Hackers with no equity in company: good or bad? • Hacker News Board

Re: Hackers with no equity in company: good or bad?

#31

Post by matth » Sun, Oct 07, 2007, 2:16 PM UTC

prime0196 wrote: post #20

far33d wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think a founding coder is indispensable to your company? Are you saying that if this person decided, one week from launch, to quit, it wouldn't matter? If so, why have them on the team at all?

Web applications are a lot easier to develop. I think too many people are still applying methodologies that applied to more "traditional" forms of software development. If I have a good JavaScript hacker bail on me a week before launch, I don't think it would be extremely difficult to find another good JavaScript hacker.

This is just my perspective, but if you're hiring and treating programmers like temps, don't expect any works of beauty. They're going to push out what they need to push out, probably very hackishly (because what do they care?), and then bail with check in-hand and let the next guy deal with the mess.

That's not such a big deal with JS, but it's a very big deal when your backend is in the toilet. You may as well flush.

Re: Hackers with no equity in company: good or bad?

#32

Post by mynameishere » Sun, Oct 07, 2007, 4:41 PM UTC

prime0196 wrote: post #14

pg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The empirical evidence suggests startups don't work that way. All the most successful startups had great techical people from the beginning. If you don't have good technical people at the start, you never reach the point where you attract them.

I don't dispute that. What if you have great technical people in the beginning who happen to have no equity stake? A talented developer is a talented developer (regardless of how they are compensated)...equity doesn't make them any better, does it?

What if you have great technical people in the beginning who happen to have no equity stake?

They leave as soon as something better comes along. Giving them equity [with vesting] prevents that from happening. If the person is okay with just a salary, he'll go work at Microsoft or Google and additionally collect the "intangible" benefit of job security.

These aren't difficult concepts.

Re: Hackers with no equity in company: good or bad?

#33

Post by anamax » Sun, Oct 07, 2007, 4:48 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #30

anamax wrote: post #17

I trust that you're not going to complain if they quit your project for a project that does offer them equity. FWIW, no one is indespensible in a startup; some are merely harder to replace than others. I'll bet that "original idea" guys are getting equity even though they cease to be indespensible.

"no one is indespensible in a startup" I have been in too many startups that died because they lost or failed to recruit one particular person---or in the case of LMI survived (for a while) because I recruited one indispensable classmate who made their LAMBDA processor work---to believe this. A reverse example would be the receiving clerk at Intel who single-handily almost killed them as mentioned in Chringley's book…

The fact that a startup dies when someone leaves doesn't imply that said person was indespensible.

Re: Hackers with no equity in company: good or bad?

#34

Post by hga » Sun, Oct 07, 2007, 5:02 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #33

hga wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"no one is indespensible in a startup" I have been in too many startups that died because they lost or failed to recruit one particular person---or in the case of LMI survived (for a while) because I recruited one indispensable classmate who made their LAMBDA processor work---to believe this. A reverse example would be the receiving clerk at Intel who single-handily almost killed them as mentioned in Chringley's book…

The fact that a startup dies when someone leaves doesn't imply that said person was indespensible.

I am relying on "inside information".

I suppose that means this is an "appeal to authority", but, still, if a person critical to making software work is gone, and the company fails specifically because they can't make their software work, what else am I to assume?

(Needless to say, sometimes I've been that person.)

Re: Hackers with no equity in company: good or bad?

#35

Post by sudhirc » Sun, Oct 07, 2007, 7:35 PM UTC

prime0196 wrote: post #20

far33d wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think a founding coder is indispensable to your company? Are you saying that if this person decided, one week from launch, to quit, it wouldn't matter? If so, why have them on the team at all?

Web applications are a lot easier to develop. I think too many people are still applying methodologies that applied to more "traditional" forms of software development. If I have a good JavaScript hacker bail on me a week before launch, I don't think it would be extremely difficult to find another good JavaScript hacker.

you are talking like a MBA and a manager. As per your learnings people are machine so you can easily replace one malfunctioning part by another.

I am not involved in any startup but like to do my job with creative energy and scripted quite a few time saver solutions for my group. Until now all my manager were thoughtful enough to allow me but this new guy thinks that he can replace any person with any person without looking at the unique attributes of each of the person. He wants me to do the work others can do without looking at what i can do and others cannot... I am sorry but you are sounding like my manager so get a job in big company. Startup make you respect your talent and looks like you do not want to do that... Coders may be dime a dozen but believe me true developers/hackers are not...

Re: Hackers with no equity in company: good or bad?

#36

Post by anamax » Mon, Oct 08, 2007, 5:08 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #34

anamax wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that a startup dies when someone leaves doesn't imply that said person was indespensible.

I am relying on "inside information". I suppose that means this is an "appeal to authority", but, still, if a person critical to making software work is gone, and the company fails specifically because they can't make their software work, what else am I to assume? (Needless to say, sometimes I've been that person.)

I'll buy that a company can be set up so it is dependent. Outside of some special cases (subset of technology and relationships), I think that doing so is usually unnecessary and the "indespensable" label is typically untrue, especially when it comes to biz folk.