"Among founders who do not do Engineering, 80% prefer a co-founder who does Engineering."
I'm sure this familiar to any engineer on this site. "I have this great idea for an app, and I just need you to build it. We'll split the company 50/50."
I'm sure this familiar to any engineer on this site. "I have this great idea for an app, and I just need you to build it. We'll split the company 50/50."
After becoming a designer/engineer I've realized that most of these ideas take shape during the engineering process. And the process will in turn change and twist the idea itself based on customer interviews and iterative prototypes.
The engineering process leads to better "ideas" that replace the initial ideas. But most non-engineer, first-time founders don't realize that's the case. The engineering process also pokes so many holes in the first idea, because they require the idea to actually be fleshed out...
Maybe I'm just bitter about working with doe-eyed, non-technical first time "idea person" kind of founders.
If you know the industry inside out and you are willing to sell, I would have no problem to partner up. But usually those who are successful in an industry rarely have enough time to invest in a startup.
People I want to partner up with are so busy managing their business, client and family, they will just end up having a custom software made with their money and try to sell that.
I wish! Usually it's "I'll give you 5% equity if you implement my idea. No no, I cannot actually help, I'm the idea guy"[1].
Honestly, I'd take a 50/50 split with someone who:
a) Provably has strong connections to decision-makers in the target market,
b) Has already raised the money for a 6 month runway,
and
c) Has some objective data around the proposed product/vision and a few of the competitors.
I've heard my fair share of "the next facebook/google/youtube" ideas, or "whatsapp/netflix meets reddit/amazon", etc.
[1] Probably the number one thing that turns me off is hearing "I'm the idea guy". Seriously, if you can't contribute to the engineering/building of the product, then at least ensure an income to pay those who can.
Anyone can come up with ideas; there's no degree in ideas. Most of us got into programming/engineering fields because we ourselves 'have ideas', but sought out the education to build them.
It's very frustrating to work with others who can't directly contribute to the deliverable. It leads to burn out. I personally will never work with another team who haven't all been up until 4am crushing out code.
I'd only pick a cofounder that doesn't do engineering if they have deep connections, domain expertise in a relatively complex field that I myself can't pick up easily or has alot of red tape, etc. This person also needs a public past track record of success too. It'd also depend on the industry too, b2b is where this partnership has more merits (and larger contracts), b2c not so much since the barrier to entry is lower
Over the years I've coached more than a few founders. Usually they come to me because they are looking for a CTO because they assume they need one. My #1 advice to companies like that is actually to not get a CTO unless they are a proper tech startup where the tech is what defines the company. Most startups simply aren't and they need skilled engineers rather than some CTO/propellor head. They need somebody that will build them an MVP and that is good at bringing in more tech people when growth happens.
I have a few reasons for this:
1) the type of engineer that ends up taking that role is rarely proper CTO or even management material; or even very senior when it comes to engineering. It's a convenience marriage between a random tech person who happens to be available and some business people not really qualified to make tech hiring decisions. So, avoid that situation and get some doers involved and give them enough equity or cash to keep them motivated but without creating the illusion that they are there to do something else than executing your vision.
2) inevitably the moment comes where early CTOs not really suitable for the job need to be replaced (or simply walk away) if the company actually survives long enough. As a founder you need to be honest about how the company will evolve. And that often means getting some grown ups involved as soon as money allows for that; especially on the tech front. I've seen more than a few startups with very awkward CTO types getting a senior baby sitter in the form of a VP of engineering or something similar.
3) CTO is a vanity title in a startup. You can use it to up-sell to engineers their role in your company and sometimes you need to do that to keep them and get them to build your product. However, it often ends up looking a bit desperate when you hand it out to the first engineer willing to talk to you and it creates awkward situations when you later meet someone more suitable for the role.
If you are a proper tech company it's different. You need such a company to be driven by a technical founder and such a company needs to be created primarily by technical founders. So, it would be unusual for such a company to be even looking for a CTO because that would indicate some serious issues with the founding team. They'd be looking for CMO/CSO/CEO types instead.