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

181–190 of 381 posts

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

#181

Post by speby »

opportune wrote: post #129

Even this article IMO subtly demonstrates the mindset that leads nontechnical founders to not think they need a technical cofounder, by phrasing the search for one as “recruiting” as if they were a subordinate or code monkey. It should be a partner relationship, not a subordinate relationship. This mindset that technical cofounders are essentially “coders” (a term I hate) is very prevalent among inexperienced nontech…

This is pretty well said. I tend to agree and as a founder of multiple companies, as a well an engineering-background co-founder myself, I have definitely had interactions with "non-technical" founders looking for people (like me) and totally got the vibe of the needing a "technical co-founder" because they just need some "coder" as if that's the missing key to success (or whatever).

That said, there are plenty of very smart, driven, people who are not software engineers who don't think of a technical co-founder that way. So it'd be wrong to paint with a super wide brush on this.

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

#183

Post by ilc »

23B1 wrote: post #91

This is dated. There's no rules to founding your own company. As a non-technical founder I can A) Get a technical cofounder which takes me weeks to find, dilutes my ownership, and with whom I have no recourse if their work is sub-par (or we end up just not liking/trusting/vibing with each other) or B) Build an MVP with any number of offshoring partners in a matter of weeks and for far cheaper (money, time, opportunit…

Honestly as a technical guy: You come off as greedy.

As a technical founder, I face the EXACT same risks. What if the business guy can't drum up money? What if he can't sell the damn pen.

Most companies fail, the strongest firms will have strong business and technical people.

If you want to stand on one leg. Go for it. You'll piss your money away overseas. When you need someone to help you get across that line... there is nobody at your side.

Founding a successful company is hard. You will face days where you don't have the answer. Things will happen that are outside your experience... and yes, you can buy, buy, buy your way there... but remember, you are buying mercs. I've been a merc. Win or lose... I get paid, so, yes sir. How high sir?

Rework is just more money.

... You sure you want to be on the other side of the table from someone like me, without someone like me at your side?

Because all those off-shore firms... are more merc than I am.

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

#184

Post by ilc »

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 learned some key lessons.

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.

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

#185

Post by kragen »

distortionfield wrote: post #170
kragen wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would you want a nontechnical cofounder to do the pm/marketing/bizdev side of things? a nontechnical person might be able to do those things, but technical ignorance or incompetence are not necessary for them, and aren't even assets; they're just less serious drawbacks there than elsewhere you might genuinely need some nontechnical people in your startup, but if you have some money you can always pay people to co…

Why would you want a nontechnical cofounder to do these 3 specialized full-time roles? Is this a serious question? > but if you have some money lol . Just… lol.

yes. why would you want the three people doing those three specialized full-time roles to be nontechnical?

it seems to me that, given a nontechnical person who's good at one or more of those roles, they'd obviously be even better at it if they also understood the technology. ignorance and incompetence are weaknesses, not strengths

as for having some money, the context of this discussion is startups with angel or vc funding, which is plenty for focus groups and some user tests

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

#186

Post by jjav »

ethbr1 wrote: post #180
gary_0 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, there are different failure modes for purely technical people not understanding business. A common one, I think, is technical people thinking management or business expertise is easy (or even beneath them) because they're so smart in other areas--and any problems they might have can surely be solved with the same tools they use to solve engineering problems, right? Which is kind of the flip side of the a…

The biggest business gap seems to be assuming other people won't screw you over, given enough money on the table and the opportunity. I assume most MBAs already know this. Lots of technical people learn the hard way.

Yes, this. I've been in many startups but only once as a founder. I was the technical one, the only one with deep expertise in the core business area of the startup.

Well, my title was founder. All the other founders were on the board, I was not. All the other founders controlled budget, I did not. So really, despite the words on the offer letter I was just an employee. The founder title granted me the right to work 90 hour weeks with no help and no support and no budget to hire help.

At least didn't waste too many years on that one.

Learn from me. Spend some of your money up front and hire a lawyer with tons of experience in startups to guide you through contract negotiations and if the company balks at your (lawyer-assisted) terms that's your giant red flag to run very far away.

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

#188

Post by mainpassathome »

lainga wrote: post #142
opportune wrote: post #129

Even this article IMO subtly demonstrates the mindset that leads nontechnical founders to not think they need a technical cofounder, by phrasing the search for one as “recruiting” as if they were a subordinate or code monkey. It should be a partner relationship, not a subordinate relationship. This mindset that technical cofounders are essentially “coders” (a term I hate) is very prevalent among inexperienced nontech…

> while treating you like an idiot savant they can easily take advantage of. I considered it a bit, and you know what, I'd wager that four-fifths of tech business dynamics flow from this statement. Technical expertise is the money printer onto which all manners of value extraction anchor themselves, like barnacles. If not at the creation, then, for a time, it is good. And then it happens anyway 5-10 years down the li…

> Technical expertise is the money printer onto which all manners of value extraction anchor themselves, like barnacles.

An even easier way to look at this is in general: Business people somehow don’t understand that the value comes from the labour

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

#189

Post by Matticus_Rex »

mainpassathome wrote: post #188
lainga wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while treating you like an idiot savant they can easily take advantage of. I considered it a bit, and you know what, I'd wager that four-fifths of tech business dynamics flow from this statement. Technical expertise is the money printer onto which all manners of value extraction anchor themselves, like barnacles. If not at the creation, then, for a time, it is good. And then it happens anyway 5-10 years down the li…

> Technical expertise is the money printer onto which all manners of value extraction anchor themselves, like barnacles. An even easier way to look at this is in general: Business people somehow don’t understand that the value comes from the labour

The other parts of the business are labor as well. Products don't magically go to market. Business models don't magically create and evolve themselves.
Post reply on HN