Jason, this post sort of illustrates the unfortunate arrogance some technical founders seem to possess. I've read so many of these holier-than-thou stories about how business founders need to supplicate before the technical guy. It's unhelpful.
I understand that in a technical startup, you absolutely need technical talent. But what so many people forget is the sheer amount of technical projects that simply go nowhere. I'd argue that quality technical and quality business people are equally invaluable. To argue otherwise is to create toxicity by imbuing the technical culture with a sense that they are superior to their business co-founders.
Hey dataisfun - I really believe in the importance of quality business people (after all, I'd like to think that I am one)
However, the fact of the matter is that most technical people can, over time, "figure out the business stuff" to a far greater degree than most business people can "figure out the technical stuff".
In Silicon Valley and tech in general, engineers are in incredible demand and opportunities to learn how to develop entrepreneurship/business skills are everywhere. The point of the story is to illustrate an example of what "business guys" need to do to establish the trust and respect of someone who is technically skilled.
Also, I have run into very few arrogant, holier-than-thou developers in my time. Perhaps that would change my perspective to be closer to yours.
Jason - I thought this was a great story and a lesson to be learned for hustlers who want to know how to stand out from the wannapreneurs. But I also felt it implied an assumption that technical people don't need to prove anything. It gets very tiring reading articles that imply that tech people are all highly valuable, and that business people should feel lucky to be chosen as their partners. At our company, Yotam and I accomplished mountains of work while our first 3 tech-founder candidates produced nothing and wasted our time.
It's also terribly inaccurate to say that "most technical people can, over time, "figure out the business stuff" to a far greater degree than most business people can "figure out the technical stuff". If "figuring it out" is akin to having a basic understanding, I think many great business founders have proven they can learn to code on a basic level. Similarly, developers may also learn the basics of business development, sales or fundraising by reading some articles. And, maybe one more than the other. But just as figuring out the basics of coding does not make you a valuable developer, learning the basics of business does not suddenly empower a person with the ability to ask the right questions, communicate clearly, create mutual value between partners, close a sale, negotiate terms, save a furious client, and so on.
Being moderate at any of these things does not a great founder, or company, make. Implying that techs can somehow become good at these things in droves, or easily at all, is drastically underestimating what a true business leader is capable of.
I get your point. But I'd argue that a shortage in technical talent doesn't logically imply great engineers are more abundant than great sales/business people. It's just that there are probably just more mediocre business people than there are mediocre engineers.
At the pure idea phase, some degree of technical talent, however minor, is huge leverage, esp. if whoever it is can prototype something to a point of raising seed capital. At this point, incredible engineering skills aren't needed, but some solid technical background is important. That said, the degree to which engineering talent is required is really product dependent (as well as space dependent--i.e., consumer v enterprise).
Historically, technically minded folks have been exploited by business minded folks far more frequently than the other way around. While the most recent bend towards "engineer supremacy" may be objectively unhealthy, in the overall scheme of things, I think it is a positive development that will eventually lead us to a more balanced frame of mind than before the engineer supremacy phase started.
Most of the holier-than-thou devs I've met, and I've met a few, are weaker developers. Anybody who has built something with a business-facing constraint knows how valuable the right kind of bizdev/hustler/whatever guy can be. Invaluable.
In fact, I'd say these people are rarer than competent devs, but their skills are applicable in fewer arenas and are in lower demand overall. And these people don't always fit in well within a traditional corporate environment, but they can sometimes will a startup with a merely decent concept to success on the back of their hustling.
Again, the traits that define such a person are hard to define and not nearly as marketable as somebody with, say, a solid Ruby background, a fact that produces a small group of devs who, frankly, overestimate their worth to a startup, although they're eminently employable at large, lame companies. There's no room for mediocre engineers at a startup focused on building well and building fast.
I understand that in a technical startup, you absolutely need technical talent. But what so many people forget is the sheer amount of technical projects that simply go nowhere. I'd argue that quality technical and quality business people are equally invaluable. To argue otherwise is to create toxicity by imbuing the technical culture with a sense that they are superior to their business co-founders.