Why Developers Don't Want to Work on Your Idea (2011)(swombat.com)
swombat.com
Why Developers Don't Want to Work on Your Idea (2011)
http://swombat.com/2011/6/5/golden-opportunity
29 comments
Having done this type of consulting myself, I could never work around the maintenance issue.
You likely setup the entire system so if something goes wrong, whether its you're fault or not, you're on the line. It's all about reputation. And if you tarnish that by leaving a paid client behind when their server catches on fire, it will be remembered negatively.
It's hard to do this type of contract work continuously. You build up a portfolio of apps that you have to maintain. Most of the time you're clients are out of cash.
Equity is great but it doesn't put food on the table today. On the other hand it puts you in contact with some really great ideas and you get to play startup founder several times and you gain enormous perspective on what works and what doesn't.
You likely setup the entire system so if something goes wrong, whether its you're fault or not, you're on the line. It's all about reputation. And if you tarnish that by leaving a paid client behind when their server catches on fire, it will be remembered negatively.
It's hard to do this type of contract work continuously. You build up a portfolio of apps that you have to maintain. Most of the time you're clients are out of cash.
Equity is great but it doesn't put food on the table today. On the other hand it puts you in contact with some really great ideas and you get to play startup founder several times and you gain enormous perspective on what works and what doesn't.
Make it clear up front that you will charge for maintenance work, and if they can't afford it then it's a sad world, but you'll have to move on. You can try be nice and include free bugfixes for issues that are your fault -- this is nearly always a bad idea. You'll end up some some client that will be incredibly insistent that new features are actually bugfixes and all kinds of problems.
Always charge. People will respect you more, and any work you do for them for free will be abused. This is simple human nature - when you give away work for free, all you are creating immense confusion in the recipient. "Why did I get this for free? What's wrong with it? Is this guy so desperate?" This line of reasoning will quickly blossom in your clients mind, and before long your client will expect you to get up at 3am in the morning to add in some new feature he just dreamed up. When you refuse, his expectations of you are shattered and you will be remembered negatively - even when you just gave him free work!
Always charge. The less you need the work, the more your charge. The less you want to do the work, the more you charge. The more difficult the work is, the more you charge. No freebies, unless you make the reason extremely clear up front to prevent any confusion.
Always charge. People will respect you more, and any work you do for them for free will be abused. This is simple human nature - when you give away work for free, all you are creating immense confusion in the recipient. "Why did I get this for free? What's wrong with it? Is this guy so desperate?" This line of reasoning will quickly blossom in your clients mind, and before long your client will expect you to get up at 3am in the morning to add in some new feature he just dreamed up. When you refuse, his expectations of you are shattered and you will be remembered negatively - even when you just gave him free work!
Always charge. The less you need the work, the more your charge. The less you want to do the work, the more you charge. The more difficult the work is, the more you charge. No freebies, unless you make the reason extremely clear up front to prevent any confusion.
In my opinion the correct response to maintenance requests is "Here is my daily rate".
The other correct response is "We can agree on a monthly retainer of X days for maintenance."
I try to avoid fixed cost projects, especially in early stages when specs are likely to be very fluid.
The other correct response is "We can agree on a monthly retainer of X days for maintenance."
I try to avoid fixed cost projects, especially in early stages when specs are likely to be very fluid.
The other reason to choose projects that appear to have a decent chance of success is that the longer the project goes, the more work you'll have without having to go through the hassle of finding a new client, vetting their idea, doing the contract back and forth, doing the negotiating, and establishing a good working relationship.
There is also the excellent resume and street cred of working on a successful startup, possibly with name recognition, vs a 'failed' one.
There is also the excellent resume and street cred of working on a successful startup, possibly with name recognition, vs a 'failed' one.
Yes, that too. Funding out of pocket only goes so far, eventually there needs to be some sort of traction by either making sales or being able to attract investment. Without that, I might be out of a client sooner rather than later.
Out of curiosity, why do you specialize in developing MVPs for people with ideas, and how did you get into that type of work as a primary focus? Do you find that the work is more interesting than doing consulting jobs for more established businesses? Assuming you've found plenty of projects that meet your rules, do you have opportunities to become a co-founder, and have you considered them seriously?
I've done consulting, startups, and free work on side projects. At this point, if I find people and projects that meet my requirements, I'd probably prefer to become a co-founder and make a real go of it. I don't think I've ever taken a small amount of equity as compensation for substantial unpaid development work. Under those circumstances, equity is not tasty. I'd rather do well-paid consulting work or find a great team and go all in.
I've done consulting, startups, and free work on side projects. At this point, if I find people and projects that meet my requirements, I'd probably prefer to become a co-founder and make a real go of it. I don't think I've ever taken a small amount of equity as compensation for substantial unpaid development work. Under those circumstances, equity is not tasty. I'd rather do well-paid consulting work or find a great team and go all in.
I actually also fix MVPs when they start breaking :)
Honestly, I just find working with startups and small companies in general to be more interesting, even though there is usually slightly less money involved. I got into this type of work by hanging around Hacker News and writing blogposts aimed at a hackerpreneur auidence.
It's amazing how many great projects you can attract if your writing is half decent and you have a good idea once in a blue moon.
As for jumping full in, yeah I'd love to eventually, but I've learned to be cautious and cover my bases first. Maybe when I have money saved up so I don't have to earn anything for months on end. Being young has its disadvantages.
Honestly, I just find working with startups and small companies in general to be more interesting, even though there is usually slightly less money involved. I got into this type of work by hanging around Hacker News and writing blogposts aimed at a hackerpreneur auidence.
It's amazing how many great projects you can attract if your writing is half decent and you have a good idea once in a blue moon.
As for jumping full in, yeah I'd love to eventually, but I've learned to be cautious and cover my bases first. Maybe when I have money saved up so I don't have to earn anything for months on end. Being young has its disadvantages.
I'm curious as to why the conversation about compensation for work done for "non-technical" upstarts is almost always framed as a binary "payment in equity vs cash" issue. Seems like there would be a huge market for MVP development by developers with a hybrid compensation model. (Maybe this is already common?)
For instance, a developer could quote Price X to non-technical co-founders to develop a simple, proof-of-concept MVP with an agreement to would receive Equity Y upon completion if the developer either (1) stays on for Period P or (2) helps the founders successfully land a more suitable, long-term developer to take over the project. The parties could even agree that Equity Y would be larger (e.g. 2Y) if the developer stays on.
Benefits to the non-technical co-founders would be (a) a proof-of-concept (or failure), (b) alignment of incentives with a developer to try hard, and (c) access to an insider to help find a permanent developer upon completion of the MVP if the MVP developer wants to exit (e.g. for a better opportunity).
The benefit to the developer would be (i) guaranteed fees, (ii) potential for equity (even if he exists) and (iii) flexibility.
More, a subsequent developer would have the chance to deal with someone who speaks his own language in the negotiation with the non-technical cofounders, and could avoid and annoying and/or exhausting translation of technical details.
An obvious objection may just be that non-technical co-founders never have money to pay for an MVP. I am far from an expert, but I would think that some do.
For instance, a developer could quote Price X to non-technical co-founders to develop a simple, proof-of-concept MVP with an agreement to would receive Equity Y upon completion if the developer either (1) stays on for Period P or (2) helps the founders successfully land a more suitable, long-term developer to take over the project. The parties could even agree that Equity Y would be larger (e.g. 2Y) if the developer stays on.
Benefits to the non-technical co-founders would be (a) a proof-of-concept (or failure), (b) alignment of incentives with a developer to try hard, and (c) access to an insider to help find a permanent developer upon completion of the MVP if the MVP developer wants to exit (e.g. for a better opportunity).
The benefit to the developer would be (i) guaranteed fees, (ii) potential for equity (even if he exists) and (iii) flexibility.
