The only thing that made me chuckle is the ironic response from HN, that even after reading this hyperbolic parody and not getting it, members still have to validate their ideas of technical > business founders. The motive is so strong it borders on insecurity, I really wonder for those who have replied; which have the real world experience and credibility to suggest so?

Here's the truth: it doesn't matter as much as you think. Its like asking, "which martial arts style is better, Brazilian Jiu-jitsu or Muay Thai?". Its an amateur question, childish almost, because you need to know both and should seek to learn every martial art to be a well rounded martial artist. Being open to new ideas means letting go of your ego, a tough thing for anyone, let alone MEN in BUSINESS and ENGINEERING.

So as a business person whose learning to be technical, all I can say is that it is not black and white, we are not either team business or team technical. We are all artists, who simply paint the canvas differently.

I wrote this post. It is, hopefully, clearly satire. Furthermore ironic due to the fact that I have been, in fact, a technical cofounder. I'm just tired of the overwhelming sentiment on HN that programmers are a business' gift from god, and that all you need to do as a nontechnical cofounder is go read a book. If it was that easy we'd have facebook for cats six times over.

Look, there are plenty of good business people out there who don't have the time to create a 14,000 follower blog before they have a product, much like most hackers don't have the time to create full, working products before they have any customers. It's absurd to hold one half of the company to such stringent standards while allowing the other, as a comment so clearly put, to 'code it out of thin air'.

I'm tired of the 'Business people should learn how to code' mentality. It's not about technical vs nontechnical. It's about learning to have, and use, both.

The post was obviously satire, and I personally thought it well-written and hilarious. Fundamentally, a technical startup needs to eventually master business and engineering. The "which comes first" and "which is more important" are strawman arguments where specifics matter much more than generalizations.

I am reminded of some line from Paul Graham. He was talking about literature and physics professors, but it fits just as well here. Imagine this thought experiment: technical and non-technical founders were asked to switch roles and do what the other person did. The business guy will write the code, and the technical guy will figure out how to make people pay for it. The one who fails will be shot. Whom would you rather be?

This:

As a nontechnical founder, I get approached to do a startup by code jocks every few days. "I have this great codebase for a project I've been working on, but I just need you to create a functional business model, marketing plan, and acquire 14,000 customers for me. I'll even offer you a generous 15% of the company, because that's the easy part". Punks.

Is a parody of this:

As a non-business oriented founder, I get approached to do a startup by MBA jocks every few days. "I have this great idea for a project I've been working on, but I just need you to create a functional design and prototype that can handle 14,000 customers per second. I'll even offer you a generous 15% of the company, because that's the easy part". Punks.

I think the message here is that both extremes are non constructive and that you need a balance between business skills and hacking skills.

It is necessary to concentrate on what you do best and get expert help for the rest. MBAs happen to be experts on something (what ever that may be). That is why they can be useful. That is why you may have jobs for them.

These business guys are the first to reject funding for your startup, if you DO try to learn everything yourself and not get external knowledge into your company. Well, this makes the post a bit pointless, indeed.

Learning programming is ultimately a matter of studying hard. It can be mastered through books, Google and relentless solitary experimentation.

Making people pay for something is a fickle social art. Who wants to get shot for failing at something so intangible?

So, I wouldn't say that the odds of success are better going from business to programming -- unless you want to run the risk of writing code that may not meet your demands, or you already know how to code and want to start in business (in which case the situation is circular). I have seen business people fail miserably at programming. I would say that the odds are the same, going either way. It takes the right kind of person to program (not just code), and the right kind of person to operate a business. It takes both of these to get both.

Because it is a (bad) habit to hugely overpay these guys.

There are legitimate arguments why a good business cofounder can be invaluable. This article completely fails to make any of them.

  "Just learn to code yourself, and don't ask precious me for my time."

I'm completely aware of that. It's just that I don't read HN for sarcastic retorts, I read HN for interesting viewpoints.

Further, it's a sarcastic retort to an article (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1820495) that doesn't require one; the original blog post is by someone who comes from a non-technical background but taught himself enough to be useful technically, and the top ranked comment contains excellent advice on how to attract technical co-founders.

"Just learn to code yourself, and don't ask precious me for my time."

The people who receive this response generally aren't offering much. They don't talk about their success in selling stuff in the past[1], or the money they've raised previously, or the beta customers they've lined up. If you're going to pitch yourself as a non-technical founder, you need to talk about your relevant strengths. A good idea by itself just doesn't cut it.

And finally, advice to "do it yourself if you can't find anyone else" is sound. If you can't find someone to take care of the business side, learn to sell, learn to figure out how much you need to spend to get a customer and so on. If you can't find someone technical, learn to code a bit. Just making the attempt shows others that you're not the kind of person to let obstacles stand in your way.

[1] And frankly, if their pitch for a cofounder is this bad it bodes poorly for them selling product later on.

I can tell you from personal experience how awesome it is when you get a business guy who works his ass off selling and handling contracts etc (I'm in b2b). Not only does it bring in many more sales, but it makes you more productive so you can concentrate on the task at hand - no context switching involved.

