Ask HN: What is the most crucial knowledge a non-technical founder should have?
31 comments
A non-technical cofounder of a tech company should (in my mind) be set on a path to being technical (whatever that means - there are always people that know more, and always people that know less).
You can spend your entire career labelling yourself as non-technical, but that is not a reflection of your skill, it's a reflection of your attitude.
Have a willingness to learn and be humble with what you do know. Stop being a something or a non-something. Just be the best you can be with every challenge that crosses your path.
You can spend your entire career labelling yourself as non-technical, but that is not a reflection of your skill, it's a reflection of your attitude.
Have a willingness to learn and be humble with what you do know. Stop being a something or a non-something. Just be the best you can be with every challenge that crosses your path.
That's just semantic framing. Non-technical is a word used from the point of view of engineers, the primary audience on "Hacker" News, who naturally value technical skills the most.
You could reframe the engineers as being non-revenue. Because businesses exist to generate revenue, suddenly they are less important than the business people. Plenty of Silicon Valley companies value revenue-side personnel more than engineers, like Oracle, Salesforce, Intuit.
True. Engineers should learn sales and marketing. Business people should learn how to code. But at the end of the day, having enough depth and expertise on your team to cover your bases is what's required, and really that requires specialization.
I'm a compsci who's a CMO now, so I understand people in the different roles.
You could reframe the engineers as being non-revenue. Because businesses exist to generate revenue, suddenly they are less important than the business people. Plenty of Silicon Valley companies value revenue-side personnel more than engineers, like Oracle, Salesforce, Intuit.
True. Engineers should learn sales and marketing. Business people should learn how to code. But at the end of the day, having enough depth and expertise on your team to cover your bases is what's required, and really that requires specialization.
I'm a compsci who's a CMO now, so I understand people in the different roles.
Willingness to learn and pick up skills. Not the technical ones - your co-founder has that in order. I'm talking about:
Sales
Marketing
Fundraising
How to talk to a lawyer
Figuring out what business licenses you need and how to maintain them
Accounting
Interpreting from Geek to English
Hiring to fill the gaps in your knowledge (and firing those who don't)
Contract negotiation
Identifying niches for business opportunities
Basically, anything involved in creating a business which doesn't involve technology; there's quite a few of these, and in many ways they are as or more important to the success of the business than technical knowledge. Even if you create the perfect product, you still need someone to market and sell it to the masses.
Sales
Marketing
Fundraising
How to talk to a lawyer
Figuring out what business licenses you need and how to maintain them
Accounting
Interpreting from Geek to English
Hiring to fill the gaps in your knowledge (and firing those who don't)
Contract negotiation
Identifying niches for business opportunities
Basically, anything involved in creating a business which doesn't involve technology; there's quite a few of these, and in many ways they are as or more important to the success of the business than technical knowledge. Even if you create the perfect product, you still need someone to market and sell it to the masses.
I would add a couple tech management skills like:
1. Understanding the 'soft' nature of software
2. Iterative development
And one non-tech: . Lean methodology
You got most else covered.
And one non-tech: . Lean methodology
You got most else covered.
A couple people here have said "Sales", but in my opinion (technical founder who usually takes non-technical roles), the most important is hiring.
I often talk to non-technical people who want to start a tech company, and I ask them really baseline questions about the tech people they want to hire: "What language do you want someone to be able to code in?"
Usually, I get glazed-over eyes followed by a defensive response like "Well, I just need a developer! They should be able to pick a language to code in! That's their job!"
This is exactly the wrong answer, and I typically leave the conversation with a comment about how they really need to understand the basics of "which language does what", even if they, themselves, do not want to be a programmer.
It is so much easier to hire technical talent when you can at least communicate in their language--when you can have a real conversation about priorities, UI/UX, and how long this darn thing will take to get out the door!
So many non-technical founders really do not get this, and I believe it's one of the huge reasons non-technical founders will continue to struggle with founding tech companies.
I often talk to non-technical people who want to start a tech company, and I ask them really baseline questions about the tech people they want to hire: "What language do you want someone to be able to code in?"
Usually, I get glazed-over eyes followed by a defensive response like "Well, I just need a developer! They should be able to pick a language to code in! That's their job!"