More, a subsequent developer would have the chance to deal with someone who speaks his own language in the negotiation with the non-technical cofounders, and could avoid and annoying and/or exhausting translation of technical details.
An obvious objection may just be that non-technical co-founders never have money to pay for an MVP. I am far from an expert, but I would think that some do.
What you're describing is called vesting and is hopefully used by anybody doling out equity of their company.
The options for a developer in today's marketplace are such:
1. Technical founders who can offer equity only
2. Technical founders who can offer equity and money
3. Technical founders who can offer money only.
4. Non-technical founders who can offer equity only.
5. Non-technical founders who can offer equity and money.
6. Non-technical founders who can offer money only.
In either type of founder, the best option for a developer is equity+money, if they can afford a full-time commitment.
If the founder can only offer equity, this raises the stakes significantly and is a problem. Especially if the founder has overlapping skills with the developer. But the overlap of skills also breeds a certain camaraderie that is not to be ignored.
If the founder can only offer money, that makes it a clean [probably ongoing] contracting job with the flexibility to work on separate projects and whatnot.
The real problem with equity+money is that you are roped in full-time and tied down for an extended period of time. The reason I personally got into freelancing instead of having a normal job is that it gives me the freedom to change projects frequently - every couple of months. I advance quicker as a developer, grow my network quicker and my life is more interesting.
Knowing that I will spend the next 2 years working on a specific project is a very big commitment indeed and I want to be damn sure it's something I am extremely passionate about. (hint: this is usually reserved for my own ideas)
Perhaps it's just a sign of the times that I am happy taking on clients with no more than a few months' commitment and be certain that my bandwidth will always be filled to the brim for the foreseeable future anyway. In fact I am strongly thinking about expanding myself into a small team just to keep up with demand.
PS: there's also likely a bunch of legal and tax hassle in having my consulting company or myself be part owner of a bunch of other companies.
The options for a developer in today's marketplace are such:
1. Technical founders who can offer equity only
2. Technical founders who can offer equity and money
3. Technical founders who can offer money only.
4. Non-technical founders who can offer equity only.
5. Non-technical founders who can offer equity and money.
6. Non-technical founders who can offer money only.
In either type of founder, the best option for a developer is equity+money, if they can afford a full-time commitment.
If the founder can only offer equity, this raises the stakes significantly and is a problem. Especially if the founder has overlapping skills with the developer. But the overlap of skills also breeds a certain camaraderie that is not to be ignored.
If the founder can only offer money, that makes it a clean [probably ongoing] contracting job with the flexibility to work on separate projects and whatnot.
The real problem with equity+money is that you are roped in full-time and tied down for an extended period of time. The reason I personally got into freelancing instead of having a normal job is that it gives me the freedom to change projects frequently - every couple of months. I advance quicker as a developer, grow my network quicker and my life is more interesting.
Knowing that I will spend the next 2 years working on a specific project is a very big commitment indeed and I want to be damn sure it's something I am extremely passionate about. (hint: this is usually reserved for my own ideas)
Perhaps it's just a sign of the times that I am happy taking on clients with no more than a few months' commitment and be certain that my bandwidth will always be filled to the brim for the foreseeable future anyway. In fact I am strongly thinking about expanding myself into a small team just to keep up with demand.
PS: there's also likely a bunch of legal and tax hassle in having my consulting company or myself be part owner of a bunch of other companies.
I asked something similar recently on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5039241
That got zero offers.
That got zero offers.
You're ignoring a powerful aspect here: Founders are cash-poor, but equity-rich (almost infinitely so).
I don't know whether you have enough money to cover your costs (I assume so, you sound quite successful), but I think it would be interesting to seek out promising founders and take a little bit of equity, instead of another "bunch of money"(tm). That increase in money is not going to significantly change your life, getting an early in at a startup might though. And in addition to that, you'll probably enjoy building that umpteenth MVP a little more if you have the feeling that the quality of your work has a potential stake in your future.
There's of course a lot of my making assumptions here, but I think it's an interesting thought to consider.
I don't know whether you have enough money to cover your costs (I assume so, you sound quite successful), but I think it would be interesting to seek out promising founders and take a little bit of equity, instead of another "bunch of money"(tm). That increase in money is not going to significantly change your life, getting an early in at a startup might though. And in addition to that, you'll probably enjoy building that umpteenth MVP a little more if you have the feeling that the quality of your work has a potential stake in your future.
There's of course a lot of my making assumptions here, but I think it's an interesting thought to consider.
This is where my other rule comes in: "I am either a freelancer or a cofounder".
To be your cofounder you must also convince me that this project is something I want to spend the next several years of my life on and it must be great enough to convince me to drop other projects and start working on this full time. I don't believe in part-time cofounders, that way lies burnout and failed projects.
And despite all that, equity still isn't tasty so I will need to earn at least some of my normal rate anyway.
To be your cofounder you must also convince me that this project is something I want to spend the next several years of my life on and it must be great enough to convince me to drop other projects and start working on this full time. I don't believe in part-time cofounders, that way lies burnout and failed projects.
And despite all that, equity still isn't tasty so I will need to earn at least some of my normal rate anyway.
Would you ever consider being a cofounder before the MVC is built?
I guess you're saying that you'll only build MVCs for cash, but then will consider joining as a cofounder afterward if the project looks promising and you can work out a fair equity agreement?
I guess you're saying that you'll only build MVCs for cash, but then will consider joining as a cofounder afterward if the project looks promising and you can work out a fair equity agreement?
I guess it depends. I usually have enough of my own pre-MVP projects that would love some attention and often some that are MVP's and would also require attention.
But building a MVP together before jumping into a full blown partnership is also rather important in terms of finding whether there's a general fit in working together, you're actually able to deliver on the non-technical aspects of the project and so on ... MVP's are also incredibly good at confirming assumptions about the market.
But building a MVP together before jumping into a full blown partnership is also rather important in terms of finding whether there's a general fit in working together, you're actually able to deliver on the non-technical aspects of the project and so on ... MVP's are also incredibly good at confirming assumptions about the market.
"but equity-rich (almost infinitely so)"
This is the part about equity that is most likely to bite you in the ass if you receive equity but ultimately do not control the allocation of it. (Common for early employee or founders on the technical side of things).
Day 1: Awesome, I own 10% of this company. If it sells for millions I will make a significant amount of money!
Day 630: Due to the "almost infinite" nature of equity and dilution, I now own 0.05% of the company. If it sells for millions I will be able to buy a cup of coffee!
This is the part about equity that is most likely to bite you in the ass if you receive equity but ultimately do not control the allocation of it. (Common for early employee or founders on the technical side of things).
Day 1: Awesome, I own 10% of this company. If it sells for millions I will make a significant amount of money!
Day 630: Due to the "almost infinite" nature of equity and dilution, I now own 0.05% of the company. If it sells for millions I will be able to buy a cup of coffee!
If you go for this sort of deal you should always have some anti-dilution protection. Otherwise as is pointed out the equity is essentially worthless. You can use some sort of full ratchet clause or ensure the majority shareholder can not issue more shares (though some special resolution requirement). You'll need a lawyer...
Only newbie founders are equity rich.
Smart, experienced founders would rather spend money than equity on anything other than a top quality cofounder.
Smart, experienced founders would rather spend money than equity on anything other than a top quality cofounder.
"You'd be crazy to have me work on this for a few months for 50% equity when you could just spend 6-12 months yourself learning to code and doing it yourself and have 100% equity. Of course, if you don't think it is worth spending a few months of your own time why should I take a chance on it?"
6-12 months learning how to code? Good luck building a business on top of software written by a junior-level programmer. Even better luck expanding and scaling it if/when the time comes.
It takes years to reach a reasonable level of competence in software development and on the order of a decade to master it.
