In one of PG's essays on this site he talks about start-up hackers often feeling as though they need a co-founder with "business" knowledge and then says this is not a fundamental requirement for a start-up's success. I have the opposite problem, I am a former lawyer (UK) currently looking at a start-up but feel the need for a "hacker" co-founder for my venture to succeed. I know nothing about software code etc. Am I doomed without a hacker to work with me and is YC the wrong place for me to be looking?
This question has been asked plenty of times before. Look up variations of "business/idea guy needs hacker." But you should at least hack a bit with Ruby on Rails so at the least you won't piss off your technical co-founder. If you have deep domain knowledge, significant contacts, and a problem that is worth solving, then getting a hacker co-founder should be pretty straight forward. <p>It is my personal belief that the team composition depends on the type of opportunity and where the core competitive advantage will come from. If you are a lawyer, and you want to make a paperless solution for legal firms, you better believe you'll need a technology wiz. However, if the technology component is honestly only a small part of the overall problem, then you can perhaps look to getting an employee or contract out the tech work.
<i>"... I am a former lawyer (UK) currently looking at a start-up but feel the need for a "hacker" co-founder for my venture to succeed. ... I know nothing about software code etc. Am I doomed without a hacker "</i><p>Hey Sam. You have 2 immediate problems. No hacking skills and no co-founder ~ <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=80108" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=80108</a><p><pre><code> So if I was to be facetious I'd say give up.
</code></pre>
But I also happened to have worked for a startup focusing on legal software [0] where the principal was a) legally trained and b) a hacker of sorts. So what you are attempting is possible. But not having a hacker background leaves you in a position of weakness. Every time you are making a decision in startups technology comes into play. So aside from not being able to build your ideas you have to rely on others to tell you what is possible.<p>There is a flip side to this however. In domain specific industries such as law technology. You can make lots of in-roads. The legal system in Australia [1] is slow on technology uptake and archaic compared to other markets. So anyone who can build products, services for the legal industry really has a leg-up compared to pure technology companies.<p>So what do you do? Well you will have to get a technical co-founder. Depending on the problem domain you are solving a technical co-founder will not be at any greater advantage than yourself . Why? Because they will not have the deep understanding of what is required. Your strengths will be that no matter what technical solution any technical person creates, the stuffy, inherently conservative legal market will probably not endorse an unproven product without both legal provenance and precedence . [2]<p>So yes, without a hacker or someone who can turn your legal ideas into code you will fail. Just as equally I imagine most hackers will fail (miserably) without your expertise and pedegree. So I would not give up on building a startup for the legal services or professionals. [3] <p><p>[0] Ringtail Solutions ~ <a href="http://goonmail.customer.netspace.net.au/2005MAR202250.html" rel="nofollow">http://goonmail.customer.netspace.net.au/2005MAR202250.html</a><p>[1] I imagine the English legal system is just as backward as the Australian system. <p>[2] Ringtails secret weapon here was to create a "discovery" gathering tool and casebook for legal cases. Then having a very close relationship with a top Australian legal firm ( <a href="http://www.bdw.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.bdw.com.au</a> ) and to not only get the software to be used in a Royal Comission but also have the good skill (luck, timing) to be on the winning side ~ <a href="http://www.legaline.com/oct1999.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.legaline.com/oct1999.htm</a> and <a href="http://www.canberra.edu.au/ncf/publications/emilyhilly1.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.canberra.edu.au/ncf/publications/emilyhilly1.pdf</a><p>[3] Shots taken showing Lawyer desktops and the amount of information legals have to juggle each day dealing with cases ~ <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/31777304@N00/sets/1180151/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/31777304@N00/sets/1180151/</a>
Hamsters and snakes can be friends[0]. Anything is possible.<p>Hackers and lawyers are often at odds because the hackers want to do something interesting that could be a threat to someone else's profits. That person hires lawyers to stop the hackers. Within the same organization, hackers and lawyers are often on opposite sides because the lawyer's job is to avoid risks while the hacker's job is to seek opportunity.<p>If you can avoid or limit the latter problem, you should be ok as far as fundamental sources of conflict go. YC is a good place to look, but you'll probably have to open up about your idea a bit more than most people want to in order to attract quality hackers.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10903211/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10903211/</a>
Samantha:<p>In one of my earliest post, I wrote about what makes startup fail (or succeed). <p><a href="http://www.lovemytool.com/blog/2007/09/why-startups-fa.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lovemytool.com/blog/2007/09/why-startups-fa.html</a><p>What I have learned in the last five years turns to be very different from what I have learned in the five years before that. When there was a viable market for startups (i.e., robust IPO and M&A opportunities), the limitation often had to do with money. But when there is no market (i.e., no liquidity) for startups (as it is now), success has to do with a viable market for the product.<p>So it seems to me that it doesn't really matter if you are a lawyer or a "hacker", as long as you are the "surrogate" customer and knows intimately what your targeted customers want and what their pain points. Then having a "hacker" as a partner is important only so far as he/she will be the one to implement the product idea and is in fact, quite "interchangeable".<p>Good luck.<p>--Denny--<p>Denny K Miu
Yes, a start-up without a guy that kicks ass coding is doomed. Start-ups provide people with better technology, so it would make sense to know a little about stuff like software/servers/internet. Actually, all other things being equal, the start-up with the strongest technology base will eat up the others.<p>No, YC is not a bad place to look for people interested in starting a start-up. Just beware, because the word 'hacker' is overused in this place.
Maybe you have a friend from high-school or something whom you know to be really, really smart? Maybe you know someone whom you know could hack, or at least someone whose opinion would count who could help you search for a cofounder.