The thing that always gets me is that "idea guys" seem to assume that "developers" can't get ideas, like it's a skill that only a select few can possess. Guess what? Everyone has ideas, and being a developer is great because we can actually build our ideas.
Could it be that there are many business people, some of who have ideas but no ability to execute, some of who can execute but have no ideas, and a very few who have ideas and can execute on them?
And like wise could it be that there are many developers, some of whom have ideas but cannot build their dreams, some of whom can build but have no ideas, and a very select few that have ideas and can build them?
If these two suppositions are correct, then there are some pairings of business person and developer that can work, including a rare business person who has an idea and can execute on the idea, and who needs a developer who can build but doesn't have an idea?
Of course there's some symmetry here, there are going to be developers with ideas and who can build. They will be looking for business people who don't have an idea of their own but who can execute.
The thing I never get is this… If the idea is so amazing, then you should be able to find funding to hire incredible developers to build it. If it's not that amazing, but you're convinced you're creative, then use that creativity to find the developers you need.
"Idea guy seeking developer" usually means "I think I have a get rich quick scheme."
A "business person" may be a domain expert in a vertical market. They may have an idea that requires an insight that only comes from years of working inside an industry that a developer, unless they have also worked in that industry, will simply not have. Furthermore the "business person" will be able to network in that industry.
Isn't idea guy actually domain expert which understand certain problem in a area like nobody else? She or he could be a medial doctor, maybe veterinarian, maybe small business owner, maybe cook, etc.
Idea guy does not necessary need to be business guy which means that idea guy might be also a geek - and matching two geeks from different field is a big challenge.
Ideas are easy, yes, but executing on ideas is difficult. Very difficult. Often developers need to spend their time working on production and don't have the time to follow through with the other aspects of the business. That's why founding teams do the best and often those successful founding teams are made up of one "idea guy" to see the vision through.
"...seem to assume..." is an assumption in itself. You're describing people that don't believe others can get ideas. That's not describing idea guys -- that's describing asshats. If you can't tell asshats from good idea guys, you've got a problem.
The idea guy has its own place in the market. It is the reason why there're so many consulting firms in the first place(including mine)!
Some people genuinely believe in their ideas, enough to pay someone else to do it(not in equity ofcourse). And those are usually the people whose ideas work out in the end.
Actually, I know a heck of a lot of developers who don't have very many ideas. They come into work, do what they are told to do and then go back home to watch TV...
Here's the funny thing about learning to program vs. hiring a developer. I politely decline offers to work on ideas that my non-programmer friends come up with. However, if one of those friends came to me and asked to learn PHP, I'd happily spending a few evenings helping them out. It's a difference that very few "idea guys" seem to understand.
"They both think that less skill is required (so the programmer doesn’t deserve much compensation) and that less time is required (effectively creating a very low hourly rate for the programmer, given the flat rates that are often proposed)."
I find it ironic how he points out that idea guys tend to undervalue the hard work of the programmer and then at the end he suggests that the idea guy should implement it himself.
So which is it? Is programming a hard-earned skill that should be paid well, or is it just so easy that a (presumably non-technical) idea guy can just pick it up and run with it? You're sending mixed messages.
The alternative is paying a competitive rate, or splitting equity in a fair way, or both. If an "idea guy" doesn't want to get his hands dirty and doesn't want to pay someone to do the actual work, well...screw that guy. Nobody owes him anything.
It doesn't matter if it is easy or hard...if the idea guy won't do it himself, and he doesn't want to pay someone else to do it, it's not going to get done. And that's as it should be. If idea guy starts learning to code, he might learn enough to know what the work is worth, and will be better equipped to make the deals needed to get the hard parts done by competent developers. He may also gain the respect of actual developers; I wouldn't team up with guys who can't code at least a little.
I thought it was a very polite way to approach the topic. I'd be much more tempted to just say, "The only time I work for free is when it is work I want to do, on my own ideas, and where I own the result. Stop emailing me." But, I'm not renowned for my social graces.
For many things, getting at least a prototype isn't rocket science. It doesn't have to scale, be well written, have every feature out there or really even work all that well. Most developers just don't want to enter into a situation where the idea guy is just only contributing ideas (and generally not paying them for their work).
I used to just be an idea guy. Then I realized I should learn to program. I'm not the best developer out there, but in an afternoon I can crank out something in Ruby to see if my general concept/logic works. My code will be sloppy, best practices might not be followed, but I can iterate quickly and see if it actually was a practical idea.
