as an engineer who actually launched a YC company, I can say that this is not true and prevents engineers from being good cofounders. The fact is, unless you are the 0.1% of engineers who can create truly novel products, our skills are largely commoditized. I was doing well as an engineer at google, but the product I was building could be replicated by engineers out of India / China etc. Having a co-founder who could actually build relationships, have good product vision, and most importantly SELL were crucial. Don't have the hubris that OP mentioned above - it's a surefire way to fail.
This also jives with my experience as a technical founder.
I have built systems from the ground up used by big corps. I've worked for a YC startup. I've built systems from the ground up at other VC-backed startups. I've built my own systems from the ground up. I'm building two right now (https://turas.app is one).
Except for the rare cases where you have something that's an instant hit, doing anything that's B2B SaaS is incredibly difficult without warm intros. Even getting calls to talk to potential customers in some spaces is difficult without the right network or know how to get connected to that network.
Having done this a few times now, it is more clear to me what I want from a non-technical co-founder:
- Be a domain subject matter expert. Most interesting problems require understanding some process or flow of information, documents, money, etc.
- Already identified and quantified the price for removing some friction or cost from that process/flow.
- Have high level industry connections (C-level, VPs, IT decision makers). If you're building B2B SaaS, being connected to the people that will actually make the decisions will make your life a lot easier.
- OR have proven track record of marketing. Consumer and e-commerce are really, really hard spaces. You really need to know what you're doing with marketing and social media. Managing those is a full-time job and as a founding/sole engineer, it's a poor use of time.
- Already have letter of intent to buy or other commitment to pay for a product that solves some problem if B2B. One startup I joined, the co-founder had sold the product as a set of requirements. The enterprise customer was so excited for the solution, they paid for a pilot based solely on the requirements.
None of these things require technical background or hamfisting a no-code solution.
Did your company work out? I understand and agree that a million engineers could build a product. But, many good engineers could also go work at Google et al. As a nascent company without a product, you have very little leverage. As an engineer, why would I want to build this thing for you so that you can go enrich yourself? If your product honestly could be built by people in China / India, then absolutely do that. Don't even bother with a technical co-founder, why would you?
obviously, the split should be 50 / 50. I'm trying counteract this narrative on hacker news that if you're technical, you're the star of the show. The fact is both the technical and non-technical founders are equally important. Don't have the hubris that you can do it all, unless you are truly exceptional.
Oh, I see. Totally agree. Knowing what users actually need and knowing how to sell it to them is the most valuable thing in an early stage company. Way more valuable than engineering talent.
I do agree with you. I wouldn't recommend engineers without product vision to start a company either.
Starting a successful company is hard. It's not just about coding things. That said, you can find technical founders who are good at both product and coding.
I would even argue that 0.1% engineering skills aren't needed, although engineers in this top echelon are more likely to have the general fluid intelligence needed to succeed.
The Steve Jobs archetype is an anomaly in a world where success itself is already one. Ultimately, there is no hubris, the real barometer is market success. Build something people want (and as a corollary / table stakes, have the skills needed to do so).
> Having a co-founder who could actually build relationships, have good product vision, and most importantly SELL were crucial.
I agree with you. I made my attempt at founding a company without a co-founder possessing such "soft skills", and I believe failed primarily because of that.
However, I still see a risk for technical co-founders there: the ability to establish connections, sell and leverage a valuable network has to be made clear before a partnership can be established.
I shut down my company a few months before the peak of the startup frenzy in my country. Suddenly, lots of people wanted to leave their jobs, found a startup and "build a platform".
They were extremely passionate and optimistic about their ideas -- often something along the lines of "It's like <popular product> but focused on <nonsensical niche>"; ideas apparently inspired by some "how to build your startup" content farm article or social media influencers' BS.
But they brought essentially nothing to the table. No money, no useful expertise, no network they could leverage. Heck, some were not even willing to leave their jobs and dedicate themselves exclusively to the new company. They just had a ton of naive optimism and overconfidence.
And I've met a handful of young fellows swallowing the bait, lured by the dream of owning their very own company, picking their preferred tech-stack and doing things The Right Way.
