Just a variation on the "single founders don't work" argument. Sure, it doesn't usually work, but it does with the right single founder, even if it's not that often. I don't see any new arguments here.
I've been a single founder twice and done just fine (by my standards), but investing in startups with two+ founders is definitely safer if you're the person putting the money on the table. If I had money, I would certainly be reluctant to invest in a single-founder startup, regardless of my own personal experience.
I don't understand why there's a need to take sides one way or another. It's all shades of grey, just like almost everything. No need to make it black or white.
This is a great point. Often people conflate the (probably) sensible VC preference for a two-person startup with the idea that two people are necessary for a successful startup. These are two totally different ideas, and only the former is really defensible (the latter having many counterexamples).
I don't understand why there's a need to take sides one way or another.
Well, if you're a single founder who wants to take funding at some point, you have a fairly direct incentive to prevent "single founder = failure" from becoming the received wisdom.
tl;dr version: you need a strong technical person and a strong marketing person. There's absolutely nothing new in this article - he's just applying fancy labels to something most people already take as true.
I also object to his usage of the word Hacker. His definition is all over the place:
A Hacker is more than a code monkey, who can quickly build software and find interesting ways to hack together code. Thats a developer. Thats someone who is definitely an important part of a startup, but not critical to its success. A Hacker is someone who looks the problem, and solves it in a unique and special way. A Hacker finds the process of problem solving exciting and interesting, and spends the majority of their time looking at the problem in multiple ways, finding many potential solutions.
Often the Hacker is a coder, but not always the best coder you have on your team. Nate and Natty, of Everlater, are decent coders at best. In the last couple of years, they have taught themselves, by trial and error, how to code. I would imagine if you asked either one of them if they considered themselves amazing developers, they would probably indicate otherwise. But as Hackers? They are amazing.
I have no idea what he's trying to say. His definition, summarized:
a) A hacker is not just a programmer.
b) Sometimes a hacker is a coder, sometimes he is not.
c) If he is a coder, he may not be the best coder in your team.
d) A hacker looks for creative and cool solutions to problems.
I think "hustler" captures the spirit of a skill set needed in an early stage startup much better than marketing/sales guy, in a similar way that "hacker" captures the spirit better than say "software engineer".
In an early stage startup, the goods that you are selling are of questionable value to the buyers (investors, early stage customers). You really need to hustle.
I think the summary is:
A Hacker is the girl/guy who gets shit done. They may not be top of their class at MIT - but in the early stages of a startup they can execute like crazy and get it all going.
Not being a coder, I would guess that my definition would be all over the place. :)
I guess the best way to describe a Hacker (as I define it) is a builder. Someone who finds unique ways to solve problems and then builds the solution. For example, I know someone who takes the output of the Wikipedia log file each night and parses it for data. Might not be overly complicated, but its an interesting solution to a problem.
In many ways, a Hacker is like porn. You know it when you see it.
A Hustler isnt really a builder - except that they tend to be decent product people who think in terms of "what can I get people passionate about." It becomes the great cycle of the Hacker (Builder) creating something that the Hustler can get people passionate about. Hustler gets people passionate, which leads to new problems and new things to build.
How many hackers have sold used cars or double glazing? How many MBAs have read SICP?
The whole argument is mooted by the statistical insignificance of the number of people who can legitimately describe themselves as both a hacker and a hustler.
The conclusion I'd draw about someone calling themselves "both a hacker and a hustler" would be to assume that he is probably neither, unless I see evidence to the contrary.
The silliest aspect of the article is to represent 'hacking' and 'hustling' as innate traits rather than skills to be learned. None of us were born able to code and none of us were born able to close a sale or work a room. People who understand the product are better able to market it, and people who understand the market are better able to design the product.
I actually do think that the Hacker and Hustler mentality are innate. Its like musicians, I can learn how to play the violin, but I will never be a real musician. I will never understand that the adjustment of my finger on the string by 1/32" will make all the difference in the world.
Real Hackers are just that. Problem solvers, tinkers, their brains are always focused on solutions to problems via code. I would imagine they see the world differently.
I consider myself a Hustler, mostly because I see the world as a set of connections, and to help out my startup all I need to do is connect the right things together.
Example: Apple had two primary founders; Steve Wozniak was a “hacker”, Steve Jobs was a “hustler.” Woz solved difficult technical problems and built cool systems, while Jobs was busy pitching the utopia of modern personal computing. Both were essential in creating the Apple we know today.
Thought this post was awesome ... I happen to be one of the people that says "I'm both" and often find this is a problem. Have you gone through a similar problem of trying to do both? What was the solution?
I tried it and I failed. I guess it has to do with switching costs. My mind can't be in 'builder' and 'seller' mode at once and every time I need to switch it takes time. One of the most valuable things of having a hustler is that he shields you from distractions. That is, if he is a good one!
I am certainly both. What I have found is working really well for me is to have a co-founder who is a 'developer work horse' who takes care of most of the real development and finishes off the products. This frees me up to solve the major technical problems and do the 'sales'. I would say we work about equal amounts, just doing different tasks.
Even though my tasks were the ones mentioned in this article, I know I would not be anywhere without my co-founder and I know I am not any more important to the company than she is.
I guess then it would by my quick and unthought-out opinion that start-ups need three components, problem solving, sales and a lot of work! And that the work is at least equal to the value of problem solving and sales put together.
Well, that's weird. I was emailing someone a couple months ago about the New York startup scene, and specifically mentioned that NYC has more "hustlers" per capita than SF.
You probably don't need hustlers, at least at first. They're leverage, and they seem to care more about immediate cash flow. (The ones I know of who got involved in startups either got involved late, were working with half a dozen startups at once, or worked with service-y or consulting companies that would pay a salary right away.)
I've been a single founder twice and done just fine (by my standards), but investing in startups with two+ founders is definitely safer if you're the person putting the money on the table. If I had money, I would certainly be reluctant to invest in a single-founder startup, regardless of my own personal experience.
I don't understand why there's a need to take sides one way or another. It's all shades of grey, just like almost everything. No need to make it black or white.