Examples of 'idea guys' not understanding is their lack of familiarity with APIs. They think they can just do everything perhaps imaginable, but really there are limitations. Want to crawl the entire social graph of Twitter? Yea, good luck with that. Even with 20,000 API requests/hr, you'll never catch up. You can't just snapshot it also and see changes every day. But an "idea guy" might think that this would be a great idea. It isn't that the programmers turning them down aren't good enough, but just that some things aren't possible with given APIs and unless you're coming to them with $10M+, Twitter isn't going to change their API for you.
> So which is it? Is programming a hard-earned skill that should be paid well, or is it just so easy that a (presumably non-technical) idea guy can just pick it up and run with it?
Programming can be a hard-earned skill that an intelligent idea guy can acquire. No false dilemma required.
In my experience, the most important knowledge the idea guy lacks isn't how to code, it's how to plan and structure the project so that it can actually get done given whatever constraints. In order to get this, some level of technical understanding and grokking of programming is required, and this is the main asset that learning basic programming can bring to an idea guy, even if he never gets anywhere near good enough to write production code. Idea guys without that grounding tend to be overly ambitious and extremely susceptible to scope creep, not to mention more difficult for programmers to work with. These types of problems can easily be fatal to a project.
I should add that most developers don't seem to have much of this knowledge either. It comes from a rare blend of anticipating customer needs, technical understanding, and general pragmatism. The more projects I work on, the more I come to believe that someone who fills this gap is worth ten times more than both the dude with the 'great idea' and the all star coder.
It's not simply that programming itself is difficult, it's that ideas conceived without knowledge or consideration of the technical implications are frequently more difficult to implement than a non-technical person realizes.
So which is it? Is programming a hard-earned skill that should be paid well, or is it just so easy that a (presumably non-technical) idea guy can just pick it up and run with it? You're sending mixed messages.
He's suggesting the idea guy work hard to earn the skill of a programmer, or at least learn enough to know what's hard and what's not.
I considered myself an idea guy...but I spent the last 11 months trying to learn php, html and css and I finally just launched a company. I probably could have done it in one third of the time with a developer on board, but it's been rewarding to do it on my own and learn so much. Now I need a marketing and seo guy...but I'm going to try to figure that out too :)
It’s both. The idea guy’s belief is twofold: (1) that a developer can do it easily and (2) that they can’t possibly do it. The difficulty of the idea isn’t an issue. It’s the extremity of the idea guy’s beliefs about the difficulty. This article is about pulling both sides of those extremities into a sane middle.
There's also the (insulting) concept that many of these folks seem to have, which is: Did it never cross your mind that a lot of us spend the bulk of our free time developing our own ideas?
For the majority of Idea Man pitches I've spent time with, there's been a ridiculous amount of assumption involved. These folks are so excited by their own idea, they can't wait to tell me about it. Then what?
Do they want to help me build it? No.
Do they want to design it for me? No.
Do they want to contribute in any way? No.
Do they even usually have money or resources to lay down? No.
Will they pimp it when it's time to? No.
Will they go and seek venture capital to facilitate it? No.
At this point, it is undeniable that their involvement is as close to nil as makes no odds. It may as well be my idea, but usually the ideas I hear are bad, as well. So it would be my idea, that I file away as a concept not worth doing.
And the underlying assumption, of course, that I don't have my own pet projects that I'd much rather develop for free, in my spare time, is ridiculous.
Ideas themselves shouldn't be completely discounted. But if you do not have the impetus to follow up or power your idea, I think that generally speaking you ought to keep it to yourself until you feel like following through in some way or another.
I just had an idea man want to pitch something to me but he wanted me to sign an nda before he would even tell me anything about it. Sorry, i'm not going to put my projects at risk just to hear it.
What idea guys don't understand, is that words will never be able to describe the full picture, and if such words existed, no one would read the hundreds or thousands of pages that comprise them.
This is an issue that comes up over and over. The real problem is a mismatch of supply and demand: there are lots of ideas out there, and not enough developer hours to bring them all to fruition, so a guy with an idea will need to offer more than just the idea if he wants to attract developer time. Someone who fails to understand this problem probably shouldn't be trying to start a business.
