Ask HN: Why do web-startups need tech co-founders?

[Murkin]

There is alot of talk about the importance of technical co-founders in web startups.

And yet, during a long conversation I had with a group of "founders", I could not manage to explain the rational behind the argument.

Their view was:

    1. We get some seed money (they had good connections)
    2. Hire a designer and developer
    3. They build the site
    4. Later we keep them for support and improvements (and maybe hire more to expand)

How would you explain to someone why a web company needs a good technical lead (preferably co-founder) and can't just go "hire someone to write the site" ? .. or maybe they dont ?

EDIT: "In other words, what can a co-founder do that an employee cant ?"

[runT1ME]

PG said it best:

It's almost impossible for a non-technical person to hire a good technical person. You wouldn't even know where to begin.

So yes, MANY web companies are started by non-technical founders, and it progresses like this:

   1. Get seed money
   2. Hire a designer and developer
   3. Build the site
   4. Re-build the site because it didn't work
   5. Fire developer and hire new developer to build site
   6. Struggle to get developer to see your vision
   7. Argument with developer on why he is doing all the work
   8. Developer quits, look for new developer...

etc.

[frossie]

I think this is a variation of the "should the project manager of a software project understand software" question, which I have thought quite a lot about over the years.

The answer is yes because:

1. As mentioned above, it enables them to hire well

2. They can independently assess effort estimates

3. They can act as a more effective shield between the team and the users/customers/management

4. They can effectively referee technical arguments within the team

5. Problems are best solved not by throwing resources at the problem, but by intelligently rescoping, recasting, or refactoring. You need to understand software to do that. I think this is the most important item on the list.

6. Even sane well-managed projects have "all hands on deck" crunchtimes. The manager of a software project should be able to make themselves useful - if not code, they can debug, beta-test, document, manage releases, etc.

7. People give you their best work when they respect you. Technical people respect people who understand them,.

[wvenable]

As Joel Spolsky said:

"Pick your core business competencies and goals, and do those in house. If you're a software company, writing excellent code is how you're going to succeed. Go ahead and outsource the company cafeteria and the CD-ROM duplication. If you're a pharmaceutical company, write software for drug research, but don't write your own accounting package. If you're a web accounting service, write your own accounting package, but don't try to create your own magazine ads. If you have customers, never outsource customer service."

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000007.html

I'm now the technical co-founder of a software company that originally outsourced the development of the software to another firm. To say it was a disaster before I arrived would be an understatement.

[Cantdog]

I think "almost impossible" is too harsh. Hiring a technical person off the street will be very difficult. However, a smart non-technical person should be able make reasonable decisions about people they know (personally or professionally) based on past achievement, other people's recommendations, previous interation, gut feel, ex.

Obviously there will still be false positives, but if you know someone is very smart, and is also in a technical field, there is a reasonable chance they will be good technically.

[daniel-cussen]

I think Postabon was started by MBAs and what they did was read the essay you're talking about, and then go out and hire a Lisp programmer. They appear to be doing well.

[alsomike]

Many businesses depend on division of labor, and many are run by non-technical people, and rely on specialized employees to manage mission-critical software and technology. According to PG's logic, this should be impossible.

The real problem is incentives. Developers who are willing to make the necessary commitments and sacrifices, take on the risks and the opportunity costs of building a startup are in a strong enough negotiating position to demand ownership. But this advantage is almost certainly weakening. For example, cloud computing makes it much cheaper to scale, which means performance is less of an issue, so cheaper, less experienced developers with less training become more viable. Even if outsourcing is undesirable for other reasons, it still puts local developers in a weaker position. At some point it will be possible to offshore development of a prototype, get some traction and then rebuild everything once you get funding. I know some startups have been acquired after the acquiring company outsourced a cheap ripoff of almost the same product to see if was a market for it with their customers, and then bought the startup. Why couldn't this also work for coming up with a new idea?

[wolfrom]

I had a former life as a web contractor, and almost half of the projects I did were from individual or small groups of founders. They were usually non-technical or had no knowledge of the web technologies they required. Even though we were able to create some really strong initial products, the businesses themselves never took off.

I think this was often because as a contractor, I finished version 1.0, and then I went off on the next project. I was available for small fixes and enhancements, but I didn't feel it was my job or my specialty to help them iterate or pivot. Without a technical person fully invested in their work, there was no real evolution to their products or their business.