The problem with taking people's word on how much work they do when they are involved in marketing and the soft sides of business is that they have a disproportionaly (as compared to tech specialists) large amount of experience in marketing, negotiation and soft skills. Hence, they market themselves and over inflate how important their contribution is. In my experience.
It takes years to reach a reasonable level of competence in software development and on the order of a decade to master it.
The problem with taking people's word on how much work they do when they are involved in marketing and the soft sides of business is that they have a disproportionaly (as compared to tech specialists) large amount of experience in marketing, negotiation and soft skills. Hence, they market themselves and over inflate how important their contribution is. In my experience.
Acknowledging that most people won't be a very useful developer at that stage, I always propose a different approach..
I tell the person to sketch out the how a user moves through the app, what they can do where, and how it should work. I even tell them to sketch out something basic with powerpoint.
If they make it through those stages, it does two things: First, it demonstrates that they're relatively serious about the idea. More importantly, it lets them get a bunch of the oddities, inconsistencies, etc figured out before there's code involved. Making radical changes at that point is File->New.
I tell the person to sketch out the how a user moves through the app, what they can do where, and how it should work. I even tell them to sketch out something basic with powerpoint.
If they make it through those stages, it does two things: First, it demonstrates that they're relatively serious about the idea. More importantly, it lets them get a bunch of the oddities, inconsistencies, etc figured out before there's code involved. Making radical changes at that point is File->New.
First thing I tell people who ask "how would I get started?" 1) talk to people you think might want to use what you have in mind and see what they think and 2) build it on paper, because no matter who ends up building it, your ability to clearly express what you want in a very literal way is going to be key to getting what you want.
> Good luck building a business on top of software written by a junior-level programmer. Even better luck expanding and scaling it if/when the time comes.
You're absolutely right that this isn't scalable, but if you're just looking to validate your idea why shouldn't an app made by someone with a few months of experience suffice? Once you've proven there's value in the idea with the prototype, I imagine it'd be a lot easier to get more experienced developers on board.
You're absolutely right that this isn't scalable, but if you're just looking to validate your idea why shouldn't an app made by someone with a few months of experience suffice? Once you've proven there's value in the idea with the prototype, I imagine it'd be a lot easier to get more experienced developers on board.
Yes and no. The problem is that most of the time the train of thought goes something like:
* we already have a working product
* we might aswell just add the features and visual polish we need and then launch as soon as possible
* we have too much work to do to rewrite it
* we can't refactor effectively because automated tests are mostly missing
This results in the project becoming increasingly burdened with technical debt, where it becomes impossible to add new features without breaking something. The next step after this is usually a rewrite (which, given the low quality of developers already in the company, since nobody sane will work on such bad code, is also likely to fail, unless IT is restaffed completely).
If the prototype is binned outright and the rewrite happens at the very start, I imagine that this can be avoided. Again, the trap here is that if the founder learned to write code in 6-12 months then they will be in that cute phase where they think that programming is easy and will not realise this.
In short, having a senior developer on board (at the very least as a consultant) from the very start appears to be mandatory for long term success and minimisation of headaches. It's just what I've seen in the real world. Companies which went for quality from the very start grew rapidly. Those which attempted to minimise development costs at the expense of quality did not reach the heights.
* we already have a working product
* we might aswell just add the features and visual polish we need and then launch as soon as possible
* we have too much work to do to rewrite it
* we can't refactor effectively because automated tests are mostly missing
This results in the project becoming increasingly burdened with technical debt, where it becomes impossible to add new features without breaking something. The next step after this is usually a rewrite (which, given the low quality of developers already in the company, since nobody sane will work on such bad code, is also likely to fail, unless IT is restaffed completely).
If the prototype is binned outright and the rewrite happens at the very start, I imagine that this can be avoided. Again, the trap here is that if the founder learned to write code in 6-12 months then they will be in that cute phase where they think that programming is easy and will not realise this.
In short, having a senior developer on board (at the very least as a consultant) from the very start appears to be mandatory for long term success and minimisation of headaches. It's just what I've seen in the real world. Companies which went for quality from the very start grew rapidly. Those which attempted to minimise development costs at the expense of quality did not reach the heights.
I just got off a short contract where this exact thing happened. The company had a MVP they were using that was made by the founders. They were obviously young and inexperienced. The code was awful to say the least. I told them straight up it would be best to just throw all this code away and start again from scratch. Its best to do it now while the company is young, rather than much later. They were neck deep in technical debt.
They claimed it would take "a really long time" to rewrite everything. I can understand a junior developer thinking that (it apparently took them 2 years to create the code they were using at that point). But using good engineering practices, building a site that did what they needed could have been done within a few weeks using Django and MySQL. Its really hard to make this point stick when you're dealing with developers in that "sophomore zone" of programming ability.
Needless to say, they told me "no way jose". I ended it with them right then and there. I can't tell you how many times I've seen that happen.
They claimed it would take "a really long time" to rewrite everything. I can understand a junior developer thinking that (it apparently took them 2 years to create the code they were using at that point). But using good engineering practices, building a site that did what they needed could have been done within a few weeks using Django and MySQL. Its really hard to make this point stick when you're dealing with developers in that "sophomore zone" of programming ability.
Needless to say, they told me "no way jose". I ended it with them right then and there. I can't tell you how many times I've seen that happen.
Depends on how complex your MVP is. The problem for non technical people is that they probably don't know how technically challenging the problem is.
If it's a cat pictures site maybe a few months is enough to learn enough code to validate the idea. OTOH if you want to build a search engine maybe not so much.
If it's a cat pictures site maybe a few months is enough to learn enough code to validate the idea. OTOH if you want to build a search engine maybe not so much.
Novice with 7 months of learning here.
Quit my strategy consulting job to focus full time on learning to code, and am currently working on this project, built in Rails, on Heroku (it's all in Japanese, but the concept is similar to Hacker News/Reddit)
http://www.daidake.com
Is this a bad idea? Would like to hear your thoughts. I have to admit I do feel like I'm in a little bit over my head, in that once/if I start getting a lot of users, I really have no idea how to scale this thing. I figure I need to start networking to find a brain that wants to team with me.
I'm glad I've learned to program though, even if at a beginner level. If this fails (I already have a previous project that was a resounding failure), I can test out new projects easily.
Is this a bad idea? Would like to hear your thoughts. I have to admit I do feel like I'm in a little bit over my head, in that once/if I start getting a lot of users, I really have no idea how to scale this thing. I figure I need to start networking to find a brain that wants to team with me.
I'm glad I've learned to program though, even if at a beginner level. If this fails (I already have a previous project that was a resounding failure), I can test out new projects easily.
I don't think it's a terribly bad idea. As someone said above, doing at least some of the technical legwork yourself will buy you a ton of credibility with experienced programmers when you go to hire. It often becomes somewhat insulting to developers when he/she has to argue schedule with someone with no experience. Often the client thinks it should X should take Y long, and you're telling them that X might not even be possible, but you can do X' in 4 or 10 Y. "What do you mean? You must not be as skilled as so-and-so said you are."
However if you've fought even the initial stages of the battle yourself, you understand the idea of the vision, and the reduced scope which is your next step toward the larger goal. Further, we understand that the part of the learning curve you're in right now is the steepest, and if you're willing to endure it you're either stupid or you really do believe in your business.
However if you've fought even the initial stages of the battle yourself, you understand the idea of the vision, and the reduced scope which is your next step toward the larger goal. Further, we understand that the part of the learning curve you're in right now is the steepest, and if you're willing to endure it you're either stupid or you really do believe in your business.
> you're either stupid or you really do believe in your business.
haha, I'll refrain from trying to answer that for now ;) You're right in that by far the most challenging part of the learning so far was the first day, and trying to get rails working on a Windows PC. For a person with no technical background, it takes a huge amount of persistence or stupidity to get past that stage.
I actually learned to program so that I'd be in the position to build my own MVCs. The idea came to me as I was learning.