I'm always amused at the "why don't you try building it yourself" response developers give when they're asked this kind of question. The amount of knowledge you need to execute an idea is staggering. Deep down they know there's a 99.9% chance the guy will fail.
It's as if a person went up to an architect and asked him to build him a hotel with promises of sharing the future revenue stream. Architect responds "I can't, but if you don't have money you could try building it yourself".
There's no easy answer for the penniless idea guy. Perhaps stating (in a very polite way) that—as the biz guy—he should work on his own net worth before generating it for others.
I've seen people learn to code in order to build their ideas. It's even occasionally turned out OK.
I've also seen people learn to build in order to build their own gazebo, deck, and even a log cabin. It's not a hotel, but it is a useful piece of construction that a person with no architecture eduction can build with only a moderate amount of knowledge and experience. Some development projects are the equivalent of a deck or gazebo: A weekend project for someone experienced, and a two week learning process for someone who's never lifted a hammer (or opened a text editor).
I don't think it's terrible advice for an "idea guy" that doesn't have money. That's not to say it'll be a success. It almost certainly won't. If they're competing with experienced developers, they'll probably lose in the market, but they'll learn more about the value of developer time, and they'll learn how to better interact with developers because of that understanding. Maybe their next project will be more realistic, and they'll figure out how to fairly compensate a developer for their time.
That said, I think your last sentence is very astute. Maybe a self-proclaimed biz guy ought to prove himself by getting money lined up first, either by earning it, or convincing people to invest in him.
that's exactly what I did, I decided that nobody was going to build my product but me, so I taught myself Rails, went to developer meetups, and 3 years later I have a nearly finished product and am working full time as a Rails developer ... True it's taken me a long time to learn the skills necessary to build, but it's been a worthwhile journey!
Even if you can't perfectly execute on your idea, the fact that you've built something yourself probably means that a) you care enough about the idea that you want to see it built one way or another, and b) you've thought through how the product will work sufficiently to build something. I would guess that most people who come to developers with ideas haven't actually thought the product though very much.
If you make a prototype that shows promise and show it to me, I'm more likely to start thinking "this is really cool, how can I make this awesome?" than "this person wants me to build something for them for free".
There was such a great hn post about this a while back, wish I could remember where...
The gist was, if you're a "business guy", I need you. Ok, you can't code, so here are some other ways you can contribute: you can tap into an impressive network to set up meetings with vcs, negotiate favorable terms, successfully navigate the legal system, get my product into the press, massively expand the user base, make sales, and convince people to hand over money....
...but if you think you're a "business guy" because you think up nifty ideas for computer applications but can't code or do any of the above, you aren't useful to me as a cofounder.
I don't think that ideas are worthless when they are coming from a position of deep domain knowledge.
For example, I'm currently involved in a seed-stage startup that aims to bring technical and quantitative stock analysis tools to the masses (i.e. protect your 401k by being able to read the market). We have contacts in the finance industry, and each one of those is golden because they bring a wealth of domain experience that is hard if not impossible to find out through books.
I think a partnership can make sense if there is complimentary leverage, i.e. both parties bring something to the table that the other can leverage to their benefit + the combination of both parties creates additional leverage.
Just having the idea in most situations just isn't a lot of leverage for a developer to become interested. But if you pair an idea up with:
Idea + capital,
Idea + connections,
Idea + salesmanship,
Idea + passion + market opportunity + timing etc...,
Idea + hustle,
Idea + mentorship / experience,
Idea + proof of concept, initial customers etc,
Idea + market knowledge with a significant edge over others,
Idea + accounting / misc biz skills
or a combination of those...and then you should be able to find a developer that is able to see enough upside to work with an idea person. The default answer shouldn't need to be 'learn how to code' in most cases. My viewpoint is to not do what you're hopeless at in 99% cases. There's not a lot of leverage there - ideas like speed. It's more valuable to get better at what you're already good at. If you're stubbornly trying to learn how to code and design despite hating the process, you simply didn't exhaust other avenues that yield a more expedient route to launching whatever idea/vision you have.
I did go down the learn how to code/design/market myself route because it's fun to me and that's a form of leverage that gives a potent edge. But I really hate seeing people struggle because they suck at what they are trying to learn, don't enjoy what they are learning but yet are using such things as obstacles to be conquered that they falsely believe are necessary to succeed. Sometimes it's just an excuse not to be doing what you're good at.
I think idea guys (or non technical cofounders) would do much better finding a programmer to work with if they approached developers more collaboratively.