Eventually I came to the point where I no longer took those kinds of contracts, because I either didn't believe in the model, or else I felt that it would only be worthwhile to contribute as a partner as opposed to a worker for hire.

So I think that technical founders are necessary, whether that involves bringing on someone with the knowledge, or having one or more non-technical founders learn enough to become a technical founder.

[dasil003]

I've been in that position too and came to similar conclusions, but there is a huge middle ground between contractors and cofounders: employees.

[plinkplonk]

"How would you explain to someone why a web company needs a good technical lead (preferably co-founder) and can't just go "hire someone to write the site" ? "

Why bother (explaining to them)? If they think they can get by without a tech co founder, let them try. They may even be right (for their company) who knows? Wish them well and get on with life. Such things can't be "explained" to people who are convinced they are right. Let them run their company and one of you will learn something depending on how it turns out.

[pmjordan]

This seems almost malicious. Do you have some kind of agenda against non-technical people? Sure, it's their decision and their problem in the end, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't at least explain your point of view if the opportunity arises. In fact, you might know potential techy cofounders to recommend.

Or you can suggest good people to hire if they decide to bring on a non-founding technical team despite the risks. I suspect a good employee is much better than a bad cofounder. The point is, you can tell the difference, your friends with a business-only background probably can't.

Obviously, if they're just being dicks, don't waste your time (and don't let them hire your friends). But that's good advice in general, regardless of background.

[dustyreagan]

I often wonder why web-startups need business co-founders. If you have an idea and can code it up yourself, what's stopping you? You certainly shouldn't wait around until someone else can go find money for you.

Ultimately I think the answer is, you don't have to have a co-founder. If you've got the gumption to go it solo, do it.

Startups are similar to musicians, there are solo acts as well as bands.

[pmjordan]

I often wonder why web-startups need business co-founders.

At least in HN circles, that doesn't seem to be a widespread view. The general opinion seems to be that if you're motivated and reasonably intelligent, you can work out the business stuff as you go along, as long as you can build a viable product.

That's not to say they're useless. If you need to or would like to raise money, or developing a prototype is extremely expensive and you need to get sales early, having a person dedicated to that aspect is probably a good thing.

[char]

Here's what I would say to these guys:

If your product actually IS a technology (and not just a website FOR a product), you're going to need a technical co-founder.

Without a technical person, you just have an idea. You may have the market and business plans all mapped out, but this is really just the tip of the iceberg. Your final product will largely be shaped by the technology behind it. Unless you have a detailed technical version of your app speced out for someone to build, whomever you 'hire' to do the coding for you is by default going to define your product just as much as (if not more than) you have.

Now you can hire someone to do this for you, but with high probability, this relationship isn't going to work out. You're going to need this person to work with you 24/7 and be as dedicated as you. That's by definition, a FOUNDER. Anyone treated differently will quit, and you'll be back to the beginning.

[richardmarr]

Exactly. If you can find someone that great (and that important to your business) who's genuinely happy with salary & options rather than full equity... then hire him because he's a rare beast.

[shaunxcode]

These "founders" are the modern equivalent of land owners looking for naive/desperate share croppers. Disgusting. It really comes down to labor politics to me. For the majority of web start-ups the "means of production" are entirely in the brains of the people slinging the code. So what sort of jedi mind tricks are they pulling where they convince people that they should somehow keep the majority (or all) of the equity? Learn to code, learn to value those who do, or go open a multi-level-used-car-dealership-scheme.

[coryl]

I don't think its as black and white as you'd like to see it. Entrepreneurship is and has always been about organizing labor and capital. Nothing on its own is useful until there is an organizing factor that makes it greater than the sum of their values.

Do we give brick layers and construction workers ownership in the buildings they create? No. Do they deserve to? That could be argued all day, but if you're a capitalist, you probably believe they deserve whatever the market offers or whatever they agree to accept. It's not that non-technicals are out to get you or exploit you, its that they simply see themselves as the organizing force that takes the risk and thus deserves the reward.

