Even though there are already a couple of other threads about this Schweinerei, there wasn’t a good place to insert this into the discussion, and for those unfamiliar, this video’s a good starting point.

  • pbjamm@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 months ago

    Indeed. Retraining and the extra time using a new tool is a short term loss for what should be a long term gain. The transition will always suck.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      7 months ago

      Short sighted LTT video?

      Checks out

      Seriously though transitioning your team to a new software suite will suck at first but it’s worth it in the long run. Long term gains vs short term gains and all that.

      • overload@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Is Adobe suite a major cost for LTT though? It’s the cost of a few licenses, and if it means just one less video goes out per year due to the inefficiencies of learning a new software package, it would not be worth the switch. I’m assuming each video they put out brings in revenue well into the 5 figures.

          • overload@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Exactly, that would be chicken feed compared to the overall cash flow for LTT alone. He’s got plenty of other YouTube channels and other means of making money.

            YouTube ad revenue OF LTT in 2022 was $4.6 million, and sponsors would have paid the channel more than ad revenue was bringing in.

            • OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              To add, let’s do some math!

              Let s be the total annual salary of every employee using Adobe. Our goal is to find the productivity ratio r such that changing to Gimp and open source more generally is a net positive from the standpoint of productivity and labor.

              s/r will be the total annual salary after changing over, because (for instance) if r = 0.8 then LTT will need to either hire or work his existing hires 1/0.8 times longer, giving (at best, ignoring overtime and so on) s/r as the new labor cost.

              We then subtract the current labor cost to get the switching cost s/r - s, and if this is greater than $10,000 then the switch is not worth it.

              For instance, let’s say LTT employs 1 person at $50k/year. He’s a bit of a skinflint. We solve for r and arrive at a ratio of 5/6 or 83.33%.

              If we have a different world where LTT hires 10 people and pays each of them $100k, we solve for r and get about 99%.

              In other words, the switch is worth it only if the labor cost is small, so the extra labor is not very expensive, or the difference between the two software is negligible.