[jason_tko]

"Your are easily replaceable

Only thing you have is your network. As a “business guy” in startup I expect you to have Barack Obama as 2. level LinkedIn connection and Zuckys number on speed dial. Well, anyway much wider network than I have. If you don’t – I probably don’t need you."

This comment belies a stunning lack of understanding and respect for what actually goes into the business side of typical tech startups - the sales, marketing, user acquisition, hiring/team building, negotiations and every other thing that business co-founders actually do.

A very irritating blight on an article that otherwise had some good points.

[zorbo]

So far, all the people who've approached me for startups have been "idea people". Those are the ones who think they'll get rich quick with a iPhone/iPad application/whatever, they just need someone to build it for them. Every single one of them, when asked what their contribution was going to be, gave me a blank stare. And naturally, they want you to do it for free ("You'll get a share of the profits!") while they're off chasing their next idea.

The few truly interesting, reliable startup idea's I've seen are from real businessmen. Men with the network, contacts, funding, good ideas and commitment. Those kind of businessmen, the kind you are talking about if I understand correctly, are indispensable in a startup. Unfortunately, they seem to be somewhat more rare than the "idea people".

[jason_tko]

Right. And I'm saying that there's no better way to chase away the "real businessmen, men with the network, contacts, funding, good ideas and commitment", than by saying, "you are easily replaceable", and if I don't judge your network of people to be valuable then "I probably don’t need you".

For anyone with the experience of working 20 hour days on the business side of a tech startup, this kind of statement is somewhat infuriating.

[mgkimsal]

It's infuriating on both sides, and I see where you're coming from with your comments here. I presume the OP wouldn't ever say "you're replaceable" to someone who actually has (and demonstrates) a network of any sort - it's the people who have no network whatsoever, but are seemingly unaware that that's important, and instead want to focus on 'an app!', that are the real red flags.

Likewise, yes, many developers are also replaceable, though few like to think they are.

[adrianhoward]

I presume the OP wouldn't ever say "you're replaceable" to someone who actually has (and demonstrates) a network of any sort

I think that the problem is the idea that "a network" is the only value that a business guy provides to a company...

[mgkimsal]

True, if that's the only value someone presumes the other party is bringing, that's a problem. OTOH, I think people undervalue the value of a tech/dev's network - including developers themselves.

[po]

As Jason's technical co-founder, I can say that a large factor in why I personally decided to start a project with him was because his skills were complementary (read: opposite) from mine. It is easy to overlook all of the non-programming work that goes into building a business.

Could I have built a system that checked off all of the features of ours without him? Sure. But it would have sat there unused because it wouldn't have been informed by his experience and opinions, the customers and feedback he's brought in, the partnerships he's formed, etc…

The days of 'if you build it, they will come' are over and there is a huge amount of work to be done for non-programmers. I think this is actually becoming more true over time… especially in the early days of a startup. You dont even really need a programmer to build an MVP anymore.

I've met plenty of the people the original article is complaining about, and there is the caveat that there are exceptions to the rule, but there are plenty of naive, wanna-be developers as well. Non-technical founders live on a spectrum of capability just like developers. You should think long and hard about what will make you say 'yes I will be your technical cofounder' and more importantly: 'I need to do X to convince a biz-dev guy whom I respect to work with me.'

[jason_tko]

Cheers Paul, nice of you to say :)

I remember reading somewhere on HN once that if you can get a business co-founder who enables you to spend almost all of your time focusing on development, that's extremely rare. As you pointed out, there is a metric ton of non-coding work that goes into establishing any kind of viable business.

Back to the article, what really ruffled my feathers about the article was how it applied a set of awful behaviours and mindsets uniformly to all business co-founders.

Whats most concerning, is if you adapt those mindsets in talking with potential partners/co-founders, you will simply confuse the naive ones, and drive away all the good ones - including the person that would have made a perfect partner for you.

[untog]

I think there's confusion between "business" guys and "ideas" guys, because the latter often make themselves out to be the former. Ideas guys are replaceable. Good business guys are not.

[brackin]

Totally agree, there's a difference between the 'idea' people that add no value and the experienced guys that do everything you're talking about. No businesses aren't as easy as release a product and profit, even if they do have early traction because of the product, it doesn't mean they'll be able to make any money from it. Not if you want to build a medium - large sized company or one that doesn't sell after a few months. He had some good points but has obviously never started a profitable startup before.

[gryner]

Thank you, the criticism is completely valid. I updated the article accordingly.