Most of the pitches I get from 'idea guys' are very specific technical solutions that flatly will not work as designed because (lacking knowledge) they made some poor assumptions.
Much better would be an idea guy that came and said: "I've found X problem in the market, solving it would be worth Y dollars annually, what approach would you take to solve that?"
In my current startup (with a non-technical cofounder) we delineate this as the 'what' and the 'how'. He has much greater domain knowledge than I do, he describes what the problem is, how painful it is to the customers, etc. I figure out how to best implement solutions to those issues. Obviously it isn't quite that cut and dried, but in general the approach has been working.
Calling my current co-founder 'non-technical' or 'the idea guy' does him a great disservice as he is incredibly capable and the very definition of the kickass get off the ground business guy (wrangling VC, making sales, talking to customers)
> Second, why not learn to make it yourselves? Without knowing what you want to do I can’t say how hard it’d be, but often it’s a lot easier than you might think.
Yup, because four years of school and five years of professional experience can easily be replaced with an O'Reilly book and a weekend in front of a monitor.
Yes, idea folks should know something about technology, but this is akin to suggesting that the next time my tooth hurts, I ought to just read a book and go to town with a mirror and a Dremel tool.
Dentists don't work on themselves, either. The first step to getting contributors to your project is to start coding the project and showing it off. If your prototype code is crap, at least it still demonstrates your idea in a concrete way and gets people viscerally excited about it.
There seems to be an assumption that idea guy == business guy. Also that idea guy has no knowledge or understanding of anything technical. And that somehow idea guy is always trying to scam you.
I think ideas are a skill just like anything else. Most people can design a web page. Not everyone can design a good web page. Most people can or can learn to program, but that does't mean they can develop a good site (this one is a bit more of a stretch).
As a converse, I know quite a few (very good) developers who have ideas, but those ideas suck. And so do their UIs. And their marketing plan.
Having gone through this process several times, I've found that the most important part of the 'idea vs implementation' equation is 'mutual complementarity'. Regardless of where the 'idea' comes from the participants must agree both on the 'problem statement' ie. 'having multiple information screens in a single household is inefficient' and on the 'problem solution' ie.'unify information screens'. If you agree on this, then you simply lay out the tasks required to complete the work. Finally, the skills needed to complete the task should only overlap in accordance to the quantity of work that needs to be done. So, in starting out, when it's important to have the breadth of skills, it's important to minimize the overlap. So while the Idea person may be the developer, they may also be the designer, the marketer, the seller, the writer, the networker, the motivator, or the enabler, all essential elements to successfully solving a problem statement. So the a priori ideas that a)ideas are negligible compared to implementation eg 1% inspiration vs. 99% perspiration and b) the lone genius has a higher success rate, appear in retrospect to be false, since in actuality it appears that [two is indeed the magic number](http://www.slate.com/id/2267004/pagenum/all/#p2)
This article talks a lot about money and time but doesn't mention the simple fact that some developers (or is it only me) won't want to work with certain people.
As a developer I'm not going to work closely with someone I don't like.
I guess my message would be: Sometimes developers just aren't into you and your ideas. Perhaps you need to try and understand them more.
> As a developer I'm not going to work closely with someone I don't like.
I'd be interested in knowing how many non-technical people actually consider this issue prior to recruiting a developer to work on a project. Is it obscured because of supply/demand/leverage or is it the case that non-technical people aren't exposed to the personalities of seasoned developers?
To take what a lot of people are saying a little further - having the idea isn't enough, they need to be asking what do they bring to the project in terms of execution.
Do they have sales, marketing or account management experience? Knowledge of the particular market the product might operate in? Experience setting up and or running a company? An understanding of process change and implementation of supporting services or whatever else is relevant?
You need to sell not just your idea but also yourselves.
Developers can have ideas but there are a bunch of things we're either not good at, don't get experience of or don't enjoy. If you really want to appeal to a developer then tell them how you can fill that gap.
And please, make it a real gap, not one you've got based on some stereotype which may or may not apply to the person you're speaking to.
I think it's the presumptuous nature of stating one is an 'idea guy' and all the connotations that sort of naturally follow from there... aka, we poor developers lack some special creativity gene or something. Not a good way to start a business relationship.