This is exactly the wrong answer, and I typically leave the conversation with a comment about how they really need to understand the basics of "which language does what", even if they, themselves, do not want to be a programmer.
It is so much easier to hire technical talent when you can at least communicate in their language--when you can have a real conversation about priorities, UI/UX, and how long this darn thing will take to get out the door!
So many non-technical founders really do not get this, and I believe it's one of the huge reasons non-technical founders will continue to struggle with founding tech companies.
Actually, you're wrong. Many languages (and other technologies) are versatile and can do different things, so they're not as important here. What is needed are people who know how to design and build the product/prototype, and leave them to decide which technology to use.
I am not talking from a "Hacker News" perspective here, where we can debate the details of functional programming or talk about which language makes the most sense. I am speaking of conversations (that I've actually had, on a regular basis) that go like this:
Me: So do you plan on building that as a web app, or a mobile app?
Non-technical founder: Um. I don't know. Both?
Me: Okay, do you understand that you will probably need at least 2 different developers (and possibly 3 or more, depending on which mobile app platforms you use) to help you build that out?
NTF: It's a great idea! I just need a developer! Don't you know some developers you can introduce me to?
Me: ...
The conversation is on an entirely different level from most of the ones we'd have here.
Me: So do you plan on building that as a web app, or a mobile app?
Non-technical founder: Um. I don't know. Both?
Me: Okay, do you understand that you will probably need at least 2 different developers (and possibly 3 or more, depending on which mobile app platforms you use) to help you build that out?
NTF: It's a great idea! I just need a developer! Don't you know some developers you can introduce me to?
Me: ...
The conversation is on an entirely different level from most of the ones we'd have here.
It's not a "Hacker News perspective", it's the basic principle of anything. If you have a car and want to take a ride, you need a driver or you'll crash. If we're talking about a non-technical founder starting a tech startup, the first advice to the is only one: find a technical co-founder and don't even think about starting it without them. What you're describing should be the job for that technical co-founder, and not for our non-tech guy (or gal) to do. Unless they are also willing to learn enough to become technical enough to play that role too; that takes a lot of time and effort to do right, but it's a viable route too.
So, next time you have a conversation like the one above, don't waste your time on trying to teach tech stuff to non-tech people -- simply, just tell them "find a tech co-founder".
So, next time you have a conversation like the one above, don't waste your time on trying to teach tech stuff to non-tech people -- simply, just tell them "find a tech co-founder".
Actually you're wrong. (Sorry, but I just felt the need the illustrate the obnoxiousness of your original reply).
I have to side with Erica on this one for the simple reason that you'll never be able to attract a good developer or a technical co-founder with this attitude of throwing your hands up in the air and eyes glazing over. That doesn't mean that you ignorantly blunder in and tell developers how to do their job, but it means that whatever area your company needs to move in you are keen to learn enough to have an intelligent conversation about it.
I've met dozens (hundreds?) of wantrepreneurs with this attitude of not wanting to know anything about the tech, and invariably they see themselves as brilliant masterminds who just need a peon to execute their vision. Little do they realize that the success of any tech company depends on bridging the gap between the technical execution and the business reality. I am much less turned off by a business guy who is ignorant but trying to learn about tech versus someone who feels they can start a tech company without learning anything about technology.
I have to side with Erica on this one for the simple reason that you'll never be able to attract a good developer or a technical co-founder with this attitude of throwing your hands up in the air and eyes glazing over. That doesn't mean that you ignorantly blunder in and tell developers how to do their job, but it means that whatever area your company needs to move in you are keen to learn enough to have an intelligent conversation about it.
I've met dozens (hundreds?) of wantrepreneurs with this attitude of not wanting to know anything about the tech, and invariably they see themselves as brilliant masterminds who just need a peon to execute their vision. Little do they realize that the success of any tech company depends on bridging the gap between the technical execution and the business reality. I am much less turned off by a business guy who is ignorant but trying to learn about tech versus someone who feels they can start a tech company without learning anything about technology.
Both you and Erica are correct in identifying the problem with the attitude; but trying to teach them technology is wrong. Or, if you find that word too obnoxious, a waste of time and effort.
My point is: if someone is willing to learn, teach them what to look for. If they're not, ignore them.
