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

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#71

Post by adj »

ryanhuff wrote: post #63
adj wrote: post #45

I used to be of the opinion that the technical people did all the hard work and hence they should get the majority of the equity. However, once I tried to do everything myself I realised that the technical side was only one piece of the puzzle. Business, design and marketing may not be as intellectual as programming but they are no less hard and often more important. I really think that if two people are involved, th…

The problem is that, often times, much of the technical work is front-loaded, leaving most of the initial risk disproportionately in the technical person's lap. It's only after an MVP is built that the business side of the operation has to perform. Equity split should reflect the assumed risk.

That’s a fair point. However, there could also be front loading in the business role. Sounding out the market, figuring out who your customers are and what they want - the sort of stuff that should be done before writing any code. Isn't that still a significant amount of work?

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#72

Post by creamyhorror »

adj wrote: post #45

I used to be of the opinion that the technical people did all the hard work and hence they should get the majority of the equity. However, once I tried to do everything myself I realised that the technical side was only one piece of the puzzle. Business, design and marketing may not be as intellectual as programming but they are no less hard and often more important. I really think that if two people are involved, th…

1. Whether they're "no less hard" depends on who's doing it.

2. Many people claim they can do these things (at least, the "business" and "marketing" parts) - hence the surfeit of "nontechnical cofounders". But not all of them can.

3. There are fewer potential technical cofounders available in most areas.

4. Therefore, as a technical cofounder, you should pick only the best nontechnical partners, who will justify an even split of the equity. If you really don't find anyone who measures up in terms of demonstrated ability to hustle, connections that can actually be used, great business plans/prototypes and/or an impressive work ethic, then is it really worth starting up with a mediocre-or-worse cofounder?

5. If you insist on taking a nontech cofounder and you have only multiple mediocre suitors to pick from, it makes sense to me to offer less equity. If your potential partner feels it isn't fair, then look for someone else who understands that the product makers have precedence in this market.

Personally, I think making a good business plan and doing marketing may be as hard as programming at times, but at this time, more people claim to be able to do business-side things than coding. That fact in itself justifies the tech cofounders' being picky with their partners.

I think tech cofounders shouldn't let the thought that "oh, they work as hard as me" mislead them into partnering with someone who doesn't have capabilities that equal theirs, adjusted for supply and demand.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#73

Post by ryanhuff »

bendingoutward wrote: post #70
BadassFractal wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the first question, I have been burned before by non-technical co-founders who turned the project into their own little "I want to learn how to program" experiment, while spending zero to no time actually hustling, talking to people, getting feedback, finding more early adopters, engineering requirements and so on. I have learned to be a better judge of character through that experience, and am much pickier…

I have another possible explanation for that first question, and I am making the assumption that I'm not the only person that has had to work on not feeling this way: Even though we really shouldn't feel this way, a lot of us developer sorts wrestle with the idea that we're the only ones ever really working, specifically in the pure development phase of a project. Granted, I'm sure everybody feels that way at least o…

Already said (far) below in this post, but the work on the part of the technical team to produce an MVP is often front-loaded, which means that the technical person (team) assumes most of the initial execution risk. Equity distribution should recognize the assumed risk.

If the technical person does not execute on the MVP, the idea guy mostly out only lost time-to-market. On the other hand, if the technical person delivers, he/she is now "all-in" before the idea person typically contributes meaningful execution-value towards the business.

Its probably most fair to view the first "execution" contributors (technical team building MVP) as the first investors in the business, and therefore should be recognized with more favorable terms (equity distribution). If the idea person can create actual execution value in tandem with the MVP, then an initial 50/50 split is fair.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#74

Post by kappaknight »

_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…

You sound like a mercenary, which is fine for those without viable options.

However, the article is saying the chances of success is higher if you find someone who also believes in the vision.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#75

Post by wisty »

jordanb wrote: post #21
tomjen3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heck as far as I can see I can't see the value of the business person at all, except for whatever connections he has. Now I am biased, but why would one go into a partnership with a business person in the first place.