I don't have a lot of money, so I figured the only way to win over a good developer was with credibility (an actual product that at least somewhat works and has some traction).
haha, I'll refrain from trying to answer that for now ;) You're right in that by far the most challenging part of the learning so far was the first day, and trying to get rails working on a Windows PC. For a person with no technical background, it takes a huge amount of persistence or stupidity to get past that stage.
I actually learned to program so that I'd be in the position to build my own MVCs. The idea came to me as I was learning.
I don't have a lot of money, so I figured the only way to win over a good developer was with credibility (an actual product that at least somewhat works and has some traction).
I appreciate that resources are always tight in these situations so I would recommend that you hire an experienced developer to review your code. It's cheaper than hiring someone full time and you should still be able to get a lot of value out of it. They will know about nuances and gotchas that only years of working on code can teach. Addressing those early rather than late is probably a good idea.
A cheaper (no money but more time spent) alternative is to use forums and IRC channels to get advice. There are plenty of knowledgable people who are more than willing to help if you ask.
Some basics which are vitally important to cover are ensuring that the object model and database schema are solid and extensible, that there are automated tests in place (especially for business critical functionality), that everything is documented (otherwise you will waste inordinate amounts of time explaining how things work to any developers you hire in the future and/or relearning parts of your own code after forgetting what it does) and that everything is backed up to multiple locations. Addressing those concerns puts you well ahead of the pack.
A cheaper (no money but more time spent) alternative is to use forums and IRC channels to get advice. There are plenty of knowledgable people who are more than willing to help if you ask.
Some basics which are vitally important to cover are ensuring that the object model and database schema are solid and extensible, that there are automated tests in place (especially for business critical functionality), that everything is documented (otherwise you will waste inordinate amounts of time explaining how things work to any developers you hire in the future and/or relearning parts of your own code after forgetting what it does) and that everything is backed up to multiple locations. Addressing those concerns puts you well ahead of the pack.
Thanks. Really appreciate the feedback.
It's so tempting to keep build quick and sloppy, but I know I need to be more diligent with testing and documenting.
I'm setting a relatively low target number of users to acquire just to make sure this idea has a chance, before bringing on a developer.
Very broad question, but how does one find an experienced developer? I live in New York, but have zero tech connections.
It's so tempting to keep build quick and sloppy, but I know I need to be more diligent with testing and documenting.
I'm setting a relatively low target number of users to acquire just to make sure this idea has a chance, before bringing on a developer.
Very broad question, but how does one find an experienced developer? I live in New York, but have zero tech connections.
> It's so tempting to keep build quick and sloppy
That's normal when you're starting out. The only reason more experienced developers do not give into this impulse is because they've learned of the consequences through painful experience.
I would recommend looking at the people who contribute to Rails, Ruby and related projects on Github. The core developers will be far too expensive but people who throw some code out every so often (assuming that their pull requests are usually accepted and nobody is shouting at them in the comments) will likely know their stuff and may have reasonable prices.
IRC channels on Freenode such as #ruby and #rubyonrails will likely prove useful too. Look out for people who answer a lot of questions (and get them right). One strategy is to try to design a solution for a feature by yourself, then summarise the design (i.e. show the relevant code snippets) in a Github Gist or pastebin page and ask for feedback. If there are any glaring faults or simply better ways to achieve the result then they will be pointed out to you.
That's normal when you're starting out. The only reason more experienced developers do not give into this impulse is because they've learned of the consequences through painful experience.
I would recommend looking at the people who contribute to Rails, Ruby and related projects on Github. The core developers will be far too expensive but people who throw some code out every so often (assuming that their pull requests are usually accepted and nobody is shouting at them in the comments) will likely know their stuff and may have reasonable prices.
IRC channels on Freenode such as #ruby and #rubyonrails will likely prove useful too. Look out for people who answer a lot of questions (and get them right). One strategy is to try to design a solution for a feature by yourself, then summarise the design (i.e. show the relevant code snippets) in a Github Gist or pastebin page and ask for feedback. If there are any glaring faults or simply better ways to achieve the result then they will be pointed out to you.
Thanks for the info. Very helpful. Will check out those sources!
Re: where to find experienced developers with no tech connections, that's not really a problem. Here's why: It's similar to a man asking, "Hey, know any models I can date?"
Actually, beautiful women are hardly rare. But it's the qualifier that's important: "models I can date??"
Good developers might be rare, but they're not hard to find. They are, however, hard to woo. You know the drill on how to woo them, it's just inconvenient/hard/expensive. But at least it's pretty well laid out.
Actually, beautiful women are hardly rare. But it's the qualifier that's important: "models I can date??"
Good developers might be rare, but they're not hard to find. They are, however, hard to woo. You know the drill on how to woo them, it's just inconvenient/hard/expensive. But at least it's pretty well laid out.
Nice analogy. I'm hoping to find a girl that doesn't yet realize she's pretty enough to be a model, and hasn't yet developed that diva attitude ;)
The best documentation is the code itself. Check out the book Clean Code for great details.
I heartily agree that good code makes sense on it's own.
One of the things which good code and inline documentation (comments) do not communicate very well is a high level overview of the architecture of the application. In my opinion, it is better to describe such things using external documents and diagrams.
The same goes for the deployment procedures and the way the servers are laid out as well as dependencies. For example, the place I'm currently at had no documentation what-so-ever for the libraries and modules necessary to run the in-house web application and, consequently, it took us more time than it should have to figure out what needed to be installed when we moved to a new server.
Thanks for the book recommendation, seems like a great one judging by the reviews. It's always useful to learn more - will add it to my 'to read' list.
One of the things which good code and inline documentation (comments) do not communicate very well is a high level overview of the architecture of the application. In my opinion, it is better to describe such things using external documents and diagrams.
The same goes for the deployment procedures and the way the servers are laid out as well as dependencies. For example, the place I'm currently at had no documentation what-so-ever for the libraries and modules necessary to run the in-house web application and, consequently, it took us more time than it should have to figure out what needed to be installed when we moved to a new server.
Thanks for the book recommendation, seems like a great one judging by the reviews. It's always useful to learn more - will add it to my 'to read' list.
> is this a bad idea?
Well, what do you bring to the table? Do Japanese people read HN or reddit, or are they hindered by the language barrier? If they are, then it's not.
Damn, ideas are never bad. As long as you do stuff, it's all good.
Damn, ideas are never bad. As long as you do stuff, it's all good.
Yeah, Japanese people are shockingly bad at English. The idea is for Japanese users that CAN read English to provide short summaries of interesting English articles. While the Japanese media is pretty open and liberal, there are still some topics of (possible)importance that never make it into the headlines there. The US media isn't necessarily great, but if you can read English, you have access to A LOT of info to form your own opinion.
Yeah, pretty sure I take offense at the idea that my skills are equivalent to 6 months of crash education by a novice.
I think that the point is more to demonstrate that "Hey, what I do takes a lot of skill and expertise, it's not just something you can throw together in a weekend". If an idea guy wouldn't be willing to invest at least a year to learn how to do it themselves, the idea's probably not as great as they think it is.
I am nearing the end of a "crash course" code lesson and have no intention of creating a company on this knowledge anytime in the near future.
However... I would like to start building out some of those "annoying itch" ideas I have been sitting on and feel this enables me not only to prototype those out, but also allows me to have a half-intelligent conversation about my idea with someone who is a far better dev than me.
However... I would like to start building out some of those "annoying itch" ideas I have been sitting on and feel this enables me not only to prototype those out, but also allows me to have a half-intelligent conversation about my idea with someone who is a far better dev than me.
> However... I would like to start building out some of those "annoying itch" ideas I have been sitting on and feel this enables me not only to prototype those out, but also allows me to have a half-intelligent conversation about my idea with someone who is a far better dev than me.