Case in point - my business partners needed a developer and when I met them for the first time they presented themselves as experienced business men in their niche - sort of 'vertical market experts' as another poster termed it. At no point did either claim they were 'idea guys' - instead taking a more humble approach that they had this idea they wanted to build and would like to hear my thoughts on it. I knew I could work with them because they weren't making such grandiose, ego filled statements from the get go.
Well said. There are some excellent points that I tend to leave out, like opportunity cost and the importance of marketing and promotion for the product to really take off.
This is a good reminder to explain these, since it better puts the idea guys in the dev's shoes.
To some degree both ideas and developers have become commodities. One doesn't need an MBA to come up with an idea and most people can learn some basic levels of programming.
I think the real value in both lines of expertise is execution.
In the MBAs case, it's not about how many different ideas they can come up with. It's whether they can distinguish which 1-3 ideas that a company must execute on in order to be successful before they run out of money, the competition beats them and/or reach the greatest market potential. Time and money is finite.. very finite.
In the developers case, can they execute quickly and still architect a scalable system, build for flexibility, pick the right technologies/platforms to use.
[+] [-] flyosity|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raganwald|15 years ago|reply
Could it be that there are many business people, some of who have ideas but no ability to execute, some of who can execute but have no ideas, and a very few who have ideas and can execute on them?
And like wise could it be that there are many developers, some of whom have ideas but cannot build their dreams, some of whom can build but have no ideas, and a very select few that have ideas and can build them?
If these two suppositions are correct, then there are some pairings of business person and developer that can work, including a rare business person who has an idea and can execute on the idea, and who needs a developer who can build but doesn't have an idea?
Of course there's some symmetry here, there are going to be developers with ideas and who can build. They will be looking for business people who don't have an idea of their own but who can execute.
[+] [-] turoczy|15 years ago|reply
"Idea guy seeking developer" usually means "I think I have a get rich quick scheme."
[+] [-] zeemonkee|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdizdar|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spencerfry|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tacoe|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sidmitra|15 years ago|reply
Some people genuinely believe in their ideas, enough to pay someone else to do it(not in equity ofcourse). And those are usually the people whose ideas work out in the end.
[+] [-] Tichy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lhnz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 9ec4c12949a4f3|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jtbigwoo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] invalidOrTaken|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giardini|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thetrumanshow|15 years ago|reply
I find it ironic how he points out that idea guys tend to undervalue the hard work of the programmer and then at the end he suggests that the idea guy should implement it himself.
So which is it? Is programming a hard-earned skill that should be paid well, or is it just so easy that a (presumably non-technical) idea guy can just pick it up and run with it? You're sending mixed messages.
[+] [-] SwellJoe|15 years ago|reply
It doesn't matter if it is easy or hard...if the idea guy won't do it himself, and he doesn't want to pay someone else to do it, it's not going to get done. And that's as it should be. If idea guy starts learning to code, he might learn enough to know what the work is worth, and will be better equipped to make the deals needed to get the hard parts done by competent developers. He may also gain the respect of actual developers; I wouldn't team up with guys who can't code at least a little.
I thought it was a very polite way to approach the topic. I'd be much more tempted to just say, "The only time I work for free is when it is work I want to do, on my own ideas, and where I own the result. Stop emailing me." But, I'm not renowned for my social graces.
[+] [-] tibbon|15 years ago|reply
I used to just be an idea guy. Then I realized I should learn to program. I'm not the best developer out there, but in an afternoon I can crank out something in Ruby to see if my general concept/logic works. My code will be sloppy, best practices might not be followed, but I can iterate quickly and see if it actually was a practical idea.
Examples of 'idea guys' not understanding is their lack of familiarity with APIs. They think they can just do everything perhaps imaginable, but really there are limitations. Want to crawl the entire social graph of Twitter? Yea, good luck with that. Even with 20,000 API requests/hr, you'll never catch up. You can't just snapshot it also and see changes every day. But an "idea guy" might think that this would be a great idea. It isn't that the programmers turning them down aren't good enough, but just that some things aren't possible with given APIs and unless you're coming to them with $10M+, Twitter isn't going to change their API for you.
[+] [-] smokeyj|15 years ago|reply
Programming can be a hard-earned skill that an intelligent idea guy can acquire. No false dilemma required.
[+] [-] danenania|15 years ago|reply
I should add that most developers don't seem to have much of this knowledge either. It comes from a rare blend of anticipating customer needs, technical understanding, and general pragmatism. The more projects I work on, the more I come to believe that someone who fills this gap is worth ten times more than both the dude with the 'great idea' and the all star coder.