Now all someone has to do is solve the problem: how do you find competent business guys or programmers. Both are hard to come by, and are mysterious to the other group.

Much of "business" probably is largely mechanical. But what your non-technical founder brings is the knowledge of what to build.

Does she? Where does that knowledge come from? Why is it necessarily true that technical folks don't have it and that non-technical folks do?

Yes, there are non-technical folks who know more about selling houses than I do, but that's a long way from the above claim.

You're mixing up "able to sell" and "knowing what to build".

Knowing what to build does not require lots of contacts or knowing how to sell. While "can articulate" is required to sell, it isn't required to build.

However, knowing what to build does require knowing what can be built.

In short, "knowing what to build" is well-within the domain of technical people.

Getting "it" sold isn't.

As an example, a few years ago I was advising a company who wanted to automate the calculation of tax. You would have thought that this was easy, but in fact it's the most complex thing ever and you need that non-technical specialist domain knowledge. (You know you're in for a fun ride when you ask a question and the answer is "we're not sure, but we've booked flights to Italy to go and ask the authorities there".)

I think I have missed out a load of qualifiers in my previous comments. Here they are:

* The skills required for a startup will probably be spread out over many people.

* There's no hard and fast rule about which skills anyone will have.

* Technical people might be good at sales.

* "Non-technical" people might not be good at sales.

* "Knowing what to build" and "able to sell" are skills which may or may not be found in the same person.

* Knowing what to build might be a skill of any of your founders have, depending on their experience in the market.

There's probably a few more. I suppose this is the trouble with trying to write concise generally true comments, you forget to cover all the edge cases.

Who said anything about software?

> As an example, a few years ago I was advising a company who wanted to automate the calculation of tax. You would have thought that this was easy,

No, I wouldn't, because I know a little about taxes. A technical tax person would know even more and understand a lot of the complexity.

> but in fact it's the most complex thing ever and you need that non-technical specialist domain knowledge.

Why do you persist in saying that domain knowledge is necessarily non-technical and that technical people can't have it?

Both are wrong.

Woz was working on the Apple II. Jobs saw a clever Intel ad. He called Intel marketing and found that Regis McKenna created the ad. After relentlessly calling the agency for weeks, Jobs finally wore down the secretary, and got a meeting with Mr. McKenna, and against all odds, persuaded him to take on Apple as a client. At the time, Apple had no outside investors yet. McKenna introduced Jobs to Don Valentine, who sat on the board of the marketing agency. Valentine said he'd invest if Apple brought on board a more experienced marketing guy. Jobs then relentlessly called Valentine for recommendations (there is a pattern here), who finally relented, and suggested Mike Markkula, who joined Apple and became one of the early investors.

That I'd consider a worthy non-tech founder. but then again, the traits that Jobs exhibited had nothing to do with MBA. I am not even sure there is anything distinctively 'business' about it. It's more just what PG called determinedness.

I remembered one post here that stated that the best return if you partner one 'business guy' is if that guy has things like contacts, a customer list, etc.

It looks to me that a lot of thechnical people get this really well. We have constantly some examples here on HN.

I know it's not easy stuff, but I think it's not that hard either and I see that in a lot of startups the founders just figure it out as they go. I share pg's belief that MBA founders are overvalued.

Apart from the fact that unknown author of this piece said he is MBA?

Author of this post is almost surely techie but probably bit tired of people totally downplaying business side.

I'm a technical guy with +10 year background but I also have interest in the rest of areas of a company. Unfortunately I lack any business skills and I'm afraid of failing in basic things if I'm starting my own business.

I don't like at all MBA's with non-technical skills like the one who wrote the post. They tend to be very arrogant and do not seem to care much about the technical aspects, which are indeed crucial for many of the companies discussed here in HN. It's for this reason that I'm pursuing an MBA myself, I think tech+business makes a good tandem. I'll let you know when I finish in two years.

This is by and far the worst idea Ive ever heard. Persuing an MBA is NOT learning about business. It's the purchase of proof pretending to know what a real entrepreneur understands through years of experience.

Arrogance is rampant in HN on both sides of the frontline between techs and nontechs. Coders think they're the real driving force behind the company and the biz guy thinks his sales are the only reason you're afloat.

If you want REAL business experience, I have single piece of advice.

Go f-bomb-ing do a shitty sales job. I learned everything I know today through sales. I've sold everything from professional tax accounting services to the tapioca (bubbles) you're probably sucking on in your bubble tea while reading this reply.

Note, read guy kawasakis take on his MBA as well as any other successful businessman with an MBA.

Sorry for the harsh commentary but I truly feel strongly about the MBA being a POS. I hope this advice finds you well.

Yes it does take a long time to become a good business guy, but that's because it relies on spending so much time networking and building the kind of relationships that let you do interesting things.

MBAs are often a poor choice of business guy for a startup because the degree means they could be earning lots more in a "normal" job, but brings relatively few startup benefits.

I think a lot of these smaller startups would be better off with a hustler who's young and lacking an MBA.