Oh man, I can't tell you how much instant respect this would gain an "idea guy" who contacted me for development. If you've already tried to prototype your idea, it would tell me that not only are you dedicated, but you will also not underestimate my contribution to the endeavour.
Oh man, I can't tell you how much instant respect this would gain an "idea guy" who contacted me for development. If you've already tried to prototype your idea, it would tell me that not only are you dedicated, but you will also not underestimate my contribution to the endeavour.
you're too easily offended. He only needs to learn enough to implement one idea: his own.
Are you saying you are only capable of implementing one idea? Then maybe you should work on that, instead of taking offense at other people learning something new.
Are you saying you are only capable of implementing one idea? Then maybe you should work on that, instead of taking offense at other people learning something new.
> you could just spend 6-12 months yourself learning to code and doing it yourself and have 100% equity
Would you say that to a lawyer? To an engineer? To an athlete? To an artisan? So why do people say crap like that about programmers all the time?
Programming might be easy, but programming a product you can sell is hard alright. Let's stop pretending programming is sitting in front of an IDE and typing something that compiles/runs, in the same way we pretend anyone who operates a DSLR is a professional photographer.
Would you say that to a lawyer? To an engineer? To an athlete? To an artisan? So why do people say crap like that about programmers all the time?
Programming might be easy, but programming a product you can sell is hard alright. Let's stop pretending programming is sitting in front of an IDE and typing something that compiles/runs, in the same way we pretend anyone who operates a DSLR is a professional photographer.
"Teach yourself programming in ten years" by Peter Norvig for a hard cold reality check:
http://norvig.com/21-days.html
If you're trying to recruit Swombat when looking for a developer to build your idea, then yes, you probably won't be very successful. On the other hand, if you're bringing something to the table, and try to contact developers who are.. well.. mainly developers (as opposed to expensive consultants with decades of experience), your success rate might be higher.
And by "something", I don't mean code (nor the idea, but there are things beside those). Seriously, I'm a developer, I don't give a damn if my potential cofounders could code or not, that's redundant. I would look for someone who has what I can't easily get. Someone having an accurate view of the state of an industry, or being nosy and/or well-connected enough to be able to get this view. Or someone some marketing/sales skills. Or someone with some proof that people (preferably people with money) are interested in the product.
And by "something", I don't mean code (nor the idea, but there are things beside those). Seriously, I'm a developer, I don't give a damn if my potential cofounders could code or not, that's redundant. I would look for someone who has what I can't easily get. Someone having an accurate view of the state of an industry, or being nosy and/or well-connected enough to be able to get this view. Or someone some marketing/sales skills. Or someone with some proof that people (preferably people with money) are interested in the product.
I can value the skills of another developer. I can't value "well-connected" or "marketing/sales skills"
So if a developer comes to me with an idea, I can evaluate the partnership better- it is less risky then to go with a partner with complementary skills (not saying it's better to do it, it's just easier to figure out what you are getting into)
So if a developer comes to me with an idea, I can evaluate the partnership better- it is less risky then to go with a partner with complementary skills (not saying it's better to do it, it's just easier to figure out what you are getting into)
I think it really comes down to the initial monetary investment of the idea guy. For the idea guy to approach a developer with a $200 software package and $8/mo web hosting they've got very little vested. Asking the developer to invest what amounts to anywhere from $60-$150/hr of development hours is unreasonable. Now if the idea guy has invested thousands into data, a nice piece of co-located hardware, exclusive partnerships with reputable advertisers, etc. we might have something. The idea is worth very little in terms of investment. I think the equity breakdown can be broken down as such: 5% for the idea and the dollar for dollar investment by each party.
The antidote to this is a well formulated requirements document.
If you can define precisely what you want, then you will have much more hope in recruiting developers.
Why? 1. The lack of ambiguity of the scope gives developers the opportunity to determine their costs with some accuracy. 2. The requirements define the benefits of the project. Either the developers are convinced your logic is correct, and therefore will make money, or they do not. The former lot are those that you can convince.
If you can define precisely what you want, then you will have much more hope in recruiting developers.
Why? 1. The lack of ambiguity of the scope gives developers the opportunity to determine their costs with some accuracy. 2. The requirements define the benefits of the project. Either the developers are convinced your logic is correct, and therefore will make money, or they do not. The former lot are those that you can convince.
I always call it the programmers curse:
infinite ideas vs. limited time
infinite ideas vs. limited time
Yeah I just realized that when Seth Godin mentioned it in a talk.
There is an unlimited amount of ideas out there, so these are not the scarcity at all. So they are pretty cheap.
Being able to execute them is the big thing. The ideas that sound really worth something, like patents are created by the Engineers themselves with an incredible amount of work.
Why should anybody care about your shower idea?
This also annoys me about the "idea guys", they are often incredibly simple. They didn't do any market research to validate anything, or thought about all the possible risks.
When somebody comes to me and says: "I had an idea and spent the last 2 months doing research about it. So I modified it and now have something where I am pretty confident there is demand for it."
This is something I would take serious.
There is an unlimited amount of ideas out there, so these are not the scarcity at all. So they are pretty cheap.
Being able to execute them is the big thing. The ideas that sound really worth something, like patents are created by the Engineers themselves with an incredible amount of work.
Why should anybody care about your shower idea?
This also annoys me about the "idea guys", they are often incredibly simple. They didn't do any market research to validate anything, or thought about all the possible risks.
When somebody comes to me and says: "I had an idea and spent the last 2 months doing research about it. So I modified it and now have something where I am pretty confident there is demand for it."
This is something I would take serious.
It's also the guiding principle in economics. People will always have infinite wants and finite resources.
Should note that another major issue not mentioned in this post (of which I am sure there are more) is what the idea guy brings to the table beyond the idea. Majority over estimate their abilities, skills, knowledge, background, and even work ethics to such a shameful degree...
This is the crux of it. In other industries, the "idea guy" would usually be an investor bringing $$$ to the table. A random hustler can't just approach a civil engineer with "an idea" to partner on a new bridge and expect the engineer to quit working and give up the next few years. They have to offer major value.
I think the best thing a non-technical founder can do is follow lean principles and bring actual data to the table. Show they've actually done the research - MVPs, letters of intent, etc - and make it clear they have a vision they can execute on. All of that is in the realm of possibility for someone who's not a programmer, and would help to make the case they're serious and capable.
I think the best thing a non-technical founder can do is follow lean principles and bring actual data to the table. Show they've actually done the research - MVPs, letters of intent, etc - and make it clear they have a vision they can execute on. All of that is in the realm of possibility for someone who's not a programmer, and would help to make the case they're serious and capable.
Definitely. Anyone coming to me with an idea I say that's great, just follow the lean principles to develop a non-technical MVP, and I'm in. Haven't had anyone come back with a proven MVP yet : P
Not only do some overestimate their ethics, but developers typically very principled. I've had people tell me straight up their business model is to leech out a database of personal information from Facebook with crappy apps and such. Even if you offer money good luck finding someone who is both skilled and evil.
I never thought I'd find myself repeating this.
A chicken tells a pig that they should start a restaurant together. The pig tells the chicken no. "Why?" asks the chicken. "Because you'd be involved, but I'd be committed."
Revenue share is a great idea, but there's no way I'm working on your idea for free while you just sit around and wait for me to make you money.
A chicken tells a pig that they should start a restaurant together. The pig tells the chicken no. "Why?" asks the chicken. "Because you'd be involved, but I'd be committed."
Revenue share is a great idea, but there's no way I'm working on your idea for free while you just sit around and wait for me to make you money.
Love it. I'll keep this post handy, so I can link to it in my next reply to an "idea guy".
If someone comes along with a great idea and suggests a revenue share, reminded him about the old truism that the idea is 1%, while execution is 99%. At least that will give you a starting point to negotiate the percentages of the revenue share...
