> As I'm sure everyone here is well aware, throwing more money at a development team doesn't necessarily make it faster.

But it does, especially over a multi-year timespan. Unless you really screw up in managing or hiring.

Assuming you hire reasonably skilled engineers and accept that they will take some time to integrate with the team (and that this will temporarily slow the team) then eventually you can build more stuff in any window of time.

For reference, see almost every software company.

9 women don’t birth a baby in 1 month. Even the richest companies with thousands of developers usually struggle with delivering promised features on time.

> For reference, see almost every software company.

Like Apple, who has had to delay stuff meant for a .0 release to a .x update, a few times? Or Microsoft or Google who kill projects outright and still can’t decide which API to settle on?

Or Facebook etc. who took months to implement Dark Mode?

Your points are all missing my point

> Isn't it a bit presumptuous to worry about this without knowing their finances?

FYI, you can view their accounts on the UK's Companies House website: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05041038/filing-h...

Interesting. Assuming that's the whole business in one place, which it does appear to be, they're a smaller business than I imagined and I think it's quite impressive that they've built three new products (plus some mobile versions) as good as they are in just a few years.