I wanted to debate whether being partial to a specific group of people limits creativity, but it seems people would rather debate the importance of business guys so I too will give my input on business guys.
I would like to make an effort to reframe the word business guys. Currently when people use or hear that word they think MBA, consultant, Wallstreet, Investment Banker, VC, Money, and ego, all of which are destructive to a startup.
But someone who simply understands the basics of business can be very beneficial to programmers and startups.
A lot can be learned from a business guy who understands how to manage cash flow so that the inflows are greater than the outflows, who has an ability to be close to the customer, who understands sales and marketing so that when he communicates he talks about the benefits and not the features, someone who can speck publicly and inspire others.
This value is a lot less tangible than 40,000 lines of beautiful code but I can assure you it is just as important.
Hopefully I can speak better than I can spell [sorry for spelling your name wrong]. Looking back at my first submissions I am embarrassed at how insecure I sounded. I hope this does not get in the way of an interview if you like our idea.
I would like to debate Paul Gram's partiality towards hackers and whether or not this has a negative effect on creativity.
I will open the debate by arguing that being partial to a specific group of people, in this case hackers, does limit creativity. In Paul Gram's essay 'The 18 Mistakes That Kill Startups' he says
"when I think about what killed most of the startups in the e-commerce business back in the 90s, it was bad programmers. A lot of those companies were started by business guys who thought the way startups worked was that you had some clever idea and then hired programmers to implement it. That's actually much harder than it sounds--almost impossibly hard in fact--because business guys can't tell which are the good programmers. They don't even get a shot at the best ones, because no one really good wants a job implementing the vision of a business guy."
I don't understand why a really good programmer would not want to help implement the vision of a business guy.
The whole point of a startup is to improve people's lives. Paul Gram understands this; he even says the most important aspect of a startup is making something people want.
Well what if that business guy has a vision that will improve a lot of peoples lives? What if that business guy has an idea for something a lot of other business people would want? Why would a great programmer not want to work with the business guy?
My concern is that if hackers do not keep an open mind about working with others their creativity will be limited to their own interest, needs, and desires. If Hackers are only willing to implement their own visions they may be missing out on some wonderful opportunities to make something people want.
B) The problem is that just as business types are bad at evaluating hackers, hackers are bad at evaluating business types. No one wants to work with someone awful, and the best chance hackers have at avoiding that is to work with people they know how to judge--other hackers.
The issue is not that hackers hate working with business people, its that they hate working with people who are not good at what they do. Given this they use the only proficiency they have--programming--to evaluate people they'll be investing a year or five in.
When a friend of mine proposes a new programming project, I am often really excited about it and can't wait to get working on it; when someone who isn't a programmer proposes ideas its a lot less pleasant because they don't understand the constraints of programming.
When non-programmer Jimmy suggests an idea what it is that Jimmy thinks it would be cool if someone else made this idea into reality and let him profit on it. When a hacker suggests an idea they are saying "lets build this together." Who in their right mind would pick the former if they have a choice?
I'm a really good programmer. I want to implement my vision. I have several visions that I want to implement right now, as a matter of fact, and they're all vying for time with each other and with things like my day job and sleep.
If you want me to implement your vision, you can pay me (preferably more than my current employer does, with at least as much job security and at least a good quality of work-life balance), or you can convince me that your vision should be my vision, and is so much better than any of my visions that I need to start working on it at once.
"I don't understand why a really good programmer would not want to help implement the vision of a business guy."
Because the image that that sort of talk conjures is of me sitting around toiling trying to create something, and you leaning back in your plush chair saying "no no, it's got to do this too - no, wait, scratch that, let's change X, Y, and Z".
That's admittedly a caricature, and probably not very fair to you, but one of the reasons it's easier to be all hackers is that divying up work is made far easier. It's easy to see that everyone's pulling their weight.
I think there's a bug. I replied already to mention that the creators of auctomatic, zentix, and Sam Odio who works at Anybots are 100% business guys, but the post seems to have disappeared after dbosson deleted his original post.
even though the post you commented on was deleted.
I just added deletion. When something is deleted, it really goes away. This is different from marking something as dead. You can still see dead stuff if you set showdead to yes.
Deletion is for submitters who change their mind; marking stuff as dead is for editors to do to spams and offtopic submissions.
When he first deleted his original comment, it said (deleted) in its place, but my reply still showed up under it. I think that makes more sense than hiding all the children replies of a parent that is deleted.
There's been this stigma now that it's all about the hackers and that business guys are nothing but dead weight and really do not provide nor contribute anything to a given project. It's almost as if just because someone's forte is business, all other aspects of that person are soon ignored, despite how brilliant, creative, or motivated a person can be.
