
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.<p>And yet, during a long conversation I had with a group of "founders", I could not manage to explain the rational behind the argument.<p>Their view was:<p><pre><code>    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)
</code></pre>
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 ?<p>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.

~~~
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
In house can still be non-founder full time employees. People seem to be
confusing the two.

------
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.

~~~
wolfrom
This may be a debate for another day, but I haven't noticed a big difference
in involvement/investment from employees over contractors.

~~~
dasil003
Really? In my current position I have hired 8 contractors over the last 3
years, and 5 employees.

Initially we tried to always hire the best developers we could get, who tended
to be contractors. Several of these guys were actual core members on major
projects like Rails and Prototype. The work they did was amazing, but we could
never get a long term commitment and thus they never came to really understand
the codebase, and it was impossible to get emergency bug fixes from them in a
timely manner. Of the 8, we still use 1 because he _is_ able to respond
quickly, and because the scope of what we use him for is relatively small and
well-defined.

Of the 5 fulltimers we've hired, only one didn't work out. The others are not
quite as good as some of the big names, but definitely above average and able
to add real value not just to the pieces of the code they work on, but the
overall technical and product strategy.

------
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.

~~~
philwelch
"This seems almost malicious."

A lot of people confuse "live and let live" with maliciousness. Arguing about
disagreements is pointless when it's something you can test, like whether you
can succeed without a technical cofounder. Letting people learn from their own
experiences rather than just giving them your opinions saves you time and
teaches the other person a lot more.

~~~
pmjordan
The original post is about _'... a long conversation [he/she] had with a group
of "founders"'_ , and I assumed this thread was framed in the same context.
I'm not talking about imposing your views on random acquaintances.

Hiring a string of crappy developers to develop your core product is a pretty
expensive route to learning it the hard way.

~~~
philwelch
It's also a lot more convincing than having someone with no vested interest in
your project tell you you're doing it wrong.

~~~
pmjordan
Sure, giving and receiving advice is always tricky, maintaining an open mind
while filtering out the crap is difficult. This is always worth bearing in
mind as the giver.

Honestly, I think we're picturing totally different conversations and
circumstances.

------
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.

~~~
dasil003
Exactly. When you're starting a business everything is risk. If you pay
someone more than you need to then you are jeopardizing the success of the
business.

Getting your "fair share" is the responsibility of the employee. If you think
you're hot shit that will make the difference between the success or failure
of the company, then by all means negotiate for it.

The bottom line is, if, as a developer you think you are worth significantly
more than the going rate, you have two options. Either prove it by founding
your own company. Or else convince the person hiring you that you are worth
that much.

~~~
shaunxcode
Actually let me be even more clear. I originally said these "founders" were
like land owners looking for share croppers. What I am really trying to
describe is these are "owners" with out land still thinking they are entitled
to ownership of the work done by those who they coerce. I think there is no
more transparent example of exploitation. It makes usury look like an
equitable situation.

What land? What bricks?

~~~
coryl
I think you're being a bit dramatic. I agree that programmers need a little
more respect, but what you're saying is a bit silly.

You can't coerce a programmer into doing work for you. They want either cash
or stake for their work. They have the right to say no if they don't like the
deal. I can't see how you could take that as a form of exploitation. Good
programmers are in demand and are paid well; they have a choice, unlike low
wage foreigner workers (for whom you could better argue were being exploited).

------
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."

~~~
Locke1689
I guess I don't see that as completely fair (unless there is already a
technical cofounder in your startup who can act as the technical vision of the
startup). There are at least as many important technical decisions to be made
while building a startup as business decisions. Why stick yourself with an
order of magnitude less equity than the founder? If it actually succeeds
you're as responsible as the non-technical founder.

Note that I'm not speaking of startups with established technical founders. I
would very very seriously consider working at a startup as a technical
employee if they already have good technical vision.

~~~
dasil003
Well, without going into too much detail, every startup is different. In our
case, our business deals make or break the company, and the technology is not
a differentiating factor. That is, we must be competent in technology, but we
are not innovating there.

In any case, it's a moot point. I took the package on offer because it seemed
a fair deal to me at the time, and I don't regret it. The experience alone was
worth it for a valley first-timer like me, and I'll have a big leg up in
whatever I do next. Whether it's joining another startup as an employee or
founding my own startup, I now have a track record and experience that will
serve me equally well either way.

------
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 ?

~~~
seiji
Make executive decisions with full autonomy.

