The ideal team is probably 3 founders, one being a business guy with product development experience. One reason behind this is an all technical team will more often become obsessed about the technical widgets and features that aren't needed for a minimum viable product.
Technical teams are also more likely to try and do everything themselves when you may be better off partnering for a technology rather than building it. Often certain components of a given solution may be the entire focus of other companies and many companies are very willing to license technology with no upfront costs rapidly speeding up development -- one business deal could equal months of coding.
Can technical people go out and do these deals? Sure just like the business guy can pickup "How to code HTML" book and start to make a website -- neither will know what they don't know until it is too late. Also from PG's "Managers vs. Makers" schedule piece it is very clear that for a maker trying to do a deal could completely derail their ability to build with the distractions.
Technical teams are also more likely to try and do everything themselves when you may be better off partnering for a technology rather than building it. Often certain components of a given solution may be the entire focus of other companies and many companies are very willing to license technology with no upfront costs rapidly speeding up development -- one business deal could equal months of coding.
Can technical people go out and do these deals? Sure just like the business guy can pickup "How to code HTML" book and start to make a website -- neither will know what they don't know until it is too late. Also from PG's "Managers vs. Makers" schedule piece it is very clear that for a maker trying to do a deal could completely derail their ability to build with the distractions.