3 ms·

Despite the title, this guy does seem to assume he needs an experienced technologist as a cofounder. Can someone explain what the value a really experienced te

Despite the title, this guy does seem to assume he needs an experienced technologist as a cofounder. Can someone explain what the value a really experienced technologist adds is? (Additionally, can that value be provided by a first employee rather than a cofounder?) (Context: I'm a journeyman-level technologist, trying to figure out where the point of diminishing returns for becoming a better one is.)

biot 15y ago
It's possible to build a very slick-looking prototype that uses Microsoft Access as its datastore. While the Access UI is arguably easier for a businessperson to mock up databases with, it's unlikely to survive beyond a handful of simultaneous users. A competent tech founder will inherently understand issues of scalability, security, data structures, and so on. By applying this knowledge, you can iterate faster and not have to stop for a costly rewrite because the site was crushed by moderate traffic, leaks private data, was hacked, etc. Given that you're going to want to get the technology right before you launch, it's generally the role of a founder to tackle these issues. The title "founder" implies a certain level of equity participation beyond that of an employee, but it's all arbitrary anyways.
BrandonM 15y ago
> Can someone explain what the value a really experienced technologist adds is? (Additionally, can that value be provided by a first employee rather than a cofounder?) I'll take a shot at this. There is a large gap between "good enough to get the job done" and "stable, maintainable, and secure." It's important to get the kind of technical person who has a solid grasp of the proper way to develop software. A cofounder will care a lot more about building a lasting, maintainable business than random programmers will. Someone has to take pride in the codebase and take responsibility for auditing others' work as well, and it's hard for me to see a non-cofounder really caring enough. A technical cofounder will be much more invested in the enterprise when things get tough, and in a startup they will! Something will break, someone will attack the site, traffic will peak unexpectedly, and as a founder you will want to know that you have someone who is capable and willing to handle those issues when they come up. A contracted programmer certainly will not fix issues like that cheaply, and even an employee is likely to seek other options after a few such incidents. If you want to build a thriving, lasting company while minimizing difficulties, there is no substitute for a good technical cofounder. Edit: While writing my comment, biot explained my first point in a more concrete way.

biot 15y ago

It's possible to build a very slick-looking prototype that uses Microsoft Access as its datastore. While the Access UI is arguably easier for a businessperson to mock up databases with, it's unlikely to survive beyond a handful of simultaneous users. A competent tech founder will inherently understand issues of scalability, security, data structures, and so on. By applying this knowledge, you can iterate faster and not have to stop for a costly rewrite because the site was crushed by moderate traffic, leaks private data, was hacked, etc. Given that you're going to want to get the technology right before you launch, it's generally the role of a founder to tackle these issues. The title "founder" implies a certain level of equity participation beyond that of an employee, but it's all arbitrary anyways.

BrandonM 15y ago

> Can someone explain what the value a really experienced technologist adds is? (Additionally, can that value be provided by a first employee rather than a cofounder?) I'll take a shot at this. There is a large gap between "good enough to get the job done" and "stable, maintainable, and secure." It's important to get the kind of technical person who has a solid grasp of the proper way to develop software. A cofounder will care a lot more about building a lasting, maintainable business than random programmers will. Someone has to take pride in the codebase and take responsibility for auditing others' work as well, and it's hard for me to see a non-cofounder really caring enough. A technical cofounder will be much more invested in the enterprise when things get tough, and in a startup they will! Something will break, someone will attack the site, traffic will peak unexpectedly, and as a founder you will want to know that you have someone who is capable and willing to handle those issues when they come up. A contracted programmer certainly will not fix issues like that cheaply, and even an employee is likely to seek other options after a few such incidents. If you want to build a thriving, lasting company while minimizing difficulties, there is no substitute for a good technical cofounder. Edit: While writing my comment, biot explained my first point in a more concrete way.