6 ms·

Very typical. I've run into cases where an "idea guy" basically says "you do all the product and tech half, I'll do marketing and strategy." Which is dumb, beca

by _bin_ 1y ago

Very typical. I've run into cases where an "idea guy" basically says "you do all the product and tech half, I'll do marketing and strategy." Which is dumb, because sometimes I'm legitimately better at the strategy half too. Generally these people want ridiculous equity splits of that nature. It's worth anyone technical's time to build skills in strategy, marketing, finance, etc. The technical co-founder always gets screwed and suffers from a general lack of respect. In my opinion, it's usually unwise to take positions where you're strictly the technical co-founder, or where you're marketed as the same.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> worth anyone technical's time to build skills in strategy, marketing, finance, etc. This leads to jack-of-all-trades types. Good non-technical folk exist. They’re just not easy to find for obvious reasons (same as good technical founders who can see the forest for the trees). A good technical founder dilutes their comparative advantage e.g. negotiating with suppliers and prioritising payments ahead of a close.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  It can, to be sure, and it's not ideal. But the perception that technical co-founders typically get gypped hard is very warranted. This is a thing where you can often still get a reasonably good result with a technical co-founder, not as good as were he solely focused on product/tech stuff, but enough that his individual outcome may be higher than letting the biz guys run it. Obviously good biz guys somewhat mitigate this but finding those is easier said than done.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > the perception that technical co-founders typically get gypped hard is very warranted I’d love to see the data. Most start-ups fail. For any given category of founder, there are therefore more stories of disasters than successes.
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      I don't think there are any good data on this, just my observations. Not everything has to be derived from data, though.
    - ianbutler 1y ago
      I mean YC literally has a video on how not to get screwed as a technical founder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfVjd_oV1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfVjd_oV1I
      - blackqueeriroh 1y ago
        Yes, but that’s also because it’s YC
- liquidpele 1y ago
  “Jack of all trades, master of none, is usually better than master of one”
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Sort of the dividing line between small business and a startup.
mountainriver 1y ago
It’s funny how many people think their ideas are truly brilliant and warrant a massive amount of respect. Anyone who’s worked as an engineer for awhile knows that ideas are a dime a dozen, they are rarely unique, and are about a millionth of what needs to be done to succeed
- randysalami 1y ago
  What is needed in your opinion? EDIT: I say this as an engineer who is putting his notice in tomorrow to found a startup EDIT EDIT: Thanks guy, this is along the lines I'm thinking. I'll be competing with companies like Asana, Monday.com, and ClickUp. I worked in a consulting environment for two years and these tools could never be adopted despite the org size growing to 1000+ people in my larger team. It was a big pain point and I think I've built a solution that will help big time.
  - edoceo 1y ago
    Demonstrate traction. The idea person should have at least an audience for the problem space. If not, they are Field of Dreams - build it and they will come. That doesn't work.
    - memhole 1y ago
      Solid advice. Too many people think build it and sell it. When if you did a few interviews and market research you’d realize it might be a flop.
    - epicureanideal 1y ago
      > Field of Dreams This movie probably caused double or triple digit millions of wasted investments by small business owners when it put the wrong idea in to their head.
  - PaulRobinson 1y ago
    Ability to execute. That normally means build, take to market, measure, adjust, repeat.
parpfish 1y ago
> Which is dumb, because sometimes I'm legitimately better at the strategy half too A semi-related thought I've had recently: I've run into a number of non-technical product people that say that they're primary skill is that they have a great "product sensibility" that engineers lack so they need to step in and provide guidance. It's true that many engineer-designed products are terrible, but I'd argue that most engineers have pretty good product sense. The problem is that engineers have a conflict of interest that leads to them making sub-optimal product decisions. A non-technical product person gets the "luxury" of only thinking "what is the best product for the user?", so they end up with a good design. But an engineer can't help but also factor in "i'm the one that has to build this, so how much extra work am i giving myself?" so they're design will be a compromise of what's good for the user and what can be built easily. this can have big consequences for how an org should divide work. If somebody has a broad set of responsibilities, they can't help but make tradeoffs (that they might not even be cognizant of) because they're weighing multiple objective functions. So, when it comes time for figuring out who should be in charge of strategy, it might not just be an issue of "who's better" but more an issue of "who has the least conflict of interest"
- cruffle_duffle 1y ago
  Conflict of interest is exactly how I term it as well. Tech people with good product sense have to work very hard to override their engineering instincts or they’ll handicap the product. I’m guilty of it all the time. What helps is remembering that absolutely nobody gives a shit about the code or the architecture. Nobody. It really doesn’t matter. They just want an awesome product. (Which isn’t to say none of that matters, because it does. We are engineers and know the consequences of shitty technical decisions… it’s just that you have to pull yourself out of that mode when thinking of what needs to be built)
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    > What helps is remembering that absolutely nobody gives a shit about the code or the architecture The programmer on call at wee hours in the morning gives a shit. Good news though, that programmer will not be a problem soon enough. You can hire your way out of this problem after they quit.
apercu 1y ago
I don't know that I understand this, typically I structure the shareholder agreement (when I can) to be such that I have clout because I own or control a significant percentage of the shares, not because of my "title".
akudha 1y ago
We don’t need to go that far. I am “just” a developer but I have been in meetings where developers like me had much better ideas and suggestions on product, strategy etc than the suits. I remember being urgently called into a meeting with a big client to explain how a part of our application worked and why it worked that way, when the product owner/designer could not. People often complain about developer salaries. I wonder how they can justify suits’ salaries

by _bin_ 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> worth anyone technical's time to build skills in strategy, marketing, finance, etc. This leads to jack-of-all-trades types. Good non-technical folk exist. They’re just not easy to find for obvious reasons (same as good technical founders who can see the forest for the trees). A good technical founder dilutes their comparative advantage e.g. negotiating with suppliers and prioritising payments ahead of a close.