If someone comes along with a great idea and suggests a revenue share, reminded him about the old truism that the idea is 1%, while execution is 99%. At least that will give you a starting point to negotiate the percentages of the revenue share...
Eternal September has arrived for Hacker News. A post of this type or a loose twist on it (generally "engineering > ideas") appears every year.
Maybe I am doing something wrong but I have never been approached by such an idea guy - the last closest was running an insurance brokerage and just got fed up with poor delivery from his current devs yet had a laundry lost of features needed in his site
Maybe if you are getting approached by morons a lot you might want to review where you are hanging out - just there mus be some reason
Maybe if you are getting approached by morons a lot you might want to review where you are hanging out - just there mus be some reason
If you want such calls, but up a website with a title tag of "Ruby on Rails developer in <your local city> | <your phone number>". I'm not trying to parody anyone, that's what my website says and I get contacted frequently by idea guys.
They're not necessarily stupid, they just don't have any understanding of goes into creating software.
Here is why I decline work offers:
- They cannot pay my rates.
- The client seems shady.
- The team/person will not agree to my terms.
- We have a chemistry clash.
- Red flags regarding the way they talk about people.
- They cannot pay my rates.
- The client seems shady.
- The team/person will not agree to my terms.
- We have a chemistry clash.
- Red flags regarding the way they talk about people.
Ideas are easy, execution is hard
But good ideas are quite rare.
But good ideas are quite rare.
The catch is that you don't know if the idea is good or not before validating it in real life.
So true! Almost every week an entrepreneur contacts me and wants me to come his Next Big Idea and that on equity basis. I usually ask: If it's such an awesome idea then why doesn't he get funding and pay to developers. Usually they have no answer.
The client who tries to give his own clueless estimate of complexity of the job - automatically gets into no-reply/spam list:
"...and i think it's not that complicated"
"...it shouldn't take more than ... to complete"
"...Joe Blow said it's simple and let's assume that"
"...and i think it's not that complicated"
"...it shouldn't take more than ... to complete"
"...Joe Blow said it's simple and let's assume that"
IME, that's pretty much all of them.
But then I think that nearly everyone has a tendency to think that anything they don't fully understand must be simple.
You don't have to hang around here or on Slashdot for long to see that programmers suffer from this too...
But then I think that nearly everyone has a tendency to think that anything they don't fully understand must be simple.
You don't have to hang around here or on Slashdot for long to see that programmers suffer from this too...
the first point is the most matching.
"Ideas are easy, execution is hard."
I often get requests of ideas but they are so hard to execute that you would need a bigger team to do it and a lot more money then the idea holder has...
I often get requests of ideas but they are so hard to execute that you would need a bigger team to do it and a lot more money then the idea holder has...
I thought I’d weigh in my opinion as a developer-entrepreneur who has worked with various business and technical co-founders.
I wrote a post covering 'Business Product Responsibilities' with a graph here: http://simplyryan.com/2013/01/19/business-product-responsibi....
I have found that I don't want to work with non-technical founders because they often don't take ownership of their responsibilities.
I wrote a post covering 'Business Product Responsibilities' with a graph here: http://simplyryan.com/2013/01/19/business-product-responsibi....
I have found that I don't want to work with non-technical founders because they often don't take ownership of their responsibilities.
"The idea being proposed is often very unrealistic"
For some reason developers/engineers tend to be pessimistic while leaders/idea people tend to be optimistic.
In order to produce really great products you probably need both sides -- so don't dismiss the "idea guy" without giving the proposed idea at least some thought. Perhaps the original idea is too broad but can be the basis for a useful product.
For some reason developers/engineers tend to be pessimistic while leaders/idea people tend to be optimistic.
In order to produce really great products you probably need both sides -- so don't dismiss the "idea guy" without giving the proposed idea at least some thought. Perhaps the original idea is too broad but can be the basis for a useful product.
Another good criteria is have you done something before? Doesn't matter so much if it succeeded or not, but what you're looking for is will you follow through. Someone who has tried and put real effort, past the initial first few months, is likely to at least be worth further investigation. This little criteria removes over 99% of ideas only people
It boils down to this: startups hardly fail because of technology (they do because of marketing). So no matter how good a developer is, he/she still has a very limited affect on success. Therefore taking equity, event a 50% stake is not a smart investment. Unfortunately startups can rarely afford to pay normal rates.
"People approaching developers often dramatically underestimate the amount of development work, or the complexity of it."
I'd add underestimate the cost of a decent final product to that too.
I'd add underestimate the cost of a decent final product to that too.
Make options vest (or accelerate anyway) on product milestones, not time and I think it would help highlight where and when the value has been created.
Also to be fair I don't want to work on the idea of the guy paying 350-400 a day - but at least they pay.
I want to work on my idea - and that's hard enough
I want to work on my idea - and that's hard enough
Engineering is not the solution
Ideas are not the solution
Feedback and willingness to be flexible are the solution
Who cares if the original idea sucks - is the prospective idea guy willing to invest time effort blood and tears making something happen - constantly measuring and validating ideas as they go
If yes leap in with both feet.
Feedback and willingness to be flexible are the solution
Who cares if the original idea sucks - is the prospective idea guy willing to invest time effort blood and tears making something happen - constantly measuring and validating ideas as they go
If yes leap in with both feet.
I second it. This is much nicer response to keep away the "ideas guy".
Some writers are OK with being ghostwriters, or copywriters. They can apply their craft within the confines of other people's ideas.
Great writers work on their own ideas.
Great writers work on their own ideas.
Ugh, what does that even mean? What's a "great" writer, other than a writer who works on his own ideas, and why can't a "great" writer be a ghostwriter? This analogy doesn't even apply here, it's just a self-congratulatory remark to make some other readers feel better about "sticking it to the man".
Great to know, thanks. I've always had trouble dealing with Time zones and offsets, it's a headache dealing with time. Sign, I just don't got the time!
Lots of contracts in London are paying £350 a day. £350 / day * 48 working weeks of the year * 5 days a week = £84,000 / year. £55,498.64 in your pocket after tax. Compare this to ~5 - 10 years of working for peanuts in a startup hoping for an exit. Keep your eye on the clients who agree to short payment terms, forget the dreamers.
48 weeks * 5 days a week is really best case scenario.
You have included 4 weeks of holiday, but not sickness, training courses, conferences, company admin, next contract sales and worst of all bench time between contracts.
My calculation are you are down to 45 weeks after 5 weeks holiday and UK bank holidays. Add 5 days for illness, 7 days for courses and conferences, 1 day a month for admin, 3 days every 6 months for sales, and suddenly you are down to 39 weeks. Add at best 2 weeks of bench time as lining up new contracts perfectly is tricky and you are down to 37 weeks.
£350 * 5 * 37 = 64,750 before tax.
Then it is the whole consideration of whether you are within IR35, which basically taxes you more than a normal employee, and is very difficult to not be within if freelancing on longer contracts in the UK.
Then accounting, insurance, hardware costs etc.
You would have to be on some real long term contracts without benchtime, no illness, no training and no expenses to get towards you numbers.
Working in Shoreditch myself I know most of the decent developers with 10 experience around here are earning a lot more than a contract guy would make on £350 per day.
You have included 4 weeks of holiday, but not sickness, training courses, conferences, company admin, next contract sales and worst of all bench time between contracts.
My calculation are you are down to 45 weeks after 5 weeks holiday and UK bank holidays. Add 5 days for illness, 7 days for courses and conferences, 1 day a month for admin, 3 days every 6 months for sales, and suddenly you are down to 39 weeks. Add at best 2 weeks of bench time as lining up new contracts perfectly is tricky and you are down to 37 weeks.
£350 * 5 * 37 = 64,750 before tax.
Then it is the whole consideration of whether you are within IR35, which basically taxes you more than a normal employee, and is very difficult to not be within if freelancing on longer contracts in the UK.
Then accounting, insurance, hardware costs etc.
