

Stop looking for nontechnical founders, go get an MBA. It's easy - ryanlchan
http://prefunder.posterous.com/just-go-get-an-mba-its-easy

======
coryl
Guys, this is satire. It is painful to see people not recognize that.

The only thing that made me chuckle is the ironic response from HN, that even
after reading this hyperbolic parody and not getting it, members still have to
validate their ideas of technical > business founders. The motive is so strong
it borders on insecurity, I really wonder for those who have replied; which
have the real world experience and credibility to suggest so?

Here's the truth: it doesn't matter as much as you think. Its like asking,
"which martial arts style is better, Brazilian Jiu-jitsu or Muay Thai?". Its
an amateur question, childish almost, because you need to know both and should
seek to learn every martial art to be a well rounded martial artist. Being
open to new ideas means letting go of your ego, a tough thing for anyone, let
alone MEN in BUSINESS and ENGINEERING.

So as a business person whose learning to be technical, all I can say is that
it is not black and white, we are not either team business or team technical.
We are all artists, who simply paint the canvas differently.

~~~
ryanlchan
Wow, go to bed for a bit and suddenly HN has a riot.

I wrote this post. It is, hopefully, clearly satire. Furthermore ironic due to
the fact that I have been, in fact, a technical cofounder. I'm just tired of
the overwhelming sentiment on HN that programmers are a business' gift from
god, and that all you need to do as a nontechnical cofounder is go read a
book. If it was that easy we'd have facebook for cats six times over.

Look, there are plenty of good business people out there who don't have the
time to create a 14,000 follower blog before they have a product, much like
most hackers don't have the time to create full, working products before they
have any customers. It's absurd to hold one half of the company to such
stringent standards while allowing the other, as a comment so clearly put, to
'code it out of thin air'.

I'm tired of the 'Business people should learn how to code' mentality. It's
not about technical vs nontechnical. It's about learning to have, and use,
both.

------
fhe
Am I missing the irony here? (this happens to me occasionally, I being a non-
native English speaker). But if this MBA shit is easy as he says (and none of
his 4 steps looks that hard), then seriously why does he deserve more than 15%
equity...

I am reminded of some line from Paul Graham. He was talking about literature
and physics professors, but it fits just as well here. Imagine this thought
experiment: technical and non-technical founders were asked to switch roles
and do what the other person did. The business guy will write the code, and
the technical guy will figure out how to make people pay for it. The one who
fails will be shot. Whom would you rather be?

~~~
pavlov
If my life were on the line, I would absolutely go for the business->coding
transition. The odds of success are so much better.

Learning programming is ultimately a matter of studying hard. It can be
mastered through books, Google and relentless solitary experimentation.

Making people pay for something is a fickle social art. Who wants to get shot
for failing at something so intangible?

~~~
philk
You're thinking about this from the perspective of someone who's already
technically strong. If you _aren't_ technically strong, trying to prise
dollars from fingers is often less terrifying than trying to deal with an
impenetrable technical jungle.

------
philk
It's slightly disappointing when this kind of snarky garbage makes it to the
front page.

There are legitimate arguments why a good business cofounder can be
invaluable. This article completely fails to make any of them.

~~~
Murkin
This is a sarcastic retort to the common advise given to MBA/business people
who look for technical co-founders, by technical people on HN:

    
    
      "Just learn to code yourself, and don't ask precious me for my time."
    

I found it witty, humbling and quite to the point.

~~~
philk
_This is a sarcastic retort to the common advise given to MBA/business people
who look for technical co-founders, by technical people on HN:_

I'm _completely_ aware of that. It's just that I don't read HN for sarcastic
retorts, I read HN for interesting viewpoints.

Further, it's a sarcastic retort to an article
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1820495>) that doesn't require one; the
original blog post is by someone who comes from a non-technical background but
taught himself enough to be useful technically, and the top ranked comment
contains excellent advice on how to attract technical co-founders.

 _"Just learn to code yourself, and don't ask precious me for my time."_

The people who receive this response generally aren't offering much. They
don't talk about their success in selling stuff in the past[1], or the money
they've raised previously, or the beta customers they've lined up. If you're
going to pitch yourself as a non-technical founder, you need to talk about
your relevant strengths. A good idea by itself just doesn't cut it.

And finally, advice to "do it yourself if you can't find anyone else" is
sound. If you can't find someone to take care of the business side, learn to
sell, learn to figure out how much you need to spend to get a customer and so
on. If you can't find someone technical, learn to code a bit. Just making the
attempt shows others that you're not the kind of person to let obstacles stand
in your way.

[1] And frankly, if their pitch for a cofounder is this bad it bodes poorly
for them selling product later on.

------
nirajr
Why would you even want a non-tech founder. All the value-add an MBA can bring
to a small tech startup, namely: (1) contacts (2) presentation skills (3)
networking (the human kind) skills - can be acquired by more tech guys if they
really put their head to it and put in a sustained effort. A tech-startup
would be much more flab-free if a tech guy takes up this role, imho.

