"... Can software start-ups succeed with non-programmer founder(s)? ..."
Well lots of startups succeed already with non-dev founders. But they also most likely have hackers on the founder team. Could a software startup be successful with all founders not being programmers, hackers or without the ability to write code? I imagine not many.
I can't think of any startups without a single programmer/hacker founder, anyone else?
I'm not sure whether the effectiveness of the federal contracting model can be accurately compared against a start-up, but here goes.
My paying job is that of a systems engineer and it is my responsibility to keep track of meeting customer needs against cost and schedule. This being said, part of my work is to correctly capture customer needs and then make sure that the development and environment teams are able to architect and design according to specs. From a business standpoint, this dual team environment is effective in that the company for whom I work continues to win contracts because the customer's needs are met.
I think the arrangement where the founders are not currently developers would be equally effective as a team of developers as long as they are able to accurately capture and understand their customer's needs prior to the start of coding.
"... I think the arrangement where the founders are not currently developers would be equally effective as a team of developers as long as they are able to accurately capture and understand their customer's needs prior to the start of coding. ..."
I wish all or some customer needs could be fixed at the start of coding but it's not likely to happen. For a start, exactly "who is a startups customers?" You can ask them, but you need a demo first. If you build new products (stuff that by definition has not been built before) a constant dialog with users is required 'at' the time of coding and development not before.
There is one other problem I can think of. Sometimes the customer is not in the position to know what is possible. So it's up to the developer(s) to build something not specified directly by customers. Zenter is an example. In a talk with Crosby & Walker (http://www.grid7.com/podpress_trac/feed/178/0/vCast070807_Ze... Podcast #24 - Founders of Zenter, 46Mb ) it becomes apparent that in developing Zenter it was not merely just a copy of MS Powerpoint. It required knowledge of what existing users require. Then extend it to the Web. Exploiting the Webs unique properties.
The gap of knowing what customers need (upfront or close to upfront) and taking a guess where users need now and in the future is what makes startups "late binding" in needs requirements.
I don't know of any examples of successful startups who didn't have at least one hacker founder, though I hope that changes in the near future.
Neither my partner nor I are programmers--we're both researchers/designers (certainly not managers!). We're both willing to bootstrap an initial prototype--and maybe even up through the first phase. We'd like to take on a tech lead partner, though still wouldn't expect him to do all of the programming--would want someone to contribute financially and serve as a Tech Lead.
If there's anything I've learned in all my startup research, it's that if people tell you something can't be done, it probably can.
As far as VCs finding other programmers to do your project: VC's are in the investment business, they aren't entrepreneurs themselves. Otherwise, they'd just be taking all the ideas and implementing them themselves: why share ownership with anyone when you can pay programmers to build it for you?
Ultimately, I realize that I did not answer your question, but I say go for it. What have you got to lose?
I agree with everyone who've said that at least one founder needs to be a programmer/developer.
The initial technical assessment on the feasibility of an idea or feature is within the domain of a programmer/developer, but I think it would require a non-developer to help do the cost/benefit trade-off. The reason for this is I've worked with so many developers who are excited by a technical solution, when the cost of it is prohibitive. It may have been the "best" solution, but it would have been very costly.
I intend to submit my startup idea as part of the YC winter funding event, even though I do not have a developer on-board yet. It's been hard finding a developer who is able to take the plunge and sacrifice the security of a cubicle farm. I have advisors/friends who are developers, but they don't want to take the risk, despite agreeing with the idea.
Thank you to everyone who have shared their thoughts.
I would say no because the founders would be managers who would have to direct things. The programmers they hire probably will not be 100% behind the project.
Non-programmer founders for a software startup can be seen as middlemen. Why should VCs pay a middleman when they can find any old programmer themselves to implement the idea?
Because not everything that you do in a software business is coding. Would you rather spend all your energy on coding and getting that thing to work or would you rather code a few hours and then try to sell your product and do team management for the rest of the time?
VCs won't go around looking for programmers to hire to implement their 'great' idea! Have you ever heard of a VC that said no to giving money to a company and then went and looked for a team to implement that idea? I'd also argue that they like it better if there is a business person in the team.
I agree with you, but I think you can curve the difficulty level a bit if a non-hacker founder will devote some of his time to learn how to hack himself. Then he can have the choice of choosing the technologies he wants for his startup.
I don't know if all founders must be hackers, I've knew a few hackers with a lot of experience in programing but with no idea of web design.
I really think Usability and Design matters.
Also a startup needs to be changing fast in code and design, so maybe you need both of them.
I guess so, what I really want to say is that at least the founder in question should at least give some effort to try to understand what we the hackers know so that they can have some sort of common point to agree || disagree on. :-)
Constant Contact and Intuit are examples that come to mind. Intuit is debatable since the programmer was the first hire and was working partly for equity. For both companies, the founder came out of Bain Consulting. MySpace might be another example - I don't think their founders were really technical.
I'm not sure what you mean by a software business, but I am not a programmer and I'm starting an Internet company. We are definitely software based and web 2.0.