[+] [-] carbon8|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blumentopf|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Goladus|15 years ago|reply
He's suggesting the idea guy work hard to earn the skill of a programmer, or at least learn enough to know what's hard and what's not.
[+] [-] whereareyou|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saraid216|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esmevane|15 years ago|reply
For the majority of Idea Man pitches I've spent time with, there's been a ridiculous amount of assumption involved. These folks are so excited by their own idea, they can't wait to tell me about it. Then what?
Do they want to help me build it? No.
Do they want to design it for me? No.
Do they want to contribute in any way? No.
Do they even usually have money or resources to lay down? No.
Will they pimp it when it's time to? No.
Will they go and seek venture capital to facilitate it? No.
At this point, it is undeniable that their involvement is as close to nil as makes no odds. It may as well be my idea, but usually the ideas I hear are bad, as well. So it would be my idea, that I file away as a concept not worth doing.
And the underlying assumption, of course, that I don't have my own pet projects that I'd much rather develop for free, in my spare time, is ridiculous.
Ideas themselves shouldn't be completely discounted. But if you do not have the impetus to follow up or power your idea, I think that generally speaking you ought to keep it to yourself until you feel like following through in some way or another.
[+] [-] sledmonkey|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Meai|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gabrielroth|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duopixel|15 years ago|reply
It's as if a person went up to an architect and asked him to build him a hotel with promises of sharing the future revenue stream. Architect responds "I can't, but if you don't have money you could try building it yourself".
There's no easy answer for the penniless idea guy. Perhaps stating (in a very polite way) that—as the biz guy—he should work on his own net worth before generating it for others.
[+] [-] SwellJoe|15 years ago|reply
I've also seen people learn to build in order to build their own gazebo, deck, and even a log cabin. It's not a hotel, but it is a useful piece of construction that a person with no architecture eduction can build with only a moderate amount of knowledge and experience. Some development projects are the equivalent of a deck or gazebo: A weekend project for someone experienced, and a two week learning process for someone who's never lifted a hammer (or opened a text editor).
I don't think it's terrible advice for an "idea guy" that doesn't have money. That's not to say it'll be a success. It almost certainly won't. If they're competing with experienced developers, they'll probably lose in the market, but they'll learn more about the value of developer time, and they'll learn how to better interact with developers because of that understanding. Maybe their next project will be more realistic, and they'll figure out how to fairly compensate a developer for their time.
That said, I think your last sentence is very astute. Maybe a self-proclaimed biz guy ought to prove himself by getting money lined up first, either by earning it, or convincing people to invest in him.
[+] [-] paulnelligan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnutt|15 years ago|reply
If you make a prototype that shows promise and show it to me, I'm more likely to start thinking "this is really cool, how can I make this awesome?" than "this person wants me to build something for them for free".
[+] [-] geebee|15 years ago|reply
The gist was, if you're a "business guy", I need you. Ok, you can't code, so here are some other ways you can contribute: you can tap into an impressive network to set up meetings with vcs, negotiate favorable terms, successfully navigate the legal system, get my product into the press, massively expand the user base, make sales, and convince people to hand over money....
...but if you think you're a "business guy" because you think up nifty ideas for computer applications but can't code or do any of the above, you aren't useful to me as a cofounder.
[+] [-] topbanana|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] true_religion|15 years ago|reply
For example, I'm currently involved in a seed-stage startup that aims to bring technical and quantitative stock analysis tools to the masses (i.e. protect your 401k by being able to read the market). We have contacts in the finance industry, and each one of those is golden because they bring a wealth of domain experience that is hard if not impossible to find out through books.
[+] [-] prknight|15 years ago|reply
Just having the idea in most situations just isn't a lot of leverage for a developer to become interested. But if you pair an idea up with:
Idea + capital, Idea + connections, Idea + salesmanship, Idea + passion + market opportunity + timing etc..., Idea + hustle, Idea + mentorship / experience, Idea + proof of concept, initial customers etc, Idea + market knowledge with a significant edge over others, Idea + accounting / misc biz skills
or a combination of those...and then you should be able to find a developer that is able to see enough upside to work with an idea person. The default answer shouldn't need to be 'learn how to code' in most cases. My viewpoint is to not do what you're hopeless at in 99% cases. There's not a lot of leverage there - ideas like speed. It's more valuable to get better at what you're already good at. If you're stubbornly trying to learn how to code and design despite hating the process, you simply didn't exhaust other avenues that yield a more expedient route to launching whatever idea/vision you have.
