the issue that creates incentives that tend not to work.

Depends on the project. People like to say "consultant" but most of the are just staff augmentation and many of them do work that won't absorbe a lot of knowledge.

Forever employee spotted. Every company that uses Shopify instead of developing their own e-commerce site considers tech as a cost. Health care insurance companies are not interested in joining the advertising, SaaS, hardware tech biz. For them IT is a cost. A mandatory cost that supports the business in the same way legal and finance do. If you took away the insurance policies but only had IT, the business wouldn't exist.

You are thinking about cost like a middle manager. If you are using Shopify, that isn't a cost, it is an investment. It isn't like legal or finance, usually, because it is product-related and can be used to reduce prices/improve service.

Health care insurance (in the US) is, ironically although not surprisingly given your obvious ineptitude, one of the all-time best examples. US administration costs are larger than most countries public health budgets. Insurers in retail lines, although not in health care, picked this up very quickly because of distribution changes in the 90s. They invest heavily into tech, and the ones that have invested most heavily are seeing the fastest top-line.

It is great some people still think this way though. One of the great market inefficiencies of the last ten years was firms/investors being unable to distinguish between a cost and an investment.

Legal, finance, Shopify are all useless without a product to sell. Hence, costs.

Your business acumen is messed up. If your product is stagnant like most financial products, importance shifts to other things like marketing, cross-selling, etc. Don't get confused between the profit center and the cost center that occurs when products are stagnant.

Yes, some tech has improved things like better analytics and tracking for companies such as personalized car insurance or paperless but notice how this improves the core products features or cost.

"If you are using Shopify, that isn't a cost, it is an investment. It isn't like legal or finance, usually, because it is product-related and can be used to reduce prices/improve service."

No, just no. If I am Apple selling iPhones, no investment in Shopify or websites is going to help me make better iPhones. Shopify is not product-related. What you mention is a Mandatory marketing expense which is also a cost center. You either have your marketing team or you hire an external marketing agency.

You mention distribution. Marketing without a product to sell is useless. Hence, costs.

Insurance and other financial companies need marketing to sell. It is a mandatory expense for them. It is not their product but their product is stagnant so it matters very little.

However for Facebook, marketing is their product, profit center. There are other orgs who sell marketing automation software. There it is a profit center.

How does this weird chicken-and-egg situation make sense to you? You seem to have this weird notion of which things come from other things??? It is very odd. Why are you posing a situation in which someone is using Shopify without a product?

Financial products aren't stagnant. This is a wild non sequitir generalisation which doesn't really indicate careful thought (they aren't stagnant, duh). And yes, as I said, tech is used to improve the product...it is an investment...that is why you can capitalise development costs.

And yes, just yes. Again, you seem to (somehow) have picked the worst possible example for your argument. Have you been to an Apple store? Is it just a IPhone lying on the ground? No, the stores are product-related. Literally, you picked the company in the world that has specialised most heavily in trying to added product value through their stores. They are not a cost, they are an investment (even companies that have a low-cost store format...that is a reflection of their product/brand/etc. and again, this will keep coming up, some of these costs are literally capitalised and literally investments on the balance sheet).

Again, another bizarre point about which things come from other things...a distinction which presumably makes sense to you. Again though, marketing is an investment, it is how consumer staples companies have built up brands (again, it is something that some investors also capitalise onto the balance sheet). Marketing is also not regarded as a "cost center" in any business...at this point, I can only assume/hope you are trolling...but just read any financial report of a consumer-facing company. Any.

These rigid groups you have in your mind are very weird too. X is cost center, Y is marketing, Z is a cost...it has been fun for me but...this isn't how the real world works.

You sound like a multi-level marketing person who tells you to join calling it an investment.

I pose the situation of using Shopify without a product to prove my point. Shopify isn't a valid expense with a product but you can have a product without Shopify. You might have to some really inefficient selling like door-to-door and leave money on the table but the point is you could do it.

Yes, financial products are stagnant. Insurance companies stat tables don't change that much. Credit cards from Capital One's perspective have not changed that much. Maybe from Visa's perspective it is considered profit center and have to change but thats because they make the credit cards and do the processing.

Profit center and cost center classification is important because it tells you what the business really cares about.

Yes marketing is important for companies and even more so for companies that are distributors and don't make their own products. Walmart does not make its own products but it doesn't need so much marketing because there is only a few players. Capital One is also a distributor but it puts a heavy emphasis on marketing because the selling credit cards is very competitive.

I'll give you a point. For distributors in a competitive space like selling credit cards, marketing is the profit center because a good marketing campaign is how they win.