~~~
dustyreagan
That power can be delegated to an employee.

~~~
pmjordan
Only if the employee is very good and sufficiently dedicated to stand up
against decisions by the founder(s) which are bad for technical reasons. It's
hard enough for us techies to hire people like that; for non-techies it's
basically a lottery. And that's if they don't actively select for the wrong
traits. It's likely they'll focus on people who talk the talk, do as they're
told, or have a business background but have dabbled with some techy stuff,
etc.

------
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.

~~~
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.

~~~
terra_t
u bet

------
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.

------
damoncali
You don't need a technical founder. There are many examples of great companies
built by people who can't code. It is just a lot more expensive and difficult.
Having someone who works for free _and_ who has the company vision in mind as
he codes is quite beneficial.

------
samt
Depends on the market. If you're opening an online store for vitamins, then
no, maybe you don't need a technical co-founder. But a good technical co-
founder would expand the world of the possible. The BATNA for such people is
too high to be your employee.

------
mathewgj
The pro move for non-technical founders who have financing before a technical
co-founder is to hire an employee as a 'technical founder' - but with a comp
package that has more (greater than 0) salary and less equity than a pre-
financing co-founder.

------
rfugger
Why would an automotive startup need engineering co-founders? Why would a
mining startup need geologer co-founders? Why would a research startup need
scientist co-founders? Why would a patent troll startup need lawyer co-
founders?

Same answer.

------
markkat
I just can't imagine it. I am not a technical founder, and I would never waste
my time building something without one. I guess that unless you have one, you
would never know what they can bring to the table.

------
studentrob
"what can a co-founder do that an employee cant ?"

Communicate with employees and foster trust in a leadership role.

------
johnnygood
In DHH's video on Big Think (<http://bigthink.com/davidheinemeierhansson>), he
started talking at one point about whether there was a baseline past which you
can't make things easier (see the quote below). The premise was that Ruby and
Rails have made web development easier and more accessible to less technical
people. He argued that there is a limit to how low you could lower the bar
because, at a certain point, your application is all about the thousands of
little decisions that your code describes.

 _"There is a natural, physical limit where at the end programming is just
choices. How should the program work? What should happen when you click this
button? Those choices are ultimately the key to programming - and you can't
get out of that. Which is also why it's a bit of a pipe dream to think that
'oh, there's going to be these magical new environments where somebody that
knows nothing about programming will be able to just drag and drop a few
things into a box and then voila! you'll have the most amazing program in the
world. No. It's really not going to happen like that because in order to have
the most amazing program in the world, you have to care about a thousand
decisions and recording those thousand decisions takes a programming language.
So, there is a lower limit to how simple it can get."_

The reason why a technical co-founder is so necessary is because every
application is going to have thousands of little decisions that you are
describing in your code.

A technical co-founder doesn't need to know everything about computer science.
They need to be able to describe those decisions. Often times, if you're
hiring a programmer to implement your idea, you don't actually describe things
accurately. You come up with things to say like, "show the article to people
who are interested in it." What does that statement mean? Do you email the
article to interested people? Does it show up on the homepage for those
people? A special page? How do you identify "interested people"? It keeps
going on. Even "simple" things are often complex - especially if you're
implementing a niche application.

You can create mockups, you can list "requirements", you can have the
programmer ping you when they have questions, but ultimately programmers
aren't translators. Programmers, in order to be successful, _must_ be able to
make those decisions or you'll die a death of a thousand cuts as they ping you
over every little decision. The problem is that people have an idea in their
head that they think just needs to get "translated" into computer-speak.
However, in reality, they've yet to describe most of what's in their head - if
the minute details are there at all.

Even if none of that co-founder's code make it past the first few months,
they're able to describe the choices in an unambiguous way that mockups,
emails, requirement specs, etc. simply don't.

Basically, not having a technical founder means that you don't have any
founder that can describe the application in the detail that's required to
create something really great. It doesn't mean it's impossible and that's not
to say that input from non-technical co-founders isn't important or that they
can't have as meaningful an impact as technical co-founders. It means that if
you're two non-technical co-founders looking to start something good, you
probably need to bring on a third co-founder who is technical because you need
someone you feel comfortable with making those little decisions and working
with as a peer rather than in a hierarchical way. Because they're going to
have to work on all those little decisions with you that mockups and specs
just never address.

Code is a way of describing all those little ways in which your application
works, not translating an idea into computer-speak.

