Oftentimes "technical co-founder" is a euphemism for an employee willing to work for deferred compensation. In my experience, it says that a "business guy" has an idea but no money, which causes me to doubt the "business" part, or at least infer that the "business" part is in selling the idea to people who will work for free.
Then again, I don't trust founders who won't invest their own money in their idea(s).
I couldn't agree more, it's not like that all the time, but far too often, the business co-founder isn't really bringing much to the table. Love the summary of your experience and conclusion :)
That said, I think we should be quick to realize that there are perfectly legitimate non-technical founders who add a ton of value. They just aren't guilty of the "looking for free labor" problem.
Comments
Oftentimes "technical co-founder" is a euphemism for an employee willing to work for deferred compensation. In my experience, it says that a "business guy" has an idea but no money, which causes me to doubt the "business" part, or at least infer that the "business" part is in selling the idea to people who will work for free.
Then again, I don't trust founders who won't invest their own money in their idea(s).
I couldn't agree more, it's not like that all the time, but far too often, the business co-founder isn't really bringing much to the table. Love the summary of your experience and conclusion :)
That said, I think we should be quick to realize that there are perfectly legitimate non-technical founders who add a ton of value. They just aren't guilty of the "looking for free labor" problem.