5 ms·

To be honest I might consider some sort of profit/equity split with somebody who had a really good idea (and had done the research to prove it). Sometimes betw

by jiggy2011 14y ago

To be honest I might consider some sort of profit/equity split with somebody who had a really good idea (and had done the research to prove it). Sometimes between reading stuff like HN and working on code all day I feel like I'm a bit too close to everything to really evaluate ideas rationally. Every time I've had I can usually think of 100 reasons to shoot it down and make it seem like more effort than it's worth. The problem I guess is that most of these ideas aren't really that good because the person thinking of them hasn't really considered the effort and cost involved. Reminds me of being back in school where a handful of us had learned very basic BASIC programming. Naturally we decided "shit, let's make an awesome game and be rich!". Of course such a project attracted entire legions of hangers on who wanted to be "game designers" or "level designers". Nobody thought that making a few shareware text-adventures or sprite based games would be cool, everybody came with ideas about how to make the next Doom or Sonic except even more ambitious.

TomGullen 14y ago
> To be honest I might consider some sort of profit/equity split with somebody who had a really good idea (and had done the research to prove it). Why wouldn't you just take the idea and execute it yourself with 100% equity? The guy with the idea needs to bring something else to the table, whether it's a particular skill set or something crucial to the deployment of said idea such as a patent.
- mbesto 14y ago
  Good point. Just to addd to this - I find most "hacker" types don't realize how much work goes into building a business. Execution is much more than just product build (but can, or cannot be a large part of it).
  - clavalle 14y ago
    I find a lot of "idea" types don't realize how much work goes into building a business. In their mind, they are already running a successful business where they just come up with ideas and delegate anything that resembles work. And everything everyone else does is "easy".
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  1. Because that research has value, so it would be unethical. 2. It takes more than code to make a business. 3. A partnership will be more fun and less likely to suffer from technology myopia.
  - TomGullen 14y ago
    Some of those points are valid (#1 especially). But when you run a business it's important that all parties are happy and feel like they have a fair deal. You need to ask yourself that 6 months down the line, when the other person really isn't contributing much because they can't, and you're working long days sweating, working hard and putting a career on hold, and you've got 50% equity, are you going to be happy? It's not going to be a sustainable relationship for very long and has a good chance of being doomed to fail before you've written any code.
    - Domenic_S 14y ago
      Hence, > 2. It takes more than code to make a business. Like culture, marketing, market validation, generating press buzz, interviews, recruiting, and so forth. If the idea guy can't do a lot of those business-y things, you don't have a business so the 6-month question is premature.
      - TomGullen 14y ago
        I don't think it's premature, a lot of people will want a product (MVP) before they go ahead and formalise the entire thing. You're going to be the guy doing all the work in that department. Up until the MVP is developed there's really not much else to do. Pretty much everything you listed is most effectively after you actually have a product.
        Domenic_S 14y ago
        Wouldn't you want to see that the idea guy had done his legwork before even thinking about MVP? I sure would. The lines-of-code to hours-talking-to-people ratio in the early weeks would be something crazy like 1:400.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  To an extent though couldn't that also be an argument against an investor buying equity in a startup rather than picking up a bunch of contract programmers and building the idea themselves?
  - TomGullen 14y ago
    Yes it is, which is why being skilled at what you do, establishing a brand, getting traction are all key ingredients in raising the barrier to entry for investors.

TomGullen 14y ago

> To be honest I might consider some sort of profit/equity split with somebody who had a really good idea (and had done the research to prove it). Why wouldn't you just take the idea and execute it yourself with 100% equity? The guy with the idea needs to bring something else to the table, whether it's a particular skill set or something crucial to the deployment of said idea such as a patent.

mbesto 14y ago
Good point. Just to addd to this - I find most "hacker" types don't realize how much work goes into building a business. Execution is much more than just product build (but can, or cannot be a large part of it).
- clavalle 14y ago
  I find a lot of "idea" types don't realize how much work goes into building a business. In their mind, they are already running a successful business where they just come up with ideas and delegate anything that resembles work. And everything everyone else does is "easy".
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
1. Because that research has value, so it would be unethical. 2. It takes more than code to make a business. 3. A partnership will be more fun and less likely to suffer from technology myopia.
- TomGullen 14y ago
  Some of those points are valid (#1 especially). But when you run a business it's important that all parties are happy and feel like they have a fair deal. You need to ask yourself that 6 months down the line, when the other person really isn't contributing much because they can't, and you're working long days sweating, working hard and putting a career on hold, and you've got 50% equity, are you going to be happy? It's not going to be a sustainable relationship for very long and has a good chance of being doomed to fail before you've written any code.
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    Hence, > 2. It takes more than code to make a business. Like culture, marketing, market validation, generating press buzz, interviews, recruiting, and so forth. If the idea guy can't do a lot of those business-y things, you don't have a business so the 6-month question is premature.
    - TomGullen 14y ago
      I don't think it's premature, a lot of people will want a product (MVP) before they go ahead and formalise the entire thing. You're going to be the guy doing all the work in that department. Up until the MVP is developed there's really not much else to do. Pretty much everything you listed is most effectively after you actually have a product.
      - Domenic_S 14y ago
        Wouldn't you want to see that the idea guy had done his legwork before even thinking about MVP? I sure would. The lines-of-code to hours-talking-to-people ratio in the early weeks would be something crazy like 1:400.
jiggy2011 14y ago
To an extent though couldn't that also be an argument against an investor buying equity in a startup rather than picking up a bunch of contract programmers and building the idea themselves?
- TomGullen 14y ago
  Yes it is, which is why being skilled at what you do, establishing a brand, getting traction are all key ingredients in raising the barrier to entry for investors.