My entire life I have considered myself an extremely creative person and one who can understand, analyze, and improve upon existing technologies. In addition, taking care of the business/financial side of matters has also been a strong point of mine. So here I am, a soon to be college junior, and I am extremely serious about starting a startup. I firmly believe that I have great ideas, and would love to team up with a team of hackers to get something going. I would handle the business end, but I would be equally involved in development, being a powerhouse of ideas and creativity.
The problem is, every time I approach a hacker about starting a project and bring up the subject of my contributions to the business end and also me being a source of ideas and creativity, they are instantly turned away, and essentially treat me as someone who would be useless as far as the development of the product and one who is just trying to take advantage of their hacking skills so that I can make a few bucks.
I'm all for hackers; without them, you're really nowhere and can't get anywhere. But there are many others, beyond the realm of hackers, that have great ideas, possess creativity, and who can use his/her creativity to make something successful. Perhaps it's me being paranoid or jumping to uninformed assumptions, but I really do sense this stigma against anyone who is not a hacker, ESPECIALLY, against those who can help out on the business end. And at times, I look at myself and feel incredibly discouraged because of things that I have read and have heard essentially delivering the message that if you're not a hacker, you really cannot be successful in this world of tech startups.
However discouraged I may get, I'm out to prove this stigma wrong. :P
Well, I've been talking to a couple business people about various startup stuff.
One major thing I've noticed is that business people who don't have hacking experience do not have any experience to judge what's simple and what's hard. If you're in a startup mode where you're trying to leverage the least amount of work for the most profit, this is the kiss of death.
Hackers have heard "I can't hack, but I have this brilliant idea..." a million times, and hackers realize that the idea is easy and the execution is hard -- so by making that kind of a pitch, you're offering to the hacker the proposition that you're going to do 1% of the work and take 50% of the credit. That just isn't an attractive deal.
And I do not agree with your statement in the the fourth paragraph: "But there are many others, beyond the realm of hackers, that have great ideas, possess creativity, and who can use his/her creativity to make something successful." Creativity is not sufficient, or you wouldn't be upset that no hacker will listen to your pitch.
Honestly, if you want hackers to take you seriously, if you are as brilliant and motivated as you claim, learn to program.
'... this stigma now that it's all about the hackers and that business guys are nothing but dead weight ...'
In the tech startup world this is pretty close to the truth in small companies. In larger ones, where business types have places to hide from bully hackers, it's the other way around. The thing that comes to mind is if you can't understand technology it makes it harder to grasp the opportunities. It's hard enough as it is. I can think of only a few business MBA's who have created & run successful startup tech companies. (Donna Dubinsky, of Palm is one that comes to mind). There's a good article on "OnStartups, You Don't Need A World-Class Management Team" about why management aren't needed ~ http://tinyurl.com/35dmlz
But why concentrate on just startups? What about other examples of non-tech entrepreneurs that strike out? One that comes to mind is Shawn Nelson of LoveSac fame who saw the combination of retro 70's spirit + emerging Chinese manufacturing and a gap in the furniture market and a new company was born. ~ http://www.lovesac.com/lovesac/history.php
The irony of 'outsourcing management' in startups is not lost on me.
"every time I approach a hacker about starting a project and bring up the subject of my contributions to the business end and also me being a source of ideas and creativity, they are instantly turned away, and essentially treat me as someone who would be useless as far as the development of the product..."
It depends on what kind of impression you make. Frankly I am a bit tired of creative people who can't get things done. I am not implying you are one of them, just giving you a reason why techies may be discouraged.
In regards to staunch's comment I feel A Hacker would implement someone else's ideas if they felt enough people would want the idea to be implemented.
I would like to thank [willarson] I found his comment to be insightful and will take to heart what he has said about a non-programmer not understanding the capacity of programming.
It sounds like hackers are not completely shut down to working with a non-technical person as long as that person can add his fair share of value.
I am now going to throw a kicker into the business / hacker relationship. What if a business guy has a vision that both he and the hacker agree has a chance to improve peoples lives. And on top of this vision he has the money to fund it. What is the hacker's response? And how should the equity be divided?
No, a hacker would implement someone else's ideas if the ideas were interesting to implement and possible.
If a business guy has a vision that he shares with the hacker, the hacker will want to build it, though the hacker may want to build other things more and thus decline the partnership. The equity should be divided according to what each brings to the relationship; if all the business guy brings is the vision, he ought to be paid a flat fee for it, probably no more than $50, and thanked kindly. If he brings funding, it depends on how badly he needs the hacker.
If you're funding it, then you can simply hire someone. Of course, at that point, you might have yourself a bit of a principal-agent problem, so giving them some equity is likely to be a good idea. You're still going to have some issues with the fact that an employee is going to follow orders more than a co-founder, which has some negatives associated with it (sometimes, it's good to say "no, that's dumb!", and that's harder to do as an employee).
But... life's tough - everyone has obstacles of one kind or another, so why not just wade in and get started?