_bin_ 1y ago
It can, to be sure, and it's not ideal. But the perception that technical co-founders typically get gypped hard is very warranted. This is a thing where you can often still get a reasonably good result with a technical co-founder, not as good as were he solely focused on product/tech stuff, but enough that his individual outcome may be higher than letting the biz guys run it. Obviously good biz guys somewhat mitigate this but finding those is easier said than done.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > the perception that technical co-founders typically get gypped hard is very warranted I’d love to see the data. Most start-ups fail. For any given category of founder, there are therefore more stories of disasters than successes.
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    I don't think there are any good data on this, just my observations. Not everything has to be derived from data, though.
  - ianbutler 1y ago
    I mean YC literally has a video on how not to get screwed as a technical founder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfVjd_oV1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfVjd_oV1I
    - blackqueeriroh 1y ago
      Yes, but that’s also because it’s YC
liquidpele 1y ago
“Jack of all trades, master of none, is usually better than master of one”
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Sort of the dividing line between small business and a startup.

mountainriver 1y ago

It’s funny how many people think their ideas are truly brilliant and warrant a massive amount of respect. Anyone who’s worked as an engineer for awhile knows that ideas are a dime a dozen, they are rarely unique, and are about a millionth of what needs to be done to succeed

randysalami 1y ago
What is needed in your opinion? EDIT: I say this as an engineer who is putting his notice in tomorrow to found a startup EDIT EDIT: Thanks guy, this is along the lines I'm thinking. I'll be competing with companies like Asana, Monday.com, and ClickUp. I worked in a consulting environment for two years and these tools could never be adopted despite the org size growing to 1000+ people in my larger team. It was a big pain point and I think I've built a solution that will help big time.
- edoceo 1y ago
  Demonstrate traction. The idea person should have at least an audience for the problem space. If not, they are Field of Dreams - build it and they will come. That doesn't work.
  - memhole 1y ago
    Solid advice. Too many people think build it and sell it. When if you did a few interviews and market research you’d realize it might be a flop.
  - epicureanideal 1y ago
    > Field of Dreams This movie probably caused double or triple digit millions of wasted investments by small business owners when it put the wrong idea in to their head.
- PaulRobinson 1y ago
  Ability to execute. That normally means build, take to market, measure, adjust, repeat.

parpfish 1y ago

> Which is dumb, because sometimes I'm legitimately better at the strategy half too A semi-related thought I've had recently: I've run into a number of non-technical product people that say that they're primary skill is that they have a great "product sensibility" that engineers lack so they need to step in and provide guidance. It's true that many engineer-designed products are terrible, but I'd argue that most engineers have pretty good product sense. The problem is that engineers have a conflict of interest that leads to them making sub-optimal product decisions. A non-technical product person gets the "luxury" of only thinking "what is the best product for the user?", so they end up with a good design. But an engineer can't help but also factor in "i'm the one that has to build this, so how much extra work am i giving myself?" so they're design will be a compromise of what's good for the user and what can be built easily. this can have big consequences for how an org should divide work. If somebody has a broad set of responsibilities, they can't help but make tradeoffs (that they might not even be cognizant of) because they're weighing multiple objective functions. So, when it comes time for figuring out who should be in charge of strategy, it might not just be an issue of "who's better" but more an issue of "who has the least conflict of interest"

cruffle_duffle 1y ago
Conflict of interest is exactly how I term it as well. Tech people with good product sense have to work very hard to override their engineering instincts or they’ll handicap the product. I’m guilty of it all the time. What helps is remembering that absolutely nobody gives a shit about the code or the architecture. Nobody. It really doesn’t matter. They just want an awesome product. (Which isn’t to say none of that matters, because it does. We are engineers and know the consequences of shitty technical decisions… it’s just that you have to pull yourself out of that mode when thinking of what needs to be built)
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  > What helps is remembering that absolutely nobody gives a shit about the code or the architecture The programmer on call at wee hours in the morning gives a shit. Good news though, that programmer will not be a problem soon enough. You can hire your way out of this problem after they quit.

apercu 1y ago

I don't know that I understand this, typically I structure the shareholder agreement (when I can) to be such that I have clout because I own or control a significant percentage of the shares, not because of my "title".

akudha 1y ago

We don’t need to go that far. I am “just” a developer but I have been in meetings where developers like me had much better ideas and suggestions on product, strategy etc than the suits. I remember being urgently called into a meeting with a big client to explain how a part of our application worked and why it worked that way, when the product owner/designer could not. People often complain about developer salaries. I wonder how they can justify suits’ salaries