> We will provide them with the technical help
This is quite common already. Remember all those companies everyone made fun of in the 1990s, like Pets.com? That is how they came about.
For example, I'm leaving my day job. My reasons for this are complex and I'm not going to air all of them in a public forum, but they boil down to "It's not a good fit for me anymore." Thing is, there was no possible way we could know that when I was hired, because I was a good fit back then. My job description now is totally different than it was back then - in fact, when I was working with a coworker to come up with a job advertisement for my position, I realized that I would not have applied for my position as it currently exists. I've also grown as a developer - when I took this job, I thought Java was a decent-if-not-great language, I thought dynamic languages were unsuitable for real work, I had only passing familiarity with Haskell, I didn't really know JavaScript (though I listed it on my resume), and I basically didn't know what I wanted out of my career. I even mentioned during my interview that "Yeah, I don't know if this is something I really want to do, but I can't know that until I give it a try - after all, when I took my last programming job, I didn't know if programming was something I wanted to do, and that worked out great." Come to think of it, I still don't know what I want out of my career, I just think that this particular startup I'm working on is more likely to be it than my current job.
In my experience, the best indicator of job success isn't raw programming talent, it's how much the programmer believes in the product. That's why cofounders usually need to be friends before they can work together. Oftentimes, you'll have to take a leap of faith that you're on the right track, and you need to trust your cofounder to do that. I don't see how you can test for that with a third-party service. You can take the absolute best programmer in the world, stick him in a project he thinks is boring, and he'll suck at it.
Rokhyakebe in your suggested model marketers will have the vision and not the craft and programmers will have the craft and not the vision.
How many people think designing software is as easy as designing a spork?
You're kind of proving my point here. Designing clothing is hard. Designing web apps are hard. You need to be good at each to be successful at each. You won't be good at either if all you have is a "business/marketing genius" with an idea.
It's hard to build a nanotechnology social networking viral space play without engineers.
I don't want to wait too long and I don't know how long my window of opportunity will be open so I've hired a coder to begin development. However, if I could have been paired with a coder and a little funding I'm sure things could have been easier and I might have been able to be to market right about now.
I have worked for several such companies, and at one time I was Information Coordinator for the American Marketing Association, so I've been exposed to a lot of marketing 'genius'. One thing I noticed time and time again in all these places is the prevalence of 'internal marketing'. When stripped of trendy buzzwords and platitudes about 'empowerment', internal marketing is a De facto ideology which stipulates that marketing is the primary driving force in every organization. It places product quality, customer value, and strategy in a distant secondary position.
The problem with marketing companies is that their myopic focus produces reactionary organizations - more ad hoc institutions than enterprises. 'Marketing companies' are sometimes profitable, but rarely maintain a commanding market position for long if they get there in the first place.
Contrast these with the real product companies of our time: Apple, Google, Craigslist, Facebook, Toyota. The real profit and value are being created by companies who focus on actual products. Some of these companies have little marketing apparatus at all, at least in the sense you're talking about.
This reminds me of a silly aphorism: You rob a bank because that's where the money is. Providing seed funding to 'marketing geniuses' is like robbing twenty hot dog stands and hoping that one of them forgot to deposit their earnings that week. It's only a good plan if you can't figure out how to rob the bank.
The good thing about technical entrepreneurs is that they know if their projects in mind are realistic. They can also actually go out and build it exactly how they envision it rather than relying on someone who works according to their own schedule with their vision on how it should be. This basically leads to things being developed slower where speed is the #1 thing a startup has going for it.
p.s: what exactly is a sales/marketing genius?
I would hope that the answer to your question is farely obvious......
That's my favorite part.
Number seven
15K is enough when you have motivated founders who own half the company and are willing to eat ramen and sleep on cots for 3 months to realize their dreams.
It is not enough to hire the equivalent programming talent for 3 months to work on an idea by non technical founders.
Maybe you could name it "Incubatr 2.0" and have the tag line "this time around, we don't even provide office space!"
Realize also that Y Combinator doesn't discriminate against non-technical people, except that the applying company has to have at least one technical founder.
All I want is to have step 1.5 get someone who understand your vision to help you build the alpha.
I'm not saying you have a bad idea, but it's an important question and "hiring programmers" isn't really a good answer. If I was a good hacker, and I could take 6% from 30 little companies and do all their coding in 3 months, that might be fun and profitable. I think the chances of you finding someone that capable and willing to take the risk are slim, is all.
edit: including me, duh!