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

You do need a technical co-founder [video]

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 381 posts

Re: You do need a technical co-founder [video]

#271

Post by danenania »

syrusakbary wrote: post #246
danenania wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, usually the problem with a non-technical person isn't that they can't implement their ideas. It's that even if they could, their ideas are unworkable for a hundred reasons that they can't begin to understand. So why would the outcome be any different with AI? Even if the AI is a super-intelligent system designer and tells them all the flaws with their thinking, they'll tell the AI to shut up and get…

Interesting. If I put it in other words, the argumentation is that AI will just propel the already existing qualities of the people. And because people are different (and the distribution of intellectual qualities remains constant as we grow), the AI will not make any difference on that point. I'd agree on that. However, let's imagine the scenario of two people have the similar qualities, with one main difference bet…

I think the key factor is how difficult it is to specify what you want in detail, since this is still going to be necessary with AI. If you can't clearly express what the AI should do, you won't get good results.

I'd say it would be much easier for a technical founder to write a detailed spec for the work that a typical non-technical founder does than the reverse.

Re: You do need a technical co-founder [video]

#272

Post by tonyarkles »

amelius wrote: post #67

The first non-founder employees of a company usually end up with the worst deal financially. Take that into account if you're the technical guy working for the startup.

I have made this mistake exactly twice in my career and the simplest advice I have... I won't categorically say that you should never accept "a lower salary right now but when we bring in investment/sales we'll bump it" because, well, sometimes there are companies/projects/founders that you meet and truly believe in and want to be a part of their team. But... the absolutely critical piece of it is to get in writing:

- what the triggering events are (investment, revenue thresholds, etc), and make sure to include "hiring other team members for similar roles at higher salaries" as one of the triggers

- what the salary bump will be

- whether or not there will be retroactive compensation included

The first time around I ended up leaving the role before any of the usual triggers would have been activated. Management was toxic, salaries sucked, morale was in the shitter anyway. The second time around I discovered after tendering my resignation that someone who reported to me was making $40k/yr more than I was. It would have been an amicable parting (I was moving on to something that was much better aligned with my interests) but it got pretty sour when I found that out. I got asked a couple times to come back to consult on a few projects and the rate I quoted them (and they begrudgingly accepted) was steep.

Re: You do need a technical co-founder [video]

#273

Post by esafak »

gedy wrote: post #260
esafak wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how you could open up product development to the whole company (including engineers) without the product organization getting overwhelmed?

"Real" agile is meant to do just this, but it's rare without falling into cargo culting.

So let others add ideas to the backlog and the product owners triage? I would be worried about ideas getting drowned, leading to a disincentive in participation. I would probably add a layer of voting or something to allow good ideas to surface.

Re: You do need a technical co-founder [video]

#274

Post by TuringNYC »

threeseed wrote: post #39
tracerbulletx wrote: post #29

Having started a small business I respect greatly the skills of great sales people and fund raisers and people who are great with people. But I don't respect them when they think they can start a business where they don't take what they actually make seriously and think the product will just work its self out if they sell hard enough.

History has shown them to be right. There are many terrible products in this world that were successful only because of good sales and marketing. And vice versa.

>> History has shown them to be right. >> There are many terrible products in this world that were successful only because of good sales and marketing. And vice versa.

Just because technologists have been marginalized, abused, and extracted from successfully thru history -- does not mean it should be accepted and it does not mean I want that for myself or my technical friends.

Re: You do need a technical co-founder [video]

#275

Post by TuringNYC »

ilc wrote: post #184

As a technical founder/early person in my past: If you don't know why you need a technical founder. That is EXACTLY why you need one. It is the same reason why if as a technical founder, I didn't know why I needed a non-technical founder. I'd probably be making a major error. To those saying they waste equity: If you truly have a failed company, with a bad founder, buy them out or kill the firm, it happens. You've le…

>> If the founders you need cost you 75% of your equity and you make a unicorn.... Were they worth it? Who cares. You got your fuck you money.

How many times does it end at the technologist owning 25%? I've seen tons of friends swindled and ending up with nothing and successive rounds of business hires walk away with the value.

