4 ms·

You don't need a CTO

15 points by boffinism 8y ago

C1sc0cat 8y ago
Ah yes <narrator voice> "Here we see the two nations as defined by cp snow in action with Oxbridge chaps who did a PPE keeping those greasy engineers in their place " Sorry mate if you perpetuate the attitudes that have held the UK back and why we don't have any FANG's in the uk don't expect me to give you a soft ride.
alehul 8y ago
> Since you don’t know about tech, it’s going to be really hard for you to know how to hire someone who has the appropriate skills Ideally, if you have a network that will help you succeed as CEO (these are important and startups aren't fair, as Ben Horowitz has pointed out), then you can ensure you're getting a good co-founder and CTO through that network. > And taking on a co-founder not because they are someone you want to co-found a company with but because it’s the only way of getting a particular job done You most likely do need a CTO, but you also need to make sure it's someone you do want to co-found a company with. It sounds like these are being conflated. > CTO types expect both chunky equity and a decent salary Yes, as they need to live, you should both have a livable salary if you're working full-time. And yes, they should expect 50% equity. It doesn't matter if you raised the family-and-friends round (structure it as debt instead of equity), or if you had the idea. Startups will generally take 5+ years to an exit, and by that point, the amount of blood, sweat, and tears will make any beginning inequity in contribution look incredibly microscopic [0]. > Getting a CTO early on is expensive, and often you realise later that you’ve brought the wrong person on board. Again, I think the solution here is to bring on a co-founder and CTO from within your network, ideally someone you have worked with prior [1]. Altogether, I would argue that the answer here is that you most likely need a technical co-founder and CTO. The article is arguing that choosing some random individual as CTO is bad and unnecessary, and I'd agree, but that's aside the point that you need one; the caveat is that they have to be a good one. [0] https://blog.ycombinator.com/splitting-equity-among-founders/ https://blog.ycombinator.com/splitting-equity-among-founders... [1] https://medium.com/@curious_founder/paul-graham-and-drew-houston-on-how-to-find-a-co-founder-7d3fc268cd15 https://medium.com/@curious_founder/paul-graham-and-drew-hou...
pedalpete 8y ago
As a point, I think it is good to look at companies that operate without CTOs. A good example is Canva, which reached a $1b valuation last year. It was started by Mel and Cliff, who were non-technical and they brought on Cameron, who has some technical chops, but is a Product Manager (and now CPO). They started hiring technical talent, but didn't get a CTO. They still don't have a CTO, they have technical leaders and I believe someone who essentially acts as the CTO, but it isn't something they feel they need. And remember, this is a technical company that was founded by non-technical founders. At ayvri.com, we're a bit different, we have 4 tech people on the team (of 4) and I brought up the idea of having a CTO with the team, they all agreed that they wanted to maintain the flat structure that we have and felt the position unnecessary. Maybe the question that needs to be answered is, what companies do require a CTO position? When? Rather than assuming every company should have one.
tluyben2 8y ago
When there is tech, there is a de-facto CTO, does not really matter what title is used for the role. There might be some companies where the tasks are clearly divvied up between different people, but usually the gravity is in some one person. For me this sounds like an attempt to devalue work a de-facto CTO is doing without having to actually pony up money/equity for it. In other words; someone has the responsibility that belongs with the role CTO but she is 'just a capable dev' pushed into that role without getting the rewards that belong with it.

15 points by boffinism 8y ago

Ah yes <narrator voice> "Here we see the two nations as defined by cp snow in action with Oxbridge chaps who did a PPE keeping those greasy engineers in their place " Sorry mate if you perpetuate the attitudes that have held the UK back and why we don't have any FANG's in the uk don't expect me to give you a soft ride.

alehul 8y ago

> Since you don’t know about tech, it’s going to be really hard for you to know how to hire someone who has the appropriate skills Ideally, if you have a network that will help you succeed as CEO (these are important and startups aren't fair, as Ben Horowitz has pointed out), then you can ensure you're getting a good co-founder and CTO through that network. > And taking on a co-founder not because they are someone you want to co-found a company with but because it’s the only way of getting a particular job done You most likely do need a CTO, but you also need to make sure it's someone you do want to co-found a company with. It sounds like these are being conflated. > CTO types expect both chunky equity and a decent salary Yes, as they need to live, you should both have a livable salary if you're working full-time. And yes, they should expect 50% equity. It doesn't matter if you raised the family-and-friends round (structure it as debt instead of equity), or if you had the idea. Startups will generally take 5+ years to an exit, and by that point, the amount of blood, sweat, and tears will make any beginning inequity in contribution look incredibly microscopic [0]. > Getting a CTO early on is expensive, and often you realise later that you’ve brought the wrong person on board. Again, I think the solution here is to bring on a co-founder and CTO from within your network, ideally someone you have worked with prior [1]. Altogether, I would argue that the answer here is that you most likely need a technical co-founder and CTO. The article is arguing that choosing some random individual as CTO is bad and unnecessary, and I'd agree, but that's aside the point that you need one; the caveat is that they have to be a good one. [0] https://blog.ycombinator.com/splitting-equity-among-founders/ https://blog.ycombinator.com/splitting-equity-among-founders... [1] https://medium.com/@curious_founder/paul-graham-and-drew-houston-on-how-to-find-a-co-founder-7d3fc268cd15 https://medium.com/@curious_founder/paul-graham-and-drew-hou...

pedalpete 8y ago

As a point, I think it is good to look at companies that operate without CTOs. A good example is Canva, which reached a $1b valuation last year. It was started by Mel and Cliff, who were non-technical and they brought on Cameron, who has some technical chops, but is a Product Manager (and now CPO). They started hiring technical talent, but didn't get a CTO. They still don't have a CTO, they have technical leaders and I believe someone who essentially acts as the CTO, but it isn't something they feel they need. And remember, this is a technical company that was founded by non-technical founders. At ayvri.com, we're a bit different, we have 4 tech people on the team (of 4) and I brought up the idea of having a CTO with the team, they all agreed that they wanted to maintain the flat structure that we have and felt the position unnecessary. Maybe the question that needs to be answered is, what companies do require a CTO position? When? Rather than assuming every company should have one.

tluyben2 8y ago

When there is tech, there is a de-facto CTO, does not really matter what title is used for the role. There might be some companies where the tasks are clearly divvied up between different people, but usually the gravity is in some one person. For me this sounds like an attempt to devalue work a de-facto CTO is doing without having to actually pony up money/equity for it. In other words; someone has the responsibility that belongs with the role CTO but she is 'just a capable dev' pushed into that role without getting the rewards that belong with it.