Live data from Hacker News

You do need a technical co-founder [video]

ycombinator.com

321–330 of 381 posts

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

#321

This is going to age as well as supermarket cheddar. In a year the explosion of nocode and AI driven tools will allow lots of non-technical founders to build great startups. Especially the X for Y ones. No you can’t build a Google, Instagram or Dropbox that way but you can build a business to the point where you can hire a CTO. You can get started without a tech cofounder for many things. All the Uber for X type stuf…

> In a year the explosion of nocode and AI driven tools will allow lots of non-technical founders to build great startups.

Corollary: In two years of time, the inflation of No/Low Code + AI startups will lead to massive competition, and only those who has an actual technical cofounder will survive.

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

#322
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What so the person who "provided a lot of value in getting us to where we are" got ditched in the end? Is that your story? Use people and then chuck them to the curb once everything u need has been extracted?

>> What so the person who "provided a lot of value in getting us to where we are" got ditched in the end? Is that your story? Use people and then chuck them to the curb once everything u need has been extracted? Technologists beware -- some business co-founders will treat you honestly and you'll be paid fairly. And some will not. You need to read this comment and realize that both outcomes are possibles, especially o…

> especially once lawyers, VCs, and other business people get into the mix.

This is unfortunately true, since the VCs are only interested in the forward-looking value of the enterprise. They would prefer to dilute other shareholders (including founders — and especially former founders) to maximize future fundraising. And lawyers, of course, are happy to tell the VCs how to do this, regardless of what protections were put in place initially.

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

#323
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like at that point you're not really a tech company. Your tech might as well be some off-the-shelf stuff as far as you're concerned, if you're not actually working on it any more.

Interesting perspective! So if Dolby had stopped making new versions of its technology and just licensed what it had until people stopped buying it, then it wouldn't have been a tech company? What kind of company would it have been?

A sound company, or whatever the technology in question does? If you're in a position where it's viable to not be making new versions of your tech then presumably that means you're in a field that's at least somewhat mature as its own thing. I think there's a temptation to equate "on computers" with "tech" whereas for a lot of fields doing it on computers is pretty much commodified now.

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

#324

This is going to age as well as supermarket cheddar. In a year the explosion of nocode and AI driven tools will allow lots of non-technical founders to build great startups. Especially the X for Y ones. No you can’t build a Google, Instagram or Dropbox that way but you can build a business to the point where you can hire a CTO. You can get started without a tech cofounder for many things. All the Uber for X type stuf…

> In a year the explosion of nocode and AI driven tools will allow lots of non-technical founders to build great startups. Corollary: In two years of time, the inflation of No/Low Code + AI startups will lead to massive competition, and only those who has an actual technical cofounder will survive.

For tech companies yes. A lot of startups aren’t really tech companies but “we use tech” companies. Those will buy off the shelf solutions from the tech startups or from big tech.

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

#325
post #196

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 mindset that technical cofounders are essentially “coders” (a term I hate) is very prevalent among inexperienced nontechnical founders. I know I’m preaching to the choir here but a lot of technical people have deep industry/business/product knowledge and have social skills. It is very frustrating when some Ivy League 25 year old PM/management consultant tries to pitch you on their vision while treating you lik…

How would you go about moving from Group 1 to Group 2? As a mostly technical person, I'm not allergic to the business side of things, but I kind of don't even know where to begin. I understand the product side of things reasonably well, but things like LLCs, accounting, finding lawyers, figuring out how to hire marketing people etc. are pretty opaque to me

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

#326
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the way you put this. It also doubles as a great explanation for why programmers shouldn't be worried that ChatGPT is going to steal their jobs: ChatGPT is good at the garble of weird text, but it's terrible at the "wrangling systemic complexity in a good, sustainable and reliable way" piece.

You know what computers couldn’t do 10 years ago? Understand and write coherent code. Why do you feel confident in your opinion that they won’t be able to do that in the next 10 years?

"Grog, 10 years ago in 30,000 BC, we didn't even have wheels. We've gone from no wheel, to wheel, in only 10 years. What makes you so sure that self-driving cars aren't just around the corner?"

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

#327

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…

Not to mention that you take approximately the same risk minus a couple of hundred K in total comp per year but - tadaaaa - in return you get 0.0025% stock that will vest over the next five years.

