Hacker News Reader

Comment by ccozan | Hacker News Reader

So, the takeaway from the article is: don't co-found with someone technical, hire/outsource them. Well, I could say: good luck! You either get some half-assed solution or something ( if you oursource ) you don't even asked for, because they didn't understand your business requirements ( because of the language, distance, culture, etc).

Don't fall for this. Really, get yourself a technical co-founder. Amaze him. You can call him in the middle of the night, telling your new idea. Next day, he will already had done dissecting it and have a technical spec ready. Or any other crazy stuff that you want and he will say simply "No". You have no idea how useful is a "No" in a start-up. And so on, and so on...you get the picture.

PS. I am using a neutral "he" here.

View on HN

1. You get what you pay for. A lot of individuals who outsource the development of their "startup idea" end up with a less-than-satisfactory solution because they lacked the capital reasonably necessary to pursue their venture and as a result outsourced to the cheapest developer they could find.

2. Business requirements are a two-way street. Many non-technical folks have a hard time sufficiently describing their business requirements, and even more simply don't have the skill and patience required to work with a technical resource to turn business requirements into functional and technical requirements. You can't blame a technical resource for this shortcoming.

3. In today's market, good developers who are eager to make money generally have no shortage of employment and contracting opportunities. In certain geographic areas of the United States, experienced developers can easily make six figures annually. Outside of the United States, it's not difficult to find freelance developers earning far in excess of the average local wage. Unless you have a personal relationship with a developer and a co-founder relationship grows organically out of that relationship, it's naive to believe that a developer willing to work for you on an equity-only basis is going to be the cream of the crop.

In short, there's a reason there are so many non-technical founders running around like chickens with their heads cut off looking for a technical co-founder: very few good developers want to take your 1 am call so that they can do all the work for free while you sleep.

Getting yourself a technical co-founder is really, really difficult. It takes up a lot of time that is not business-building.

I was very lucky that the contractor I am working with is one of the best developers I have ever worked with. He really feels like part of the company, and knows the product inside out. Of course the weakness is that if I can't afford to pay him any more, there's nothing I can do with the site if I need to fix something etc.

If this person is so critical, why would you not bring them into the fold and make them an employee or co-founder? Because you really are setting yourself up for disaster when they can just walk at anytime.

I've thought about that, but he's an employee at an agency in Russia. I doubt he can afford to work for sweat equity, if I happen to run out of money, and it also might be considered a bit unethical to poach a developer from an agency.

I've done both and I can definitely attest that outsourcing the technical bits of your new startup is beyond tricky. It is however not impossible. The point here is that taking a technical co-founder onboard isn't your only option; it's totally possible for you to get to V1 (by outsourcing technical tasks), generate initial revenue and hiring a developer (with some equity) instead (as an example).

Of course. There is also the third solution. With the vast amount of internet resources (think stackoverflow, etc) it possible for a founder to get to a alpha version 100% on his own. It is cheaper and sometimes more effective, because of missing managing overhead and lack of communication errors.

But in the end, yes, you have to deal with the dillema: hire or take someone on board, share the responsability and the earnings.

Why is everybody so eager to give away equity?

The big reason to not have a cofounder is because 100% of a two million dollar business can be life changing. Half of that is more like a feather in your cap.

Paul Graham and VC firms are looking for billion dollar businesses. 5% of such a company shared here and there doesn't matter so much. But those sorts of businesses present shitty expected value to a founder. You want full ownership of a higher probability bet.

I somewhat disagree, and I've seen some examples.

My opinion is that it depends on what your startup's value proposition is.

If you're building Groupon, the example's Sampleboard, or any startup where the development work is standard, I'd say the technical cofounder isn't essential.

He/she can prevent contractors from pulling a fast one, but you're being too biased - most contractors will build to specs, probably not as polished or complete, but more than enough for an MVP.

OTOH, if your startup's value proposition depends on leveraging new technologies, or a complex stack, or delivering something where tech is critical, you need the technical founder/cofounder.

I've seen a Groupon clone founded by a lawyer of all things :) and the outsourcing work was shoddy but the first technical hires patched it up.

A lot of people seem to be sold on the group of founders theory of start ups. Jeff Bezos hired programmers to develop Amazon. I would argue that start ups are not about exceptions or rules - it's about getting your product in the customers hands by any means necessary.

I agree, but this only works if you are damn experienced and really know both worlds: business and technical. Read Bezos' biography ( on wikipedia ) and you will know what I mean.

You want someone you can call up at midnight with some half-baked ideas so they will work 4-5 hours getting ready for your feedback in the morning? And working for equity since you'll be lining up investment once the product is ready, right?

Well, Thank God the ideas man is getting his rest, I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com