11–20 of 40 posts
Much of "business" probably is largely mechanical. But what your non-technical founder brings is the knowledge of what to build.
Why would you even want a non-tech founder. All the value-add an MBA can bring to a small tech startup, namely: (1) contacts (2) presentation skills (3) networking (the human kind) skills - can be acquired by more tech guys if they really put their head to it and put in a sustained effort. A tech-startup would be much more flab-free if a tech guy takes up this role, imho.
I can tell you from personal experience how awesome it is when you get a business guy who works his ass off selling and handling contracts etc (I'm in b2b). Not only does it bring in many more sales, but it makes you more productive so you can concentrate on the task at hand - no context switching involved.
Now all someone has to do is solve the problem: how do you find competent business guys or programmers. Both are hard to come by, and are mysterious to the other group.
Epic
Woz was working on the Apple II. Jobs saw a clever Intel ad. He called Intel marketing and found that Regis McKenna created the ad. After relentlessly calling the agency for weeks, Jobs finally wore down the secretary, and got a meeting with Mr. McKenna, and against all odds, persuaded him to take on Apple as a client. At the time, Apple had no outside investors yet. McKenna introduced Jobs to Don Valentine, who sat on the board of the marketing agency. Valentine said he'd invest if Apple brought on board a more experienced marketing guy. Jobs then relentlessly called Valentine for recommendations (there is a pattern here), who finally relented, and suggested Mike Markkula, who joined Apple and became one of the early investors.
That I'd consider a worthy non-tech founder. but then again, the traits that Jobs exhibited had nothing to do with MBA. I am not even sure there is anything distinctively 'business' about it. It's more just what PG called determinedness.
There are legitimate arguments why a good business cofounder can be invaluable. This article completely fails to make any of them.
Am I missing the irony here? (this happens to me occasionally, I being a non-native English speaker). But if this MBA shit is easy as he says (and none of his 4 steps looks that hard), then seriously why does he deserve more than 15% equity... I am reminded of some line from Paul Graham. He was talking about literature and physics professors, but it fits just as well here. Imagine this thought experiment: technical a…
Learning programming is ultimately a matter of studying hard. It can be mastered through books, Google and relentless solitary experimentation.
Making people pay for something is a fickle social art. Who wants to get shot for failing at something so intangible?
Am I missing the irony here? (this happens to me occasionally, I being a non-native English speaker). But if this MBA shit is easy as he says (and none of his 4 steps looks that hard), then seriously why does he deserve more than 15% equity... I am reminded of some line from Paul Graham. He was talking about literature and physics professors, but it fits just as well here. Imagine this thought experiment: technical a…
is it only me, I thought that was all tongue in cheek.
Am I missing the irony here? (this happens to me occasionally, I being a non-native English speaker). But if this MBA shit is easy as he says (and none of his 4 steps looks that hard), then seriously why does he deserve more than 15% equity... I am reminded of some line from Paul Graham. He was talking about literature and physics professors, but it fits just as well here. Imagine this thought experiment: technical a…
If my life were on the line, I would absolutely go for the business->coding transition. The odds of success are so much better. Learning programming is ultimately a matter of studying hard. It can be mastered through books, Google and relentless solitary experimentation. Making people pay for something is a fickle social art. Who wants to get shot for failing at something so intangible?