~~~
sciboy
The number one reason most startups I have tried to help fail is simply
because they don't sell. Technical founders are very often scared of picking
up the phone, taking someone for drinks, and just busting their ass on the
street. It's safer doing stuff they are good at - coding. I can't count the
number of startups I have seen go down the drink because the founders wouldn't
get off the computer and go and sell something.

I can tell you from personal experience how awesome it is when you get a
business guy who works his ass off selling and handling contracts etc (I'm in
b2b). Not only does it bring in many more sales, but it makes you more
productive so you can concentrate on the task at hand - no context switching
involved.

Now all someone has to do is solve the problem: how do you find competent
business guys or programmers. Both are hard to come by, and are mysterious to
the other group.

------
bensummers
This is, of course, missing the biggest reason you want a "non-technical"
founder. It's not their MBA skills, it's their knowledge of the market you're
addressing and specific non-coding skills within that market.

Much of "business" probably is largely mechanical. But what your non-technical
founder brings is the knowledge of _what_ to build.

~~~
anamax
> But what your non-technical founder brings is the knowledge of what to
> build.

Does she? Where does that knowledge come from? Why is it necessarily true that
technical folks don't have it and that non-technical folks do?

Yes, there are non-technical folks who know more about selling houses than I
do, but that's a long way from the above claim.

~~~
bensummers
You might find technical folk who've been deeply involved in a business
sector, can articulate that sector's needs, know how to sell to them, and have
lots of contacts. I'm just saying, on balance of probabilities, it's unlikely.

~~~
anamax
> You might find technical folk who've been deeply involved in a business
> sector, can articulate that sector's needs, know how to sell to them, and
> have lots of contacts.

You're mixing up "able to sell" and "knowing what to build".

Knowing what to build does not require lots of contacts or knowing how to
sell. While "can articulate" is required to sell, it isn't required to build.

However, knowing what to build does require knowing what can be built.

In short, "knowing what to build" is well-within the domain of technical
people.

Getting "it" sold isn't.

~~~
bensummers
"Knowing what to build" is fine for technical people who are building a simple
web based tool which they'll use themselves. However, this doesn't generalise
to building software for complex industries.

As an example, a few years ago I was advising a company who wanted to automate
the calculation of tax. You would have thought that this was easy, but in fact
it's the most complex thing ever and you need that non-technical specialist
domain knowledge. (You know you're in for a fun ride when you ask a question
and the answer is "we're not sure, but we've booked flights to Italy to go and
ask the authorities there".)

I think I have missed out a load of qualifiers in my previous comments. Here
they are:

* The skills required for a startup will probably be spread out over many people.

* There's no hard and fast rule about which skills anyone will have.

* Technical people might be good at sales.

* "Non-technical" people might not be good at sales.

* "Knowing what to build" and "able to sell" are skills which may or may not be found in the same person.

* Knowing what to build might be a skill of any of your founders have, depending on their experience in the market.

There's probably a few more. I suppose this is the trouble with trying to
write concise generally true comments, you forget to cover all the edge cases.

~~~
anamax
> "Knowing what to build" is fine for technical people who are building a
> simple web based tool which they'll use themselves. However, this doesn't
> generalise to building software for complex industries.

Who said anything about software?

> As an example, a few years ago I was advising a company who wanted to
> automate the calculation of tax. You would have thought that this was easy,

No, I wouldn't, because I know a little about taxes. A technical tax person
would know even more and understand a lot of the complexity.

> but in fact it's the most complex thing ever and you need that non-technical
> specialist domain knowledge.

Why do you persist in saying that domain knowledge is necessarily non-
technical and that technical people can't have it?

Both are wrong.

------
fhe
If you were a non-technical founder like Steve Jobs, well, perhaps. I am
reading the book "iCon Steve Jobs". And here's a recount of the very early
days of Apple according to the book:

Woz was working on the Apple II. Jobs saw a clever Intel ad. He called Intel
marketing and found that Regis McKenna created the ad. After relentlessly
calling the agency for weeks, Jobs finally wore down the secretary, and got a
meeting with Mr. McKenna, and against all odds, persuaded him to take on Apple
as a client. At the time, Apple had no outside investors yet. McKenna
introduced Jobs to Don Valentine, who sat on the board of the marketing
agency. Valentine said he'd invest if Apple brought on board a more
experienced marketing guy. Jobs then relentlessly called Valentine for
recommendations (there is a pattern here), who finally relented, and suggested
Mike Markkula, who joined Apple and became one of the early investors.

That I'd consider a worthy non-tech founder. but then again, the traits that
Jobs exhibited had nothing to do with MBA. I am not even sure there is
anything distinctively 'business' about it. It's more just what PG called
determinedness.

------
jarin
"Touché." —The Developer Community

------
supershazwi
1 mba guy < 1 technical guy < 1 technical+mba guy < 1 technical guy 1 mba guy
< 2 technical+mba guys.

I remembered one post here that stated that the best return if you partner one
'business guy' is if that guy has things like contacts, a customer list, etc.