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

#328
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This mindset that technical cofounders are essentially “coders” (a term I hate) is very prevalent among inexperienced nontechnical founders. I know I’m preaching to the choir here but a lot of technical people have deep industry/business/product knowledge and have social skills. It is very frustrating when some Ivy League 25 year old PM/management consultant tries to pitch you on their vision while treating you lik…

How would you go about moving from Group 1 to Group 2? As a mostly technical person, I'm not allergic to the business side of things, but I kind of don't even know where to begin. I understand the product side of things reasonably well, but things like LLCs, accounting, finding lawyers, figuring out how to hire marketing people etc. are pretty opaque to me

> As a mostly technical person, I'm not allergic to the business side of things, but I kind of don't even know where to begin.

I’m kind of biased. I think b2b sales experience selling anything is a great way to learn core business skills — things like finding the true business problem (it’s rarely what your customers say), navigating the gatekeepers and decision makers, negotiations, etc.

As I have said elsewhere, starting a small agency is a good way to start. If you know some 1s, figure out ways to do sales and business operations for them. Many 1s are terrible at sales and hate the scut work of business operations. Just make sure to charge enough so that you can pay them well and pay yourself enough to be worth your time. The key is learning how to add value above and beyond supplying access tech talent.

Note that this is not easy. There is a lot of suck in sales (and agency management), and there is a reasons sales people make a lot of money. But if you can’t do this, you probably shouldn’t start your own business. Running a business is a lot of dealing with day-to-day suck and embracing it.

> LLCs

This is a one-day or less research project.

> accounting

Word of mouth in your area. Possibly online if you’re in the US. Also possible in a day (or maybe 8 hours across a few days).

> finding lawyers

Same as accountants. The good ones will jump out at you by the way their clients talk about them with effusive praise and specific examples.

> figuring out how to hire marketing people

Ahh… now this is a tough one.

The short answer is that you have to be the 3 in marketing — that is, you need to know enough to hire and work with specialists who aren’t willing or able to do the business or tech work on their own, and you need to know enough not to be bamboozled by the charlatans (and there are a lot of charlatans in marketing/sales).

At early stages of a business, you should probably do it yourself, and you have to be good enough to do that. A 70% effort is usually enough to get a solid business revamp off the ground. This is all learnable.

Once you hit growth and revenue, you can hire an agency. The best agencies will not try to milk you, since they have enough business. Pro tip — don’t be an agency’s smallest client.

If you are savvy, you will ask around for folks who have had good marketing people, and you will get to know these folks. Tap them and/or their network when you need people.

A lot could be written about this, but I will just say that learning marketing has a huge roi, and having access to a good network of marketers also has a huge roi. Communities like the Dynamite Circle or Hampton are low key ways to help develop these networks.

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

#329
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting perspective! So if Dolby had stopped making new versions of its technology and just licensed what it had until people stopped buying it, then it wouldn't have been a tech company? What kind of company would it have been?

A sound company, or whatever the technology in question does? If you're in a position where it's viable to not be making new versions of your tech then presumably that means you're in a field that's at least somewhat mature as its own thing. I think there's a temptation to equate "on computers" with "tech" whereas for a lot of fields doing it on computers is pretty much commodified now.

In our case, we're growing via adoption of our first generation core product. I could definitely make a second version, but it wouldn't help overcome the primary challenge we face with adoption, which is that the technology looks unconventional, and isn't well-enough known yet. Making a more complicated version wouldn't help with this, and might not even improve the efficacy. It would also require internationalization, whereas our current version is language agnostic.

So it's not that we won't ever create a newer version, just that it's not the primary focus.

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

#330
post #4

This is what I constantly tell my students: The hard part about doing a tech product for the most part isn't the what beginners think makes tech hard — the hard part is wrangling systemic complexity in a good, sustainable and reliable way. Many non-tech people e.g. look at programmers and think the hard part is knowing what this garble of weird text means. But this is the easy part. And if you are a person who would…

More people need to read https://grugbrain.dev/

It's priceless. I figure most programmers at some point during their career will be able to relate to having a Grug Brain.

complexity very, very bad!

This site has more knowledge condensed in one page than a stack of randomly assorted books on software development do.

Post reply on HN