Re: You do need a technical co-founder [video]

#276

Post by bodge5000 »

WendyTheWillow wrote: post #207
TuringNYC wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It is very frustrating when some Ivy League 25 year old PM/management consultant tries to pitch you on their vision while treating you like an idiot savant they can easily take advantage of. I get calls weekly from people seeking technical co-founders. The biggest thing most CTO candidates dont realize is the power they have -- unless the "business co-founder" is actually bringing something to the table. I'd LOVE…

I have substantially less exposure to this space than you seem to, but even when trying to start projects with friends, this holds true. So often, I get pitched by pals who think the idea is what they've done, and at that point, it's up to me to "code up." What I would love to hear is, "I've been talking with these three businesses already, and they seem interested." or even, "I'm really worried about the sales and m…

This is very common issue with software engineering in general but I'd say particularly with game development, the answer I've found to be the best is what converted me when I was getting started with game dev ("I have a great idea, I just need a team to build it"):

Why do you think we got learnt game dev/programming ourselves? Probably because we too had an idea we wanted to make a reality, so why would we put that on hold to make someone else's idea without some other incentive?

Re: You do need a technical co-founder [video]

#277

Post by csa »

puniaviision wrote: post #257
csa wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you work in private equity or something where you buy out businesses and run them? Yes. I’m basically like Andrew Wilkinson and Tiny Corp, but not as far along the curve as he is (tiny is valued at ~$500m+ USD currently). https://www.tiny.com/about I have some cash cows. I buy tech businesses and streamline the business side. > but an idiot one that wasted a lot of time chasing sexy ideas with no connection real…

Thanks for the perspective. Cool hearing about your story! How did you get the initial capital to buy businesses, just from your savings as a research professor?

> How did you get the initial capital to buy businesses, just from your savings as a research professor?

Much like Andrew Wilkinson, I started an agency. Agencies are great cash cows.

In retrospect, I could have just started with savings (I had enough). It probably would have added stress I wasn’t looking for.

That said, the agency was and is still great cash flow. It’s also a useful business space for learning how to build a business that (mostly) runs itself.

Re: You do need a technical co-founder [video]

#278

Post by gumballindie »

threeseed wrote: post #39
tracerbulletx wrote: post #29

Having started a small business I respect greatly the skills of great sales people and fund raisers and people who are great with people. But I don't respect them when they think they can start a business where they don't take what they actually make seriously and think the product will just work its self out if they sell hard enough.

History has shown them to be right. There are many terrible products in this world that were successful only because of good sales and marketing. And vice versa.

What usually happens is that they take a good product and degrade it while making sales on the back of its good reputation.

Re: You do need a technical co-founder [video]

#279

Post by TuringNYC »

esafak wrote: post #261
amelius wrote: post #67

The first non-founder employees of a company usually end up with the worst deal financially. Take that into account if you're the technical guy working for the startup.

Depends on what you mean by founder. Pre-funding employees can get sweet nominal-cost restricted stock awards.

>> Depends on what you mean by founder. Pre-funding employees can get sweet nominal-cost restricted stock awards.

So basically, lottery tickets that you get to cash out in 7yrs if you are lucky.

You are better off working at market rates, and buying Nasdaq options with your pay difference.

Re: You do need a technical co-founder [video]

#280

Post by gnicholas »

TuringNYC wrote: post #253
gnicholas wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and retains the right to take all the upside and has none of the downside When you are paid in equity, the non-technical cofounder doesn't have all of the upside. But I completely agree that both parties need to bring something to the table at the beginning. It can't be "you build something and then after you've done that I'll go sell it". Both founders need to be putting in sweat equity simultaneously, to align in…

I think we are in agreement. To elaborate more -- you are right, "the non-technical cofounder doesn't have all of the upside" -- I mean "they have all upside" meaning, they can only go up -- they have contributed nothing so everything for them is upside.

Yeah, I think the difference is between "they have all the upside" and "they have only upside". You shouldn't agree to either of those situations — they should be putting in sweat equity alongside you. But there's a big difference between them, since all founders end up with some upside — if you don't, then you're employee #1 (and even then, you're probably still getting a couple percent).
Post reply on HN