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

"You Need a Co-Founder, Not an Engineering Bitch..."

metamorphblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: "You Need a Co-Founder, Not an Engineering Bitch..."

#31

Post by dpritchett »

ubu wrote: post #11
smanek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, except YC takes ~5% while the annoying business c-founder type take ~80%. And I'd argue YC even provides considerably more value than most 'business' co-founders.

it's not about the % YC or any venture capital. it's about your judgment of what's added to your startups value. of all the startups applying, being select etc a few become hits. the question is how much of it was do to the founders and the work they put in, how much with the idea and how much with SPECIFIC things that YC brings in. Not the hype. Also can it be brought in otherwise and would it have become a sucess w…

From pg: "Financially, a startup is like a pass/fail course. The way to get rich from a startup is to maximize the company's chances of succeeding, not to maximize the amount of stock you retain. So if you can trade stock for something that improves your odds, it's probably a smart move." [1]

If your startup succeeds, you've got more time and money to start another one and either retain more stock or raise the value of the stock you keep next time around.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html

Re: "You Need a Co-Founder, Not an Engineering Bitch..."

#32

Post by MediaSquirrel »

ciscoriordan wrote: post #7

I like the juxtaposition of "You need a Co-Founder, not an Engineering Bitch" and "Recruit college kids. They're young, hungry and don't need of a living wage."

The point is that college kids have a lower built-in cost structure to their lives, making them ideal workers in a poorly capitalized startup. But regardless of who you hire, treat people well. It's not about money, it's about being honest and respectful and acting with integrity. Good people may work for shit wages, but they won't work for shit people who pay them shit wages.

Life is just too short. Create a company culture that has some moral character.

Re: "You Need a Co-Founder, Not an Engineering Bitch..."

#33

Post by dannyr »

thomaspaine wrote: post #16
shin_lao wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I'll go even further: hire only experienced people at the beginning, so that they can mentor college kids when you hire them (fresh new blood is always a nice addition). If you can't convince experienced people to come on board, something is wrong with your project.

The problem is that experienced people cost a lot of money, and since they are typically older with things like a family to support, mortgage to pay, etc, are going to be more risk averse. Especially in the early stages, all projects are more or less a crapshoot, so in order to tempt someone away from that 200k a year job, you're going to need to hand over a lot of equity, raise a lot of money, or overpower them with…

I always believe in a good foundation.

For building something for demo purposes, you can hire anybody to build it. But when it's time to build the app for real, the app that your target users will use, an experienced developer is important.

If not what your code will be hard to maintain and it may be difficult to add new features and/or scale.

If you have a weak foundation, if you put stuff on it, it will collapse at some point.

Re: "You Need a Co-Founder, Not an Engineering Bitch..."

#34

Post by shin_lao »

dkarl wrote: post #24
shin_lao wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, first of all don't go to people thinking why they might turn you down. People don't care about money, as long as you can pay them enough to pay the rent / mortgage and the little extras in life. If you don't have that kind of money, you're doomed anyway. Offer them a dream job. If they believe in the project, they know money will come later. On a really tight budget? Recruit less. 2 seniors instead of 5 juniors…

People don't care about money, as long as you can pay them enough to pay the rent / mortgage and the little extras in life. With that pitch your best bet is empty-nesters and retired folks itching to get back in the game. Otherwise, it isn't just the mortgage. It's the mortgage, the car payment, car insurance, a month-long overseas vacations you've planned out a year in advance, kids' dental, your in-laws taking your…

That sounds like people perhaps a bit more experience that what I had in mind. There's a sweet spot when you are in your late 20s, early 30s.

Respectable experience (around 10 years), no family to support and the burning desire to do something with your life and your skills.

They trade a little short term income for a potential jackpot and a fun job that pushes their limits.

That's the kind of people I was thinking about. Grand pa and the kids may join later if they want to.

Re: "You Need a Co-Founder, Not an Engineering Bitch..."