~~~
sqrt17
More to the point, you need either a cofounder that you would entrust your
life to _or_ you need to have part of the requisite skillset so you can choose
one that is competent and does not need to be too far out of your league.
Because an incompetent cofounder will mess up exactly those things you can't
handle, and one that's out of your league will either only have contempt for
you or steal your idea and Zuck you.

------
fbcocq
In case you missed the reference:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1820495>

~~~
redthrowaway
Now it makes sense. I thought that post seemed a little flippant.

------
DeusExMachina
_I feel bad for some of you technical cofounders. You guys just don't 'get
it'._

It looks to me that a lot of thechnical people get this really well. We have
constantly some examples here on HN.

I know it's not easy stuff, but I think it's not that hard either and I see
that in a lot of startups the founders just figure it out as they go. I share
pg's belief that MBA founders are overvalued.

------
mironathetin
Its always a pleasure to read stuff that emerges from MBAs minds. Its so easy
to understand and relaxing compared to the real things.

~~~
scotty79
What makes you think that it came from mind of MBA?

Apart from the fact that unknown author of this piece said he is MBA?

------
scotty79
I don't know exactly what is that but I read it with pleasure constantly
switching from understanding it as irony on tech side and then on business
side.

Author of this post is almost surely techie but probably bit tired of people
totally downplaying business side.

------
bhoung
is it only me, I thought that was all tongue in cheek.

~~~
c1sc0
I think you're onto something.

------
soci
I can only agree with the title of the post, not with the rest of the article.

I'm a technical guy with +10 year background but I also have interest in the
rest of areas of a company. Unfortunately I lack any business skills and I'm
afraid of failing in basic things if I'm starting my own business.

I don't like at all MBA's with non-technical skills like the one who wrote the
post. They tend to be very arrogant and do not seem to care much about the
technical aspects, which are indeed crucial for many of the companies
discussed here in HN. It's for this reason that I'm pursuing an MBA myself, I
think tech+business makes a good tandem. I'll let you know when I finish in
two years.

~~~
camz
I'm sorry, but I feel the absolute need to be blunt.

This is by and far the worst idea Ive ever heard. Persuing an MBA is NOT
learning about business. It's the purchase of proof pretending to know what a
real entrepreneur understands through years of experience.

Arrogance is rampant in HN on both sides of the frontline between techs and
nontechs. Coders think they're the real driving force behind the company and
the biz guy thinks his sales are the only reason you're afloat.

If you want REAL business experience, I have single piece of advice.

Go f-bomb-ing do a shitty sales job. I learned everything I know today through
sales. I've sold everything from professional tax accounting services to the
tapioca (bubbles) you're probably sucking on in your bubble tea while reading
this reply.

Note, read guy kawasakis take on his MBA as well as any other successful
businessman with an MBA.

Sorry for the harsh commentary but I truly feel strongly about the MBA being a
POS. I hope this advice finds you well.

------
bmcleod
The problem with this suggestion is that it seems to suggest having an MBA is
a large part of being a business guy(or gal).

Yes it does take a long time to become a good business guy, but that's because
it relies on spending so much time networking and building the kind of
relationships that let you do interesting things.

MBAs are often a poor choice of business guy for a startup because the degree
means they could be earning lots more in a "normal" job, but brings relatively
few startup benefits.

I think a lot of these smaller startups would be better off with a hustler
who's young and lacking an MBA.

------
bjonathan
"My degree has master of business administration on it; that means I can call
myself 'business ninja' without being ironic."

Epic

