Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why You Don't Need A Programmer

thinkopen.ly

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#51

Post by sopooneo »

etherael wrote: post #27
SatvikBeri wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point of the post. The OP is saying that a lot of would-be entrepreneurs are vastly underestimating the amount of work involved in creating the actual software, and that the would-be entrepreneurs need a technical cofounder rather than an employed programmer. To use your analogy, this would be more like the store owners telling the prospectors, correctly, that they would also need to find legal help to…

I think OP's point to this is that doing that would not be a good business move. I don't believe that in the canonical scenario simply telling the party in question that things are much more complicated than they can possibly imagine and expecting them to accept that is realistic. I have been a part of projects where first day in discussing the basics of the project the entrepreneur in question has the design "95% co…

It's true. They won't listen until after the journey. See Wizard of Oz.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#52

Post by sopooneo »

RuggeroAltair wrote: post #41

I think, and maybe here I'm stating the obvious, that a big problem is how people sometimes think that their idea is the real deal, while the implementation is just a matter of paying somebody. I think that most people don't realize that most ideas aren't original, and that if you think of something, just by sociological statistics, most likely somebody else has already thought of it. So what really matters isn't a d…

My experience is that usually people haven't actually thought their ideas through. Not even the parts that are within their grasp to imagine and design. In trying to implement stuff, or just in preplanning discussions, you as the programming are always asking, "So what about here? What should happen in this case?" And then there's a pause making it clear the person has never considered this, then they throw out an answer like they had thought about it. But after a little while their answers start to contradict, and their idea is not even conceptually possible.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#53

Post by jordanb »

orky56 wrote: post #38
jordanb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I think a business founder looking for free tech work has already failed the first test as a businessman: He hasn't been able to raise the $40k-$80k in seed funding needed to build an MVP. If he can't convince a guy who doles out capital for a living to give him a tiny bit of it, why should he expect a programmer to front him that value in highly skilled labor?

Alright, let's say that business founder gets $60k in seed funding. Would a technical cofounder expect that $60k as salary or towards some specific asset for the company? I don't think that $60k of seed funding is what stands between a businessman with his idea and success.

I would think he would invest the $60k towards things needed to make his idea into a business. For an internet company, software development is going to be a major component, although there are others, like design.

Point is, there are people structured to accept risk. These people include investors and entrepreneurs. There are other people who provide services that businesses need, including designers, lawyers, programmers, etc. These people generally aren't structured to accept risk, they need an hour's pay for an hour's work.

Because programmers can often be confused as to what role they play in a business through fast-talk, there's this notion that has developed that there are lots of programmer/investors available, who are willing and able to accept risk in lieu of payment.

There are clearly programmers who will accept that arrangement at least once due to their naivety, but they they generally learn pretty quickly, and I think it's becoming more common knowledge in the programmer community that it's an arrangement best avoided.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#54

Post by sopooneo »

delinka wrote: post #47
Jabbles wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the going rate for a job that has a high likelihood of not existing in a year's time?

I don't think I understand this question. No job you take (in the U.S.) is guaranteed to be there in a year's time. You might work for a month (being paid a month's salary) and poof the job's gone - company folded, political bullshit got you caught in the crossfire ... whatever. You keep a fraction of your income in savings for just such an occasion. You add that month to your résumé and move on to the next job that…

The parent's point is that some jobs are more likely to disappear than others, for example working for a company that seems likely to fail. And when the risk is higher, the skilled programmer might justifiably require that compensation be commensurately higher as well.

Too often in discussions of risk management, someone points out that I could be hit by a bus.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#55

Post by rhizome »

delinka wrote: post #47
Jabbles wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the going rate for a job that has a high likelihood of not existing in a year's time?

I don't think I understand this question. No job you take (in the U.S.) is guaranteed to be there in a year's time. You might work for a month (being paid a month's salary) and poof the job's gone - company folded, political bullshit got you caught in the crossfire ... whatever. You keep a fraction of your income in savings for just such an occasion. You add that month to your résumé and move on to the next job that…

He wasn't talking about guarantees, just likelihood.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#56

Post by sopooneo »

jordanb wrote: post #8
amishforkfight wrote: post #4

Why do the technical people always seem to get the short end of the stick? I have people approaching me on a monthly basis with their 'great idea' and 'all I need is someone to code it', and compensation varies from 'money when it gets big' all the way up to a very enticing 20% equity. After working on a few of these I now ask for cash up front, no equity. I have plenty of my own ideas and not enough time to work on…