[Locke1689]

From the perspective of a good (I think) developer who isn't focused on startup work at the moment, it would be extremely unlikely for me to accept a position as tech employee #1 at a startup with no established market, no market-ready product, and no technical vision. The work and risk for me are high and even if we succeed, I don't get any share of the profit. If I do, then you're talking about equity, which basically makes them a cofounder. I'm not saying that business people are useless, but ideas are cheap. I have no incentive to go work for a company with a lot of stress that may simply fold in a year. Basically, I'd get the same money working for Microsoft in a better environment.

[dasil003]

If I do, then you're talking about equity, which basically makes them a cofounder.

Early employees typically get options between 0.5-2.0% vesting over several years, and they almost always get a salary. This is an order of magnitude less equity than founders and potentially a lot more cash in hand.

As a #1 employee of a startup currently, I can tell you that the experience of doing a startup is well worth it regardless of the equity. The reason is because you may have all the technical chops in the world (I had 10 years experience of web development), but to actually be in an environment where you personally are responsible for a double-digit percentage or even a majority of the product is invaluable.

Now certainly I don't get paid what I would at Microsoft, but it's an investment in my future. At Microsoft my entire impact may be erased by political infighting. Or I may be tragically under-utilized because there are bigger concerns that I just don't fit into. Whereas in a startup I learn how to ship software and make it work with real meaningful feedback direct from the market. It's not some middle manager breathing down my neck trying to make himself look good. It's "the work I do has a real significant effect on the success of the company and my future career prospects."

[charliepark]

Developing a web application is a very twisty road. There are a number of assumptions that you'll be making about your market, the problem that market is facing, the solution you think can solve that problem, and the channels you'll be using to market your solution. Is it possible to pay someone to be on staff to execute your changing specs and meet your ever-changing use-cases? Sure. But it's going to cost you a lot of money. It'd be better to have someone who has a vision for solving the market's problem who has the technical chops to execute on the idea and to be flexible when your needs change.

Put another way: Launching the app is really only the very beginning of the process.

[Murkin]

If they have the money to hire a full-time employee, how will it be different than having a tech-co-founder do the job ? (Its cheaper equity wise)

In other words, what can a co-founder do that an employee cant ?

[zeemonkee]

Look at the successful IT startups - they almost always have a technical founder - Gates, Wozniak, Zuckerberg, Page & Brin. They may have business co-founders such as Balmer or Jobs, but the technical side is always there.

Business founders may know the market, but they lack the vision that comes from a deep understanding of the technology. You can pay an employee to build a site, but you can't pay for the vision.

I can't think offhand of a single successful tech startup that did not have at least one tech co-founder. I know a lot of MBA morons who thought they could buy their way into a successful tech startup and floundered helplessly.

[garrettgillas]

Add Dell, Stone/Doresy, Rosenblatt, Bezos, Hurley/Chen/Karim, Rose/Byrne, Mullenweg...

[ig1]

Linkedin. Hoffman had a background in tech firms but only in project management rather than doing any development himself.

[seasoup]

I think having a good technical co-founder alleviates the need for getting as much seed money. If they have access to a lot of seed money, then they can afford to hire a designer/developer and give them a smaller chunk of the company. It's a valid way to do it. But, more and more, due to technical and social reasons, developers are realizing that they don't need access to massive amounts of money to do it themselves. The people becoming unnecessary in this equation are the co-founders you mentioned above.

So, basically there are two ways to doing a startup.

1) The "traditional" way they described above. 2) The Y-combinator method of by passing the people mentioned above and getting the hackers to found companies directly.

[golateef]

Technical teams are strongly preferred by Silicon Valley angel investors right now. I think part of the reason for that is that the current generation of those angels came of age in the 90s when highly technical teams were required to build anything that worked. That's the model they know.

However, these days technology has diffused and become componentized in a way that makes it much easier to build products that customers will buy using contractors. That's not to say that using contractors is easy - I only tried it because I have several years of experience managing outsourced technical teams. I think the strong bias for technical founding teams may shift or moderate in the future.

That said, I continue to look for a technical co-founder because I believe that technology decisions will need to be made day-to-day as my start-up matures. Fundamentally, I think that outsourcing only gets you so far.

[ig1]

They don't as long as the start-up isn't tech driven, if you're building something that's fairly standard and doesn't require any complex tech behind it then you can go to a webdev company and they'll build it for you.

