But definitely more realistic.
C'est la vie.
I guess it's pretty silly to start a big project with people you don't trust though.
Do they understand the true cost of a highly available environment? Do they understand why feature development takes so long?
Even people with a limited technical background make those. In fact, they're probably worse, because they think they understand something but really don't.
Have two founders from different backgrounds, with a small understanding of the other is good. But the key is to understand their own knowledge boundaries and let the other take over where it matters. They need be able to play devils advocate to each other just enough to come up with the right solution.
I vote for "causing friction internally and hindering productivity."
I understand your article wasn't actually about that and it was more about the self-empowerment you found through doing it yourself. I'm in full support of self-empowerment - but I will say this: technical cofounders are strictly not overrated. As has been suggested many times in this comment thread, a balance between a good business cofounder and a good technical cofounder is a great way to do it.
A one-man technical founder can get along without a business person or even outsourcing to a business consultant; a one-man business founder cannot get along without a technical person or without outsourcing to a technical contractor/consultant. Additionally, I applaud your self-driven effort, but it is a common mistake to think you can take over the world after 6 months to even 4 years of self-taught programming experience.
As a business person, you did well by learning just enough to build a prototype, from there, you should be able to attract a technical cofounder that has the skill and talent you are ultimately going to need in the long run and probably don't have the time or desire to pick up on your own.