So we're in agreement. :-)
My point is: if someone is willing to learn, teach them what to look for. If they're not, ignore them.
So we're in agreement. :-)
all you've done now is change the question from 'what kind of developer do you want to find' to 'what kind of co-founder do you want to find'.
Or would you tell someone to trust their gut and blindly pickup a 'technical' cofounder?
Or would you tell someone to trust their gut and blindly pickup a 'technical' cofounder?
No, I would tell them to talk to as many technical people as possible, and look for one who proves able to:
a) understand their vision b) improve on their vision c) get some respect from other technical people
With a) being the crucial step, and if they can't get past that there might be a problem with their vision.
a) understand their vision b) improve on their vision c) get some respect from other technical people
With a) being the crucial step, and if they can't get past that there might be a problem with their vision.
The conversation you are describing is not a non-technical founder...its a non-anything dreamer.
I dont think lack of technical knowledge is this guys problem. His problem is that he has an idea and thinks other people are going to do everything for him.
A founder would not be looking for a developer at this stage. They would be looking for a customer at this stage and map out their needs and flesh out the idea.
I dont think lack of technical knowledge is this guys problem. His problem is that he has an idea and thinks other people are going to do everything for him.
A founder would not be looking for a developer at this stage. They would be looking for a customer at this stage and map out their needs and flesh out the idea.
[deleted]
Notice that nowhere in that conversation did you mention choice of language.
Additionally, the correct answer is "Find a good technical co-founder, or spend money on good consultants, and let them figure out the rest and explain their decisions afterwards to you."
Additionally, the correct answer is "Find a good technical co-founder, or spend money on good consultants, and let them figure out the rest and explain their decisions afterwards to you."
Is it really necessary for a non-technical founder to understand the differences between node.js and C#/.NET?
"I know bridges can be built out of metal or wood! I'll just hire a carpenter and let them figure it out..."
This should be:
I know bridges can be built out of metal or wood! I'll just hire an engineer and let them figure it out.
Which is great, because that's exactly what the engineer knows how to do. This should be the same case with the technical co-founder, if not, they're the wrong person to choose as your technical co-founder.
I know bridges can be built out of metal or wood! I'll just hire an engineer and let them figure it out.
Which is great, because that's exactly what the engineer knows how to do. This should be the same case with the technical co-founder, if not, they're the wrong person to choose as your technical co-founder.
Anybody qualified to be CTO of a company should be able to asses the needs of the software, architect the solution, get up to speed on any technologies they're not yet familiar with, and implement the solution.
That depends on what the idea is. If you're selling software and you're a founder, you'd better at least want to understand your product or you are useless.
Understanding the product doesn't require to know in what language it has been built (unless you're selling a library that can be called from a certain language but I don't think that the kind of product we have in mind here). What you say is akin to a car salesman knowing how the car factory works.
I don't think so. I think it's more akin to the CEO of Toyota having an idea how the car factory works and I bet you money he has a pretty good idea.
Frameworks and languages have a part in defining the structure of the organization, how development grows, how people's work is measured, and so on. It will ultimately have a significant role in office politics. Once a company scales past 25-100 people, developer politics will be there to stay regardless of language. So you have to pick what kind of trade offs you want to deal with. And a founder should be the informed final word on that crucial choice
The problem with your answer is that nontechnical people will never be able to hire technical people well. They simply do not have the skills to judge technical talent; at best they can hire based on secondary characteristics like "they really sound like they know what they are talking about". Nontechnical founders who successfully hire good tech talent are just lucky.
I think this same maxim goes for tech people trying to hire sales talent, or nonfinance hiring a CFO, etc. You're just not equipped to judge, and you don't have the time to take CPA classes (or learn to code, or get an MBA, etc) just to hire someone.
The situation is not really this grim, because you should have a social network which can help vet hiring choices - either because the candidate is already known, or because you know someone that can do the interview for you. But "knowing people who can help you hire" is not really a skill.
I think this same maxim goes for tech people trying to hire sales talent, or nonfinance hiring a CFO, etc. You're just not equipped to judge, and you don't have the time to take CPA classes (or learn to code, or get an MBA, etc) just to hire someone.