There is no way that I could start this business without a programmer on board, but if this company was started solely by hackers it would not be nearly as good.
"but if this company was started solely by hackers it would not be nearly as good"
Interesting bit of prejudice here. What makes a hacker less capable of doing whatever it is that non-hackers do? Is it the thick held-together-with-tape glasses? Maybe the caffeine addiction addled brain?
The neat thing about an all-hacker startup is that hackers can choose NOT to hack part or all of their time when the job calls for it. A non-hacker doesn't have the ability to shift gears during the early days of the product to just work on shipping the damned thing.
I'm a hacker, and have code running on millions of machines world-wide in numerous Open Source projects, but in our startup today, I predominantly do not hack. I still spend about 25% of my time hacking, but it's becoming less every month, as other aspects of the company become more pressing (marketing/evangelism, money management, support, hiring contractors, design, etc.). I happen to have a lot of business experience, as well, and I don't think that J Random Hacker would step right into this kind of position without some study and work, but to imagine that being an all-hacker company would lead to it being "not nearly as good" is funny. Hackers are people, generally smarter than average. Many happen to have other skills and experience outside of hacking.
I'm just picking on you, of course. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that there are magical skills that disappear when one becomes a hacker, or that the hacker mentality is a form of retardation that dramatically negatively impacts other skills.
SwellJoe - To give the argument a different twist, it's hard for most people to hold different perspectives beyond their best core ability. For many hackers, they're so engrossed in it, and for good reason. As you say, they are smarter than average, and programming affords them the opportunity to execute their ideas easily. Once you get so good at anything, including hacking or, more specifically, software development, it becomes hard to think about usability, design, business development, etc. Then, there arises a need for systems thinking or other thinkers with different areas of expertise. Would you agree?
<Once you get so good at anything, including hacking or, more specifically, software development, it becomes hard to think about usability, design, business development, etc.>
Wow, I really disagree. While some programmers aren't especially good at those things, I don't think that there's any reason a top hacker couldn't be good at them. Actually, a good hackers have such a drive to create that they are forced to deal wth design and usability. They may not like business development, but if the drive is there, they'll do it.
I will admit to having poor aesthetic ability, though. I do need a designer to make my interfaces look good. But that's quite different from fundamental issues in usability and design.
Don't take it just in the context of a hacker/programmer. Think about all those other professions/occupations/specializations. We tend to zoom in one specific aspect of accomplishing something. I'm simply hypothesizing that comes at the expense of seeing the big picture. The best of us are those that see it from multiple angles and gain multiple specializations. Then again, they become "jack of all trades, master of none". That's another discussion. Is that useful?
I would agree. To some degree. There are certainly hackers whose grasp and love of their subject is so deep that seeing the non-expert perspective is difficult. But usability can be learned and taught, and non-hackers (who don't have usability experience and/or training) are even more likely to design a stupid interface. Have you ever built an application to non-technical user specs? Without care, it'll turn out like the Homer (see: http://images.google.com/images?q=%22the+homer%22&ie=utf... ). If you're a hacker who only wants to think about hacking, then sure...you're not cut out for building the whole product and business, and you'll need some help. But hackers are not precluded from loving any of these subjects enough to take them seriously. I'm spending more time on design than ever before, and actually getting pretty good at it.
Paul Buchheit (AKA paul here at news.yc, AKA GMail creator, AKA "Don't be evil") is positive proof that one can be both a good developer and a good usability guy...first time I met him at YC, I thought, "Hmm, seems nice enough. Pretty smart fellow. But I'm surrounded by folks who are smart and likable, and they're also really driven. What is it about him that helps him build GMail while the rest of us haven't done anything nearly so big?" A few weeks later we were chatting about usability, and he described his interaction with a Bittorrent client...and it all became clear. He's happy to drop the smart on the floor and be a really dumb user who just wants to get something done--the kind that doesn't read documentation and doesn't care one whit about how things are done behind the scenes. It was eye-opening. A few weeks after that at Startup School, Max Levchin described the exact same process (a bit more concretely and perhaps offensively by releasing his inner 13 year old girl). Nonetheless, it's something that everyone building software for users ought to be a thinking about all the time. But again, hackers can think that way two.
pg harps on the same stuff, too. Whether intentionally, or not, his attention span is about that of a four year old, so when he looks over your shoulder and gives an opinion, it is nearly always one of "I don't understand what's happening there", unless you've done everything right...and that's exactly the sort of opinion you need. Your software is never going to be someones sole purpose in life, and you can't expect their undivided attention. They're talking on the phone, eating lunch at their desk, worrying about remembering to pickup the dry cleaning, and trying to figure out where they put that really important email. Some of them will also be really stupid, on top of all of those problems.
Well lots of startups succeed already with non-dev founders. But they also most likely have hackers on the founder team. Could a software startup be successful with all founders not being programmers, hackers or without the ability to write code? I imagine not many.
I can't think of any startups without a single programmer/hacker founder, anyone else?