I did go down the learn how to code/design/market myself route because it's fun to me and that's a form of leverage that gives a potent edge. But I really hate seeing people struggle because they suck at what they are trying to learn, don't enjoy what they are learning but yet are using such things as obstacles to be conquered that they falsely believe are necessary to succeed. Sometimes it's just an excuse not to be doing what you're good at.
[+] [-] michaelbuckbee|15 years ago|reply
Most of the pitches I get from 'idea guys' are very specific technical solutions that flatly will not work as designed because (lacking knowledge) they made some poor assumptions.
Much better would be an idea guy that came and said: "I've found X problem in the market, solving it would be worth Y dollars annually, what approach would you take to solve that?"
In my current startup (with a non-technical cofounder) we delineate this as the 'what' and the 'how'. He has much greater domain knowledge than I do, he describes what the problem is, how painful it is to the customers, etc. I figure out how to best implement solutions to those issues. Obviously it isn't quite that cut and dried, but in general the approach has been working.
Calling my current co-founder 'non-technical' or 'the idea guy' does him a great disservice as he is incredibly capable and the very definition of the kickass get off the ground business guy (wrangling VC, making sales, talking to customers)
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|15 years ago|reply
Yup, because four years of school and five years of professional experience can easily be replaced with an O'Reilly book and a weekend in front of a monitor.
Yes, idea folks should know something about technology, but this is akin to suggesting that the next time my tooth hurts, I ought to just read a book and go to town with a mirror and a Dremel tool.
[+] [-] saraid216|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bestes|15 years ago|reply
I think ideas are a skill just like anything else. Most people can design a web page. Not everyone can design a good web page. Most people can or can learn to program, but that does't mean they can develop a good site (this one is a bit more of a stretch).
As a converse, I know quite a few (very good) developers who have ideas, but those ideas suck. And so do their UIs. And their marketing plan.
[+] [-] bpm140|15 years ago|reply
I tell them to go talk to developers and find out the developers' Big Ideas and then work on one of them.
You get to work on a startup and hopefully build a relationship that will span multiple products and companies.
[+] [-] ChuckFrank|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adaml_623|15 years ago|reply
As a developer I'm not going to work closely with someone I don't like.
I guess my message would be: Sometimes developers just aren't into you and your ideas. Perhaps you need to try and understand them more.
[+] [-] jsavimbi|15 years ago|reply
I'd be interested in knowing how many non-technical people actually consider this issue prior to recruiting a developer to work on a project. Is it obscured because of supply/demand/leverage or is it the case that non-technical people aren't exposed to the personalities of seasoned developers?
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|15 years ago|reply
Do they have sales, marketing or account management experience? Knowledge of the particular market the product might operate in? Experience setting up and or running a company? An understanding of process change and implementation of supporting services or whatever else is relevant?
You need to sell not just your idea but also yourselves.
Developers can have ideas but there are a bunch of things we're either not good at, don't get experience of or don't enjoy. If you really want to appeal to a developer then tell them how you can fill that gap.
And please, make it a real gap, not one you've got based on some stereotype which may or may not apply to the person you're speaking to.
[+] [-] evo_9|15 years ago|reply
Case in point - my business partners needed a developer and when I met them for the first time they presented themselves as experienced business men in their niche - sort of 'vertical market experts' as another poster termed it. At no point did either claim they were 'idea guys' - instead taking a more humble approach that they had this idea they wanted to build and would like to hear my thoughts on it. I knew I could work with them because they weren't making such grandiose, ego filled statements from the get go.
[+] [-] joeyespo|15 years ago|reply
This is a good reminder to explain these, since it better puts the idea guys in the dev's shoes.
[+] [-] freshfunk|15 years ago|reply
I think the real value in both lines of expertise is execution.
In the MBAs case, it's not about how many different ideas they can come up with. It's whether they can distinguish which 1-3 ideas that a company must execute on in order to be successful before they run out of money, the competition beats them and/or reach the greatest market potential. Time and money is finite.. very finite.
In the developers case, can they execute quickly and still architect a scalable system, build for flexibility, pick the right technologies/platforms to use.