The situation is not really this grim, because you should have a social network which can help vet hiring choices - either because the candidate is already known, or because you know someone that can do the interview for you. But "knowing people who can help you hire" is not really a skill.
I think you're right, but it's more nuanced. Nontechnical people can be very helpful early in the recruiting funnel though, and that's a critical time suck/skillset that the technical folks don't have to invest in and can instead focus on their core role.
The first question is what are you bringing to the party? Just because you have a good idea, you might be better off hiring in and not taking salary etc. It is too easy to treat the product as your baby even if you don't add any value, which means you will make it too slow or too fast to make it viable.
If you want to bring sales skills into the mix then you need to know your target market segment. Selling cars to the public is not the same as selling robots to the corporate world.
Startups also should have multi-tasking founders. Ideally, all of you can do several things. It can be a mistake to think that person A is a sales person, person B is technical, person C is design etc. because you then need 6 or more people just to cover all the jobs.
Also, you will possibly come up against problems with investment if a Founder is seen as dead-weight rather than adding value.
Just my tuppence worth!
If you want to bring sales skills into the mix then you need to know your target market segment. Selling cars to the public is not the same as selling robots to the corporate world.
Startups also should have multi-tasking founders. Ideally, all of you can do several things. It can be a mistake to think that person A is a sales person, person B is technical, person C is design etc. because you then need 6 or more people just to cover all the jobs.
Also, you will possibly come up against problems with investment if a Founder is seen as dead-weight rather than adding value.
Just my tuppence worth!
Sales. I think the non-technical founders should understand tech well enough in a general sense (what is a client, what is a server, roughly what happens where). But the value add should come from sales.
Sales. #1 with a bullet. At the beginning all marketing, investment, recruiting is sales.
They should understand the customer and never stop learning about the customer.
The best way to do this is to talk to lots of prospects and customers.
Knowing why you are building is more important than knowing how or what...thoae two stem from knowing why.
Im non technical but knowing the customer is the foundation for everything you are doing.
The best way to do this is to talk to lots of prospects and customers.
Knowing why you are building is more important than knowing how or what...thoae two stem from knowing why.
Im non technical but knowing the customer is the foundation for everything you are doing.
Startups aren't as black and white for you to be able to say for every startup, there should be 1 technical founder and 1 non-technical founder and each have roles XYZ. The truth is every company is different and the roles you need to fill should be clearly understood by you and your cofounder(s). It is important to outline what key functions and skills are necessary for your company and focus on those. It is important that the collective knowledge of your founders encompass all that is necessary for your startup to be successful. For example, someone on your team will need strong industry knowledge.
Understanding that, no matter what you do, you need a subject expert to build the product. No amount of kool aid, great ideas and "strategical thinking" will help you unless you have someone who understands the space you're targeting. In other words, don't be these guys: http://thedailywtf.com/articles/classic-wtf-trouble-with-fou... (the first story).
If you don't have such an expert, there are two ways to go: a) hire one, or b) become one.
If you don't have such an expert, there are two ways to go: a) hire one, or b) become one.
Basically everything in Steve Blank's Four Steps to the Epiphany (another phrase for this is "business development")
If there is someone you are considering for a co-founder role, tell them to get the book and read it.
If they get the book and read it and come back a week later saying "holy shit lets get started", then you've found your non-technical co-founder.
If they complain about having to get a book and read it, you can forget them, they are wrong for the job.
If there is someone you are considering for a co-founder role, tell them to get the book and read it.
If they get the book and read it and come back a week later saying "holy shit lets get started", then you've found your non-technical co-founder.
If they complain about having to get a book and read it, you can forget them, they are wrong for the job.
The most crucial knowledge is the one you need to get shit done and this is different every day. There is no such thing as that one key to everything. The only important thing is: learn. If you don't know something, either way hire someone who knows or learn about it yourself. That's the key. Technical or not, it doesn't matter.
Ability to be wrong
Ability to take criticism
Ability to take criticism
That's really not specific to a non-technical founder. Or to a founder.
But it is a non-negotiable with me and should be for everyone.
[deleted]
a non-technical cofounder could have a deep understanding of the market dynamics and users the company wishes to serve. This includes pricing tactics as and strategy, channel development, scaling a non technical