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?

Then they've failed the second test - getting a good programmer who doesn't want to leave.

A programmer on no pay with 10% equity is bound to be look for a new position if the company goes through a rough patch (hint, it will). A programmer with 50% equity will stick it out.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#76

Post by Confusion »

noduerme wrote: post #58

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 f…

It's not about having, or being able to develop 'marketing skills'. That's too shallow a sketch of all the tasks a non-technical founder fulfills. I'm an employee of two technical founders that have developed all the skills necessary, but if I see which they are and which tasks they fulfill (all kinds of business administration, HRM, legal, PR, sales, marketing, company strategy and planning, procurement, CRM, etc.) then I would be glad to be able to let a future non-technical co-founder that actually likes a portion of that stuff deal with that. They hardly have time to code anymore :(.

So, in short: a non-technical co-founder fulfills many tasks and likes them. A technical founder would be smart to associate with a non-technical founder, so both can do what they're good at.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#77

Post by winterchil »

This is a tired sentiment in the valley. There seems to be a power/control needle that swings back and forth between the business people and the technical people. The truth is you desperately need both.

While we're all familiar with the "I just need a coder..." stories, there are at least as many coders working on projects that have zero business prospects. At the moment this is actually the greater sin as technical talents are in shorter supply so dedicating your (limited) resources to an idea with no long-term prospects is basically shooting yourself, and the valley, in the foot. You'd be much better off partnering with a business co-founder and raising money.

On the other hand, Silicon Valley has a long history of exploiting engineers and we're all right to be incredulous when working for limited equity and no salary.

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#78

Post by guynamedloren »

I thought this was going to go somewhere else. I was totally excited until the sixth paragraph - the first mention of the technical co-founder. The author got it all wrong. The main downfall is that, as a non-technical person with an idea, you aren't just going to go and find a technical co-founder out of the blue. It's highly unlikely that you'll find a techie who will drop everything to work with you on your idea in hopes that you will both someday strike it rich. And if you do find a guy like this, they're probably a bit delusional.

The technical co-founder has to be built in to the core, a part of the equation from the very beginning. Co-founders (technical or not) have to be compatible. You can't just go and find a technical co-founder on the street. That doesn't work.

Now, instead of getting emails inquiring how to learn to program, I'm going to get emails that say "Hey, I have this great idea but I need a technical co-founder. I read your blog and I know you can code. We'll be rich. What do you think?"

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#79

Post by [deleted] »

adj wrote: post #71
ryanhuff wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that, often times, much of the technical work is front-loaded, leaving most of the initial risk disproportionately in the technical person's lap. It's only after an MVP is built that the business side of the operation has to perform. Equity split should reflect the assumed risk.

That’s a fair point. However, there could also be front loading in the business role. Sounding out the market, figuring out who your customers are and what they want - the sort of stuff that should be done before writing any code. Isn't that still a significant amount of work?

[deleted]

Re: Why You Don't Need A Programmer

#80

Post by ryanhuff »

adj wrote: post #71
ryanhuff wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that, often times, much of the technical work is front-loaded, leaving most of the initial risk disproportionately in the technical person's lap. It's only after an MVP is built that the business side of the operation has to perform. Equity split should reflect the assumed risk.

That’s a fair point. However, there could also be front loading in the business role. Sounding out the market, figuring out who your customers are and what they want - the sort of stuff that should be done before writing any code. Isn't that still a significant amount of work?

If done right, I would agree with you that doing the up-front work you describe would lead to the most equitable outcome, especially if it involves booking sales or partnerships pre-MVP. Talking to customers in advance of MVP building, while a critically important part of product development, is often not given the rigor that it should though.

I would strongly advise all involved to agree on measurable benchmarks, and perhaps even gate the product development progression on achieving these benchmarks.

Post reply on HN