To simplify, you always always always want to be working in bullet point 2, if at all possible.
In the other two, you are a cost to be minimized or eliminated. Only if you are working on one of the companies core products are you an asset bringing revenue into the company.
I disagree - It depends on your career aspirations, your skillset, the company, and the type of software you like making.
If you are a great communicator and have a great ability to just 'get stuff done', you might be a superstar in 1 & 3, and you might find working in bullet point two highly frustrating.
With number 2 you are more likely to be working on a tiny part of a larger application.
My brother went from bashing out big scrappy functional software with lots of client interaction (option 1 or 3) and moved to a bigger product organisation where he is suddenly working on a team building a microservice for a larger application, but doesn't feel like he is making the same direct impact (i.e. it can be more satisfying to make 10 people's jobs 10% easier compared to than making 1 million's peoples jobs 0.1% easier). He would rather build some scrappy tools that gets the job done than build highly refined software, just because the scrappy programming to meet an end is more satisfying to him (and is generally the bit where you can build fast value!).
I would also add career longevity and security. I work at a number 3, I wrote and maintain all the logistics stuff. Every product they sell goes through my code to package parts, put it together and get it out the door. Average time working here is measured in decades not years. It would take a new person roughly a year to figure out what's going on. It's incredibly complicated cash cow that complies with a slew of national and international regulations related to health care. I know more than I ever want to about HIPAA, international equivalents and transportation of hazardous and infections goods.
I wouldn't mind switching to #1 and doubling my paycheck but for now I could float here until I die, and many do.
As a software developer, I rather work at a company that sells billions of dollars in merchandise, with a huge amount of software to maintain doing that and endless middle management ideas to build on (most of which won't amount to anything). Job security. Lots of opportunities to move around and nobody needs to know how the reference was about all the s-shows, when you go somewhere else.
> (i.e. it can be more satisfying to make 10 people's jobs 10% easier compared to than making 1 million's peoples jobs 0.1% easier)
i think in this case, it's got nothing to do with the impact, but to do with the intimacy with the users. This has more to do with the organization rather than the category outlined in the OP.
Actually #1 is my favorite, as I'm better at technical sales and rapid prototyping than I am at slow, FAANG style politicking, planning, risk mitigation and eventual development. I've done both at various points in my career and consistently make about ~twice as much money running my own consultancy, not to mention I'm so much happier in that environment.
Do you get much stress in terms of sometimes not being “rapid” enough, not having anyone to rely on apart from yourself (assuming you’re solo), and finding business?
Not really, because I always maintain at least a few clients so I'm not too worried about losing one. Once you have a solid pipeline, losing a client becomes just part of the business, not the scary emotional experience of "getting fired".
And I have a network of other independents I can bring in to help out with things. They're a good source of leads for me as well.
It depends on the person and the company as others have said. Personally, I found no 3 to be pretty nice in competent companies.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want to work with companies like no 1 again. And no 2 can be quite a mixed bag.
Nah there's still tons a variability. Some companies are great some are poor, and different people like working in different environments. #2 might be YOUR ideal workplace but it's not everyones.
Eh, I don't think it's that clear cut. I've worked in all three types, and there were positives and negatives to each, and none are necessarily better than the other. I will say that #2 tends to be the most reliable and tolerant of your faults.
In the other two, you are a cost to be minimized or eliminated. Only if you are working on one of the companies core products are you an asset bringing revenue into the company.