#35

Post by nostrademons »

arethuza wrote: post #14
nostrademons wrote: post #8

Caveat on the "hire college students": You need at least someone on the engineering team that's experienced and has seen all the ways that large systems can go terribly, horribly wrong. Ideally that'll be one of the founders, because you'll have a tough time convincing someone experienced to join otherwise. But occasionally someone loves the product idea enough to commit. Otherwise, a team of inexperienced college st…

"inexperienced college students is very likely to build a large system that goes terribly, horribly wrong" Maybe you should hire them when it is their third system? First one goes horribly wrong because of lack of engineering, second goes horribly wrong because of over-engineering (the well known second-system syndrome) and by the third they should be ready to go.

By the third successful system, they aren't inexperienced anymore (and will cost you accordingly), and if it's the third failed system, they wouldn't necessarily have learned anything. It's possible to flounder around for a long time given lack of direction.

Re: "You Need a Co-Founder, Not an Engineering Bitch..."

#36

Post by earl »

MediaSquirrel wrote: post #32
ciscoriordan wrote: post #7

I like the juxtaposition of "You need a Co-Founder, not an Engineering Bitch" and "Recruit college kids. They're young, hungry and don't need of a living wage."

The point is that college kids have a lower built-in cost structure to their lives, making them ideal workers in a poorly capitalized startup. But regardless of who you hire, treat people well. It's not about money, it's about being honest and respectful and acting with integrity. Good people may work for shit wages, but they won't work for shit people who pay them shit wages. Life is just too short. Create a company…

Oh hey, I didn't realize the blogger is you -- you should put a link on your profile or make it obvious.

But cheers for treating people with respect. I wish more people ran their lives that way.

Re: "You Need a Co-Founder, Not an Engineering Bitch..."

#37

Post by lsc »

shin_lao wrote: post #20
thomaspaine wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that experienced people cost a lot of money, and since they are typically older with things like a family to support, mortgage to pay, etc, are going to be more risk averse. Especially in the early stages, all projects are more or less a crapshoot, so in order to tempt someone away from that 200k a year job, you're going to need to hand over a lot of equity, raise a lot of money, or overpower them with…

Well, first of all don't go to people thinking why they might turn you down. People don't care about money, as long as you can pay them enough to pay the rent / mortgage and the little extras in life. If you don't have that kind of money, you're doomed anyway. Offer them a dream job. If they believe in the project, they know money will come later. On a really tight budget? Recruit less. 2 seniors instead of 5 juniors…

whenever someone tells me that money shouldn't matter, I hear "I'm trying to take advantage of you"

If you want me to work for you for equity, you better be bringing something valuable to the table; and you know what? that idea isn't valuable. Not until you implement it.

This is the other reason why startups like young people; a young Engineer is easier to impress into thinking your 'idea' is so awesome that you keep 90% of the equity while he does all the work. (and yeah, I've seen that exact scheme come to pass.)

Sure, business people often contribute more than an idea. A /good/ business person is quite valuable. a bad business person is worse than nothing, though, and it's extremely difficult for a nerd to tell the difference.

Re: "You Need a Co-Founder, Not an Engineering Bitch..."

#38

Post by lsc »

dpritchett wrote: post #31
ubu wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not about the % YC or any venture capital. it's about your judgment of what's added to your startups value. of all the startups applying, being select etc a few become hits. the question is how much of it was do to the founders and the work they put in, how much with the idea and how much with SPECIFIC things that YC brings in. Not the hype. Also can it be brought in otherwise and would it have become a sucess w…

From pg: "Financially, a startup is like a pass/fail course. The way to get rich from a startup is to maximize the company's chances of succeeding, not to maximize the amount of stock you retain. So if you can trade stock for something that improves your odds, it's probably a smart move." [1] If your startup succeeds, you've got more time and money to start another one and either retain more stock or raise the value…

I think the important part here is to not take on things that will make you /less/ likely to succeed. Giving ownership to the wrong people will kill the company faster than anything else. Hell, even just taking on debit can change a company from one where you can learn from your mistakes to a failure after you make your first big mistake.

(now, YC is probably the right people to give ownership to for some types of companies; I imagine if your revenue model is to sell the company to some silicon valley VC, the increased access to people wanting to buy is probably worth the 5%. It's probably a bad idea, though, for other sorts; It probably would not have helped my company much. (well, at least my company would have become something entirely different from what it is.)

Post reply on HN