You would have to be on some real long term contracts without benchtime, no illness, no training and no expenses to get towards you numbers.
Working in Shoreditch myself I know most of the decent developers with 10 experience around here are earning a lot more than a contract guy would make on £350 per day.
Contracting doesn't pay as much as freelancing. Lots of people contract fulltime at companies and ignore the IR35 issues (even though they shouldn't) for around £350/day.
Freelancing is different. You have to deal with all of the issues you mention above, cost of sales etc (though, get yourself an accountant, seriously) but the reward is higher. You're doing things at your own pace and if you're good you can really focus to make solid profit.
Contracting is just a regular hourly wage (and as you rightly point out, not always as good as it looks on the tin).
Freelancing is different. You have to deal with all of the issues you mention above, cost of sales etc (though, get yourself an accountant, seriously) but the reward is higher. You're doing things at your own pace and if you're good you can really focus to make solid profit.
Contracting is just a regular hourly wage (and as you rightly point out, not always as good as it looks on the tin).
You can use an umbrella company to do all your accounting. Ten minutes at the end of each week doing time sheets, 30 minutes each month submitted receipts for write offs. Equipment costs can be deducted from taxes so they can end up being extremely cheap or free.
IR35 is a good point. If you have multiple contracts and don't work in any one place for more than two years you should avoid any questions around if it's really a contract or not. Most employed coders I know hardly stick around in a place for more than two years here in London.
IR35 is a good point. If you have multiple contracts and don't work in any one place for more than two years you should avoid any questions around if it's really a contract or not. Most employed coders I know hardly stick around in a place for more than two years here in London.
In my experience, 350 was the low end. When recruiting, we couldn't get any decent people for under 400 (and I mean decent; 350 got us a Web front end developer who didn't know CSS). 400-450 did get us amazingly knowledgeable people, though, so that extra 50 was a small price to pay.
Out of curiosity were you recruiting developers directly or going via a headhunter or agency? £350 that I see a lot is what's offered from headhunter emails filling my inbox everyday. They take a large margin for themselves as a finders fee.
Yeah, it was a recruiter. They probably did inflate the prices a lot, although I think they took some days' wages as a fee or something. I can't be sure.
blah blah blah. Same contracting comparison that gets thrown into seemingly every thread. As an employee you get work guaranteed, as a freelancer you have to work for every hour of work twice (once to get it, once to actually do it). You also have to do your own taxes, basically run your own business, but with only the shitty parts of it (no potential for growth, bureaucracy, scheduling, negotiating your pay all the time, often stepping into completely unknown & WTF code, solitude, the list goes on and on).
Also who gives a fuck about money above 50k GBP? If you're young work a cool job, meet interesting people and learn lots of new stuff. Freelancing is almost never that. Working at a startup is, provided you pick the right one.
Also who gives a fuck about money above 50k GBP? If you're young work a cool job, meet interesting people and learn lots of new stuff. Freelancing is almost never that. Working at a startup is, provided you pick the right one.
"meet interesting people and learn lots of new stuff. Freelancing is almost never that."
Not my experience. Freelancing is what you make of it. To get some experience you may do some boring stuff early on, but if you've got no or little experience your 'startup' will likely fail.
90% of the freelancing work I've done over the last few years has generally been 'learning new stuff' and 'meeting interesting people' in somewhat challenging problem domains (trucking logistics, education, etc).
"Working at a startup is, provided you pick the right one."
Freelancing is what you make of it. Find interesting projects.
Not my experience. Freelancing is what you make of it. To get some experience you may do some boring stuff early on, but if you've got no or little experience your 'startup' will likely fail.
90% of the freelancing work I've done over the last few years has generally been 'learning new stuff' and 'meeting interesting people' in somewhat challenging problem domains (trucking logistics, education, etc).
"Working at a startup is, provided you pick the right one."
Freelancing is what you make of it. Find interesting projects.
Yes, I agree that freelancing can be fascinating work. I mainly wrote from my own perspective (and since HN was once called "Startup News", I imagine also from that of others), where I do not have the right credentials or connections to get very amazing freelance work. I'm 20 and without a degree. If anything I could maybe get slave-trade $20/hr Odesk work or something, but not considerably better.
Now, since (good) employers often manage to look past a lack of credentials and connections, I was able to get a great job at a YC startup (run by entrepreneurs with past successes/exits). They're taking a chance on me, which almost never happens with freelance work (especially not if there's a dude with 10 years experience competing with you).
And also I would argue that is much easier and quicker to find a good startup (just go down the list of YC companies) than to find amazing freelance work.
Now, since (good) employers often manage to look past a lack of credentials and connections, I was able to get a great job at a YC startup (run by entrepreneurs with past successes/exits). They're taking a chance on me, which almost never happens with freelance work (especially not if there's a dude with 10 years experience competing with you).
And also I would argue that is much easier and quicker to find a good startup (just go down the list of YC companies) than to find amazing freelance work.
"Connections". You worked on connections to get in a YC startup (an amazingly small number of potential opportunities in the universe of opportunities).
I'm suspecting that you had a hankering to work at a "startup" and that colored your behaviour. I know many people without any major credentials who are doing just fine in freelancing, making good money doing what they like to do.
Never bother with odesk - you wouldn't have gotten a YC-startup gig on odesk - why look for anything else there? Work your network/connections - if you don't have any, build them up - that's what takes time and effort.
I also suspect many people on this forum (and on specific topics) are 'startup' focused. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that, I do feel it sets a lot of people up for failure ("fail fast! fail often!") when many of them aren't psychologically or financially prepared for so such failures. We rarely read about the failures of people who attempt 'startups'. Even when we do, it's often a post-mortem look from someone who's now writing from a position of success, reviewing their own failures in public for others to see. The implicit (sometimes explicit) message is "see, even if you fail, you can be successful later in the same space".
Good luck to you on your journey.
I'm suspecting that you had a hankering to work at a "startup" and that colored your behaviour. I know many people without any major credentials who are doing just fine in freelancing, making good money doing what they like to do.
Never bother with odesk - you wouldn't have gotten a YC-startup gig on odesk - why look for anything else there? Work your network/connections - if you don't have any, build them up - that's what takes time and effort.
I also suspect many people on this forum (and on specific topics) are 'startup' focused. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that, I do feel it sets a lot of people up for failure ("fail fast! fail often!") when many of them aren't psychologically or financially prepared for so such failures. We rarely read about the failures of people who attempt 'startups'. Even when we do, it's often a post-mortem look from someone who's now writing from a position of success, reviewing their own failures in public for others to see. The implicit (sometimes explicit) message is "see, even if you fail, you can be successful later in the same space".
Good luck to you on your journey.
Thank you for the good luck wishes.
>Work your network/connections
That's exactly the issue. I didn't have that. At all. Before that I just hacked on stuff because I thought it was fun / interesting. I also came from a tiny country without a tech scene.
>I'm suspecting that you had a hankering to work at a "startup" and that colored your behaviour.
I do love startups. But I before starting my job search I spent about a month trying to figure out freelancing. In the end I decided against it (for reasons listed above) and went onto what I -- at the time -- considered the second best option: employment.
It was a great success. Instead of trying to cold-email people for dev-scraps that are so un-important that they'll let someone with no degree and no industry experience and no references work on it vs. someone with a CS degree + 5-10 years of industry experience + heaps of people with impressive business titles who can recommend his work and doing whatever crappy work I can get my hands on just to "work on connections", I now get to work every day among a set of incredibly smart, compassionate, warm, successful people who want to invest in me and want me to become the best programmer and contributor that I can be.
That's why I chose the employment route: Once you're in, you're in and you can focus on what you love and growing yourself instead of constantly having to worry to put food / contracts on the table.
>Work your network/connections
That's exactly the issue. I didn't have that. At all. Before that I just hacked on stuff because I thought it was fun / interesting. I also came from a tiny country without a tech scene.