Technical skills and business acumen aren't necessarily the same thing. Technical people have a tendency to discount the market value of their abilities because they often seem "trivial" once mastered. Also time spent developing technical skills often comes at the cost of developing interpersonal skills that are important at negotiation time (and for detecting BS). But anyway, my sense is that a lot of these "needs t…

On the subject of triviality, I've made some discoveries about demoing software to non-programmers. Of course a pretty appearance is very important, but even in just describing features, how hard they were to implement is of zero interest. And what you can sell people on is stuff that is absolutely trivial, or even stuff that is commonplace and every competitor out there does just as well. You feel like you're going to be found out when you brag on the fact that your bike design features a foot activated swing-down ground support to hold it in a vertical position when not in use. But people eat it up.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#57

Post by fleitz »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #32
_3u10 wrote: post #11

If someone hires me to write something for them I write that for them, if they ask me for advice I give them advice. I don't get into arguments about how their idea won't work, or call them 'stupid', I charge them my rate for the work they ask me to do and I thank them when they pay me. You think the guys at the general store in 1849 told the gold prospectors that they were stupid and would lose their money? Or do yo…

The approach you suggest works fine in the short term: most of your customers will fail, but only after paying you, and there's a line of suckers behind them. However, in the long term, if you help a customer thrive by helping them understand what they really need, you might make a bit less off that customer right away, but you'll have a customer for life, and many more where that came from via word of mouth.

I don't think they are suckers, I just have no idea which will succeed and which will fail.

I always try to leverage my expertise to help them but at the end of the day the customer is always right.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#58

Post by noduerme »

You know, this post had me nodding in agreement up until the last paragraph:

"Note: I could easily switch this whole article around to all those programmers that think creating a company is as simple as launching an app. You’re just as stupid, so start asking for someone to help you grow what you’re working on, ask for a co-Founder."

No. Frankly, we're not just as stupid. It's not as if just because marketers can't figure out how to program, the inverse is true and programmers for some reason lack the creative thinking skills to come up with new ideas or the capacity to market their own product.

Non-technical founders may have some purpose, but to a coder with marketing ability they're redundant, and worse, in the way. So no, you can't just flip it around; to say that a programmer who goes it alone is "stupid" is, above all, a very stupid comment.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#59

Post by noduerme »

etherael wrote: post #27
SatvikBeri wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point of the post. The OP is saying that a lot of would-be entrepreneurs are vastly underestimating the amount of work involved in creating the actual software, and that the would-be entrepreneurs need a technical cofounder rather than an employed programmer. To use your analogy, this would be more like the store owners telling the prospectors, correctly, that they would also need to find legal help to…

I think OP's point to this is that doing that would not be a good business move. I don't believe that in the canonical scenario simply telling the party in question that things are much more complicated than they can possibly imagine and expecting them to accept that is realistic. I have been a part of projects where first day in discussing the basics of the project the entrepreneur in question has the design "95% co…

So very right. This is why I charge by the hour and refer clients who don't like it to India. They come back eventually, defeated, but you know they're worthless dorm room hacks. Some of them will end up on wall street, and a few of them might eventually find jobs where they actually have to work to, y'know, make something. The rest will live on daddy's trust fund. We're towing them, not the other way around. Screw 'em. Let them beg on the street.

If God had truly blessed these people with big enough brains to come up with brilliant ideas, He would have given them the capacity to learn, at the very least, enough PHP or Ruby to build a wireframe. I don't see how anyone who can't do that could have an idea that would be worth wasting time on.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#60

Post by amishforkfight »

sopooneo wrote: post #56
jordanb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technical skills and business acumen aren't necessarily the same thing. Technical people have a tendency to discount the market value of their abilities because they often seem "trivial" once mastered. Also time spent developing technical skills often comes at the cost of developing interpersonal skills that are important at negotiation time (and for detecting BS). But anyway, my sense is that a lot of these "needs t…

On the subject of triviality, I've made some discoveries about demoing software to non-programmers. Of course a pretty appearance is very important, but even in just describing features, how hard they were to implement is of zero interest. And what you can sell people on is stuff that is absolutely trivial, or even stuff that is commonplace and every competitor out there does just as well. You feel like you're going…

That's a really good point that I've begun realizing more frequently in my work. People are blown away by most things, and there is almost no correlation between how difficult the problem was and how amazed they are. In fact, I frequently find that the easy stuff tends to impress more (simple UI tweaks, small jQuery animation).

I try to get my highly technical kudos from my technical friends, because my non-technical co-workers begin to glaze over when when I really want to talk about something tricky and fun I did.

Post reply on HN