Vantaggi
Pretty developer-centric, although it used to be more so. (Teams used to have a lot more say in their own internal processes with many teams trying some pretty outlandish ideas back in the day.) A lot of teams have very cool culture and vibe, and the company encourages that. In recent years, the company has been very successful in internally modernizing/streamlining automated processes. Compensation and benefits are very competitive. The stock is on an explosive trajectory upward (in spite of what the rest of the industry/market seems to be doing). A lot of cool problems being solved everyday in different codebases/languages/tech stacks across the organization. I put a Neutral outlook on Dean (CEO). He is super gregarious and a great representative for the company/product/brand. His big data catchphrases simply grow trite; if you've heard a couple of Dean speeches, you've pretty much heard Dean. Very nice guy though and attempts to connect with and show appreciation for all areas of the org (although he is clearly a sales guy at heart). 6-month outlook will depend upon how releases of new product lines fare (and whether or not the user base embraces these new experiences). A lot of potential for success here, but also a lot of ways the company could misstep. e.g., Misrepresenting one of these new product lines as a replacement for the previous XYZ product line (or for the partner's/competitor's ABC product line) could aggravate users.
Svantaggi
A lot of little pet projects- many of which flounder about wasting resources and never coming to fruition. Frustrating to see resources wasted on things that-- even if they do get completed-- the customers really don't want as much as leadership/management thinks they do. Moreover, there is a large disconnect between leadership/management and our user base. Leadership/management is out of touch with our main product (Designer) and the niche value it provides. For example, having seen many years of quarterly innovation days, leadership/management does not contribute/participate. (Participation, otherwise, is usually very high across the company-- even outside of the engineering org.) When the company wants to update/modernize a product line (e.g., server), the tendency has always been to rewrite all functionality from scratch. With decades-old legacy products and a bunch of rosy-eyed (usually newly-hired) developers, this leads to a lot of reinventing the wheel (in the best case) and a lot of new problems (in the worst case). This has happened time and time again with various iterations of lightweight, web-based versions of both the desktop and server products. Every time, there is a naivete (or perhaps hubris) that THIS rewrite will avoid all of the problems from the previous rewrites; more often, there are just new defects and anomalies being introduced (not all of which are being identified). In response to diverging visions, there seems to be a tendency to terminate many passionate advocates for the main product (including the original CTO, who wrote this product himself). This has led to displaced/disjointed excitement for the product and an overall decrease in morale across (at least) the engineering org.