However if tech is a core component of your offering (which it is for most YC companies) then product development needs to be guided by technological complexity as well as user demand. Which means you need someone who grasps both the tech and business side of things. And if someone fits into that category why would they work for someone-else's startup for a relatively small wage rather than working for a more profitable company (higher pay; more security) or starting their own company ? - essentially offering significant equity is the only way to hire these people. Hence they need to be co-founders.

[terra_t]

Honestly, I'm wondering why we need non-technical cofounders. There are an amazing number of hustlers out there who don't hustle very well...

[ezl]

To which great hustlers might respond "There are an amazing number of coders who don't code very well..."

There's no shortage of incompetence in any field.

[dasil003]

I wonder how the ratio compares to developers, because there certainly are a lot of NNPPs safely ensconced in the enterprise.

[anamax]

> In other words, what can a co-founder do that an employee cant ?

In principle, nothing. In practice, it depends on lots of things, including the biz, the folks involved, and so on.

Some startups can outsource their web development. Others can't.

However, if you're offering above-market risk, you can't offer at-market or below-market compensation without getting below-market talent.

BTW - There's an interesting sampling error here. We're more likely to crappy ideas from tech folk because they're more likely to launch. Biz folks can't launch without money or a tech person who drinks the kool-aid.

[AmberShah]

The only people who could say that are people who've never had to hire and manage programmers for a living. It's ridiculously hard.

With a technical co-founder you have someone who is presumably very talented and extremely motivated with a hearty chunk of equity and passion for the space.

Instead, these guys will be getting the worst developers, because:

1) The good developers either want to be the technical cofounder or work for a great one.

2) Startups tend to underpay developers already and employees get very little equity.

3) Non-technical people have no way of determining who is a good programmer or a bad programmer.

4) Business-people will not make a hacker culture where engineering and innovation are rewarded.

5) Unless they have many years of experience managing software projects, statistically, theirs will fail.

And the worst developers are actually WORSE than nothing because they'll end up costing more than they contribute.

Really, how could a tech business succeed when they don't value technical skill?

It just shows extreme naivete about how programming works to think they could do it without a really talented, involved and dedicated technical person. I agree with OP: give them 6 months and see if they have anything to show for it.

[parfe]

The ol' "I've got a great idea for a business. All you have to do is all of the work and then we'll be rich." routine. It never gets old.

[garrettgillas]

Indeed.

[geuis]

If you can't build your own idea, don't expect others to do it just how you envision it. Another issue is one many programmers will find familiar. How many times as you're working through a project do you find the original specs don't work? If you can't build it, how would you know your idea is flawed.

[ziadbc]

If you are building a tech company, and you plan on remaining 'non technical' it is almost quite literally a non starter.

You don't have to be an engineer, but you have to curate that part of your brain at least some. Google "Victoria Ransom" and her mixergy interview to see someone who is good at being 'non technical' and get things done.

Steve Jobs, the often used example of a 'non technical' person, may not be a classically trained engineer, but the guy takes a huge interest in the core technology used. Listen to him talk about object oriented programming in the 90s for an example. Henry Ford cared about engines. Larry Ellison cares about databases.

[klochner]

Their approach can work, it's just a matter of whether you can find product/market fit before the money runs out. If you contract out the development you're screwed when you can no longer pay them.

We may be the exception, but I came on as the tech lead after v1.0 and v2.0 were built out by a foreign shop and paying customers had been identified.

This meant that the original founder was able to keep more of the equity since I was given a salary and my risk was greatly reduced in coming on.

Eventually you will probably need a full-time technical person, but you have to make the judgement call as to whether you can get traction before the initial money runs out.

[willheim]

Agreed. It's not always easy for business founders to find a technical co-founder right off the bat. In fact, that's probably the biggest hurdle to get over for anyone coming from the business side. If all you have is an idea and no tech co-founder to share it with then the worst thing you could do is spin wheels trying to find the right partner. Better, I would say, to get the ball rolling with some freelance coders and as the product comes to an MVP 1.0 and you start showing it around and getting some traction you will find technical leads.

It's always better for a business founder to get a technical co-founder, yes, but it is not necessary to have one right from the start.

[loumf]

If they have some experience managing technical projects, it could work -- there are certainly people that do that. It depends on how much the technology is going to differentiate the product. If it's a straightforward implementation, it's fine.

Having a tech co-founder is cheaper in the short-term (for the same skill level). It's only more expensive if you are successful, and it might make that more likely.