[nostrademons]

"For example, if a non-hacker can't find a hacker, he'll go hire one."

You can't build a successful tech business with a hired hacker. By choosing to hire, you'll only be able to attract programmers who are willing to work for the money you can pay them. The cream of the crop will pass you up in favor of startups that give them equity. Your first technical person sets a ceiling on the technical ability of your subsequent hires, because bad programmers are not able to recognize great ones.

If you're right and you do find a market niche that's extremely profitable, you'll invite competition. One of those competitors will inevitably have a top-notch hacker as a cofounder, and then you'll get eaten for lunch as their small, nimble team of elite hackers copies everything you do and then innovates way beyond it.

Many companies tried this approach in the dot-com boom, with predictable results. For example, Altavista/Lycos/Infoseek got eaten by Google, Value America by Amazon, Friendster and now MySpace by FaceBook.

[Leonidas]

"MySpace by FaceBook" -- that's kind of arguable because MySpace was acquired and I really don't know who's making more money than whom. What about Digg? As for Google eating those companies you listed up..heck Google eats everyone up.

Having a hacker as a co-founder is always better than hiring which I stated. The point is, having a team of just solely hackers is not always better than having a team of a non-hacker and hacker.