[MrFlibble]

I agree. As a non-technical founder my main focus is on that initial capital raise to be adequately funded to build a solid team and pay them what they're worth.

You wouldn't ask a mechanic to rebuild your engine for equity in your car when you eventually sell it, neither should you expect coders to work for free.

[jessedhillon]

Your car will definitely be losing value in the future. A better analogy is that you might ask your friend the electrician to help you out with a house you're fixing up and getting ready to flip, with the promise that you would pay his bill after the sale. Plus maybe a bonus.

I think there's a lot of value involved in being able to convince people to contribute some level of effort for equity. If intelligent people see enough in your idea to jump in your boat, that might mean something about the value of your idea. The converse is also true: if you can't convince anyone to contribute anything of value to your effort in exchange for equity, maybe you don't have a compelling idea.

A real entrepreneur doesn't expect coders to work for free. He or she is that pitching a compelling vision that involves a coder adding value to something that the programmer co-owns, not simply giving away free time.

[potatolicious]

I see the word "idea" in your post a lot - and I think that's missing the point by a wide margin. The world is full of good ideas, the real shortage is people capable of making them happen.

Intelligent people avoid non-technical (or even technical, honestly) people who pitch their New Great Idea because 99% of the world has great ideas and zero ability to pull it off. What people are judging you on is not the quality of your idea, so much as your ability and skills to do it.

If you're failing to gain traction with the people you're trying to sign on, maybe your idea is sound, but people simply do not see you as bringing something valuable enough to the table to make it a success.

Whenever I get approached by a non-technical founder about their New Big Thing, my immediate question, bluntly, is: What do you bring to the table?

If you don't have a good, concrete, specific answer (instead of hand-wavy things like "I'm good at marketing"), do not be surprised when competent technical people roll their eyes and wander off.

[jessedhillon]

There's no disagreement on this point; you've changed the subject.

I was taking issue with your characterization that non-technical entrepreneurs are trying to get people to work for free. I think that's an unhelpful way to look at things.

People are not working for free at a startup, they're building equity and increasing the value of the overall enterprise. Except for the case where the original person is actually sleeping or playing golf all day, I don't see how you can seriously propose that some people are genuinely trying to pitch an opportunity where you are doing all the work (and presumably at some companies they've succeeded in getting the techies to do all the work?)

Considering your last statement, I think you need a better way to evaluate the work of people who don't do technical work for a living. What sort of concrete work would a marketer be doing before there's a product? I wouldn't want to work with someone who said they had already printed all the advertising for a product that hasn't even been designed!

[MrFlibble]

Well put.

Everyone thinks their idea is great. That and $2 gets you a cup of coffee.

In my own situation as a non-technical founder I have been in a technical holding pattern for exactly the reason you stated. I ask myself "What do I bring to the table"? The answer is that while lot is coming together, I feel that until those key pieces fall into place it would be inappropriate to ask someone who brings solid technical skills to the table to look at my project.

The question everyone, technical or non-technical, should ask themselves regarding any project is "What do I bring to the table?"

[greenyoda]

Working mostly for equity is a crapshoot -- most start-up companies will probably fail (look at the Internet Bubble, which seems to be repeating itself today as the Social Networking Bubble). So if I ever worked for one, I'd only settle for a market-rate salary, plus equity as a bonus for working ridiculous hours. If you're only going to offer equity, the kind of people who you'd be most likely to attract are (1) young, inexperienced people who have no financial obligations, (2) people who are independently wealthy, or (3) unemployed people who have nothing to lose.

As far as your example of hiring an electrician to work on a house you're going to flip: that may have worked well for a few years, but as recent events tell us, the last round of suckers in that game were left with big losses, and the people who worked for them probably never got paid. It doesn't look like a very promising business model.