Why is it the author's duty to tangent that far? I'm not a fan of outsourcing myself, however even I can't deny there are both Pros and Cons that are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
It sounds like you're wanting to the article to stray from the original content and either enter into an anti-outsource rant or ignore an elephant that everyone knows is in the room.
Actually the article states that it is cheap and does not address any other aspects. My point was that it could be viewed as biased and it is a disservice to due diligence. You infered the rest. It is obviously an elephant that countless businesses fail to see because the failed project still stream in day by day.
Re:IPhone Development Costs
by madridorama on Tuesday September 07, 2010 @12:26PM
(#1669258)
The article specifically addresses LOLerApps that outsources all of their development. Not that they are a great case study based on any meaningful success, but it's interesting to see that there are startups who only outsource this sort of thing and yet sustain a business, even if fledgling.
That is pretty bad advice. Baiting with the "outsourcing is cheap" but not citing the statistical increase in failed projects is a disservice to those looking for genuine information.
Worse yet taking an easy exit like "I'll leave it up to you to decide" is punting the responsibility of disclosure. You should either not mention it, or inform you readers that outsourcing required intricate detailed knowledge in technical development, or one can loose control of the project, which directly translates into a higher risk of failure and total loss of investment. It is also your duty to inform your readers that recovery of funds is impossible due to the disparity of legal systems and protections afforded under international law. AKA, if you get ripped off you have little recourse and the recourse you have is more expensive that the money lost, in regards to sub $200,000 projects.