This post is inspired by an outburst from this classy gentleman on his blog (who I’ll refer to as EP for Epic Programmer). What was once a respectably honest yet strongly opinionated rant has since been replaced with a pg* suckling retraction <slash> tone-downification, but it still brings up some good points that I’d like to weigh in on. This has already been discussed to death on the YC News boards, but none of them were me, so I’ll continue.
Here are the major points that I have extracted from his now castrated message:
1; “Hackers” should only work on their own startup ideas
First of all, a disclaimer: I’m more of a business type than a coder. I do have a degree in computer science, but I don’t think it’s as big as that other guy’s, and I don’t feel obligated to keep it in my pants. This said, I think we should revisit Lord Graham’s essay on hackers and painters. Since he apparently wields enough power to reach through people’s souls to have blog posts rewritten and stricken from the grasps of the google, I thought he’d be a meaningful reference to call upon.
Graham compares “hackers” to painters because he feels like they are both creators. Well, business minded people (me included) are creators too. The only difference is that instead of making virtual objects, business people often create services and connections- which are just as useful in any healthy business. It is also worth pointing out that business minded people have been finding innovative ways to make real money for as long as there has been money to be made, whereas hackers are still trying to find some green in the grey zone of the Internet.
The point of all this is that there are people with creative ideas in all walks of life. I have no doubt that EP, who lexicon-hacked the original article is the nipple of all the boobs who can code out there- since he is sitting on piles of money and not currently enslaved with a day job. But even then, by labeling yourself a hacker, you’ve already introduced your highest function as someone who creates a beautiful solution to problems. Unfortunately, this doesn’t necessarily validate the problems that you’re solving.
Seriously. Have you seen the guys on “Beauty and the Geek?” These guys can probably hack Boba Fett’s spacesuit with nothing more than a piece of toast and their inhalers. And given the choice, there is a good chance that their web startup would aim to do just that. The issue here is that this service isn’t necessarily the best use of their time if they want to get a real user base and business. If that isn’t their goal, then I wish them the best of luck. But for people who want to work on some meaningful community problems and become more complete individuals, it helps to, I dunno, work with other types of people occasionally. And to talk to girls.
Are my ideas more valid than EP’s at solving a real world problem just because I consider myself a business guy first? I’d absolutely guarantee not necessarily. But to dismiss other options because I am the self proclaimed jesus of business hacking is close minded and self depriving. Problem is- when WE pass on a great role, we probably won’t miraculously be reinstated in that opportunity three days later.
2; Ownership of the project, and ideally being the originator of the product, is important for morale and motivation for working on the project.
This is definitely probably true. People will generally be more interested in something that they have created, and if this passion is going to take them through the rough patches of the startup life, then it is clearly a benefit. But just because we are more inclined to love our own creations does not mean that we cannot love other people’s creations. If this is the case, parent’s who adopt are fooling themselves if they think there is real love there. I propose an experiment- We should try to take a adopted baby wolverine away from it’s surrogate wolverine mom, and then try to take another baby wolverine from its biological wolverine mom- and see which mother mauls us more.
Yeah- the idea that ownership often leads to a strong passion is true, and that seems to be the primary buttress for the statement numbered 1;. Well, I submit that the issue is actually that people with really good ideas aren’t doing a good job of selling the concept to other potential team members. If they do, then the statement numbered 1; is much less valid.
If an idea is truly exemplary, and the originator is passionate about it, then there is a good chance that an outsider could become passionate about it too. As a matter of speculation, if you cannot get an outsider to be long-termed passionate about your project, you probably need to revisit the validity of your brilliant idea. This is true regardless of who approaches whom in the early stages- coders or business people.
I know of a lot more people who have adopted a kid and loved him than have dropped one on the hospital doorstep, and I think the same is true for business ideas. And let’s face it- MAKING the “idea” is the fun part- so those who adopt clearly know what they are skipping out on.
3; “beef-headed M.B.A.” types are only useful after the product is generating revenue.
Didn’t EP watch the Fedex commercials? M.B.A.s are NEVER useful. Moving on. Once again, not all Boba Fett jesus hackers come up with revenue generating ideas to begin with. One thing that you can count on by working with a qualified business mind is that they will present some great alternative or supplemental ideas for both the product and the business plan even at the beginning of the project. Even an unqualified business mind is at least a wallet that you can test your idea on. All the hacking talent in the world may still only get you a Twitter (but one that doesn’t crash.) So if your revenue stream is solely based on online advertising, and your exit strategy includes google, it might be worthwhile to spend some time with people who may have some alternate points of view.
The attitude of “if you build it- they will come” is a pretty poor plan for any web startup these days. The reality is that without a reasonable big picture, no one will come. And even if they do, you still need a business strategy at the core of your project- lest you be “uncov-ed.”
Bonus; “At the absolute beginning stages of a software startup, two things are needed: a hacker (or two, or three), and his (or their) idea. Anything else is just an impediment.”
Of course software startups will need hackers. But startups who wish to be “successful” need “validated” ideas- and that’s a huge assumption to make. I’m not trying to claim that only business minded people can bring validated ideas to the table, but business people can at least afford tables. And tables are usually a necessary impediment in any work environment- so I’d openly talk to that type of person if given the choice.
But of course, none of this applies to EP, the guy who wrote the referenced post. He is a hacker and layer of golden eggs. But for everyone else who may not be able to fertilize themselves, I suggest keeping an open mind, and exploring the contributions and creativity of other people that may approach you.
It’s simply a case of mental economics- we all have our strengths, and participants come out better by trading. Even if the ideas they present aren’t great, the least you can do is get a little bit of mental exercise while exploring the nuances of the concept, and then respectfully decline the pitch. After that, feel free to bash all those uncreative cretins on your blog. And then erase it when your Lord sheds a tear for you.
*does pg stand for “parental guidance” or “Paul Graham?” The world may never know.