>I'm suspecting that you had a hankering to work at a "startup" and that colored your behaviour.
I do love startups. But I before starting my job search I spent about a month trying to figure out freelancing. In the end I decided against it (for reasons listed above) and went onto what I -- at the time -- considered the second best option: employment.
It was a great success. Instead of trying to cold-email people for dev-scraps that are so un-important that they'll let someone with no degree and no industry experience and no references work on it vs. someone with a CS degree + 5-10 years of industry experience + heaps of people with impressive business titles who can recommend his work and doing whatever crappy work I can get my hands on just to "work on connections", I now get to work every day among a set of incredibly smart, compassionate, warm, successful people who want to invest in me and want me to become the best programmer and contributor that I can be.
That's why I chose the employment route: Once you're in, you're in and you can focus on what you love and growing yourself instead of constantly having to worry to put food / contracts on the table.
Hang on a second. Are you honestly saying that you think 350GBP/day is an unreasonably high goal for a contractor?
If my math is right, that works out to about $70/hr (USD), which is well on the low side for a 1 year contract, even assuming you're out in the sticks. That's closer to what you'd expect for a day rate as a salaried employee if you have any experience.
So no, you need to take on board that this is the sort of money you should be making. If you're not (and by assuming that only magical freelancers make that much, but only for a few weeks at a time, it sounds that way), you'd be well served to spend some effort getting your rate up where it belongs.
We'd actually all be better off were you to do so. As long as there are people willing to work for GBP65k/year, there will be companies taking advantage of them. But those same companies will happily pay market (as plenty of us can attest) if they have to.
If my math is right, that works out to about $70/hr (USD), which is well on the low side for a 1 year contract, even assuming you're out in the sticks. That's closer to what you'd expect for a day rate as a salaried employee if you have any experience.
So no, you need to take on board that this is the sort of money you should be making. If you're not (and by assuming that only magical freelancers make that much, but only for a few weeks at a time, it sounds that way), you'd be well served to spend some effort getting your rate up where it belongs.
We'd actually all be better off were you to do so. As long as there are people willing to work for GBP65k/year, there will be companies taking advantage of them. But those same companies will happily pay market (as plenty of us can attest) if they have to.
Quite a sad reality you live in. Apparently a world where the main criterion for a job is to maximize money output while minimizing time commitment.
Money doesn't motivate me. I thought it would. Made a bunch of money (much more than me or anyone I knew made) doing IM stuff. Turns out what I really wanted was interesting peers, people who I could become long-term friends with, learn from and share experiences with. Freelancing doesn't offer this, finding the right people and working with them at a company however can.
>But those same companies will happily pay market (as plenty of us can attest) if they have to.
>market
You use the word market as if you knew what it meant, but apparently you don't. Developers being happy to accept lower rates than what they could make freelancing means there's some mysterious, secret value-offering that becoming part of a team offers humans. For a lot of people that's stability. Or because becoming an employee is the "normal thing to do". For me it's much more. And I imagine for many of the most brilliant programmers who are alive today (of whom almost none earn their living as freelancers) as well.
Money doesn't motivate me. I thought it would. Made a bunch of money (much more than me or anyone I knew made) doing IM stuff. Turns out what I really wanted was interesting peers, people who I could become long-term friends with, learn from and share experiences with. Freelancing doesn't offer this, finding the right people and working with them at a company however can.
>But those same companies will happily pay market (as plenty of us can attest) if they have to.
>market
You use the word market as if you knew what it meant, but apparently you don't. Developers being happy to accept lower rates than what they could make freelancing means there's some mysterious, secret value-offering that becoming part of a team offers humans. For a lot of people that's stability. Or because becoming an employee is the "normal thing to do". For me it's much more. And I imagine for many of the most brilliant programmers who are alive today (of whom almost none earn their living as freelancers) as well.
You say you're 20. The reality that some of us live in is that we have families to support. Let's see how your idealism stacks up after another 20 years.
I don't think what I've laid out is unrealistic. I'm young that's true. Though I still hope that in 20 years I have a job that I love and want to spend a lot of time at. I might also have other things I want to spend time on, but I don't want to sacrifice in my work situation in order to do that (which I interpret freelancing to be). Hopefully I'll be careful enough not to have kids without significant savings (though I currently don't think kids are a great deal bang for your buck (time, commitment, opportunity cost) :) )
>as a freelancer you have to work for every hour of work twice
This has not been my experience. I've been doing this for years and I don't think I've ever spent more than two weeks looking for a gig. Even during the current crisis the market is great for developers (here in Denmark at least).
These projects have typically lasted three or four months. That makes me enough money to live off for the rest of the year which I have then spent travelling and working on my own projects.
This has not been my experience. I've been doing this for years and I don't think I've ever spent more than two weeks looking for a gig. Even during the current crisis the market is great for developers (here in Denmark at least).
These projects have typically lasted three or four months. That makes me enough money to live off for the rest of the year which I have then spent travelling and working on my own projects.
Also who gives a fuck about money above 50k GBP?
Someone with 2 children in private school.
Someone with 2 children in private school.
Contracting isn't freelancing though. In my experience contract gigs are pretty easy to find, and you don't have to work that hard to get them. Send off a CV to a few agencies, wait, that's it.
If you're a consultant, spending time establishing thought leadership etc etc then yeah, but you'd be crazy to work for 350 per day in that case.
If you're a consultant, spending time establishing thought leadership etc etc then yeah, but you'd be crazy to work for 350 per day in that case.
I've been freelancing in London and always calculate my yearly expected income by multiplying it with 200 to account for holiday, sick leave and general overhead.
£350 * 200 = £70000 before taxes, I think £84000 is overly optimistic here.
£350 * 200 = £70000 before taxes, I think £84000 is overly optimistic here.
But 200 days means you're working 40 weeks of the year leaving 12 weeks for everything else. I know some contractors aren't always working but I work next to ten other python developers who are only on six month contracts. Notice periods are anywhere from a day in some places to a month in others. Same as employment really.
Also, which startups here in the UK give you 12 weeks off a year?
Also, which startups here in the UK give you 12 weeks off a year?
It wasn't a startup, but my general consulting setup for several clients. Also, in those 12 weeks christmas, bank holidays and all that stuff were included.
I think I worked more than 200 days in the end, but I like to calculate pessimistic and be positively surprised at the end of the year.
I think I worked more than 200 days in the end, but I like to calculate pessimistic and be positively surprised at the end of the year.
"Keep your eye on the clients who agree to short payment terms, forget the dreamers."
OK but then also maybe forget HN and entrepreneurship?
OK but then also maybe forget HN and entrepreneurship?
I'm not sure why I'd have to give up on HN. Not every posting here relates to entrepreneurship. I've found countless posts which have turned my attentions to new technologies. Those technologies ended up helping me find new contracts.
I have met some talented developers who are keen to build a business of their dreams. I'm glad they're doing it as (1) they are trying to reach their goals in life and (2) they aren't competing with me for work :)
I have met some talented developers who are keen to build a business of their dreams. I'm glad they're doing it as (1) they are trying to reach their goals in life and (2) they aren't competing with me for work :)
I was approached with an idea it was by a guy that had years experience in the industry, connections to sell the thing and solid ideas how to market and fund the enterprise.
So far it is going fine. I think that this approach will see a lot of interested developers.
So far it is going fine. I think that this approach will see a lot of interested developers.
1. Are you willing to pay my normal rate?
2. If so, can you convince me the market is there and you know how to address it.
3. Can you convince me _you_ are the guy who's going to be able to bring it all together?
I know that after rule 1 I shouldn't care, but with so many potential projects out there, I like working on ones I think will amount to something rather than spending two months coding and then having it all thrown away. Call it a personal satisfaction thing.
Fundamentally, the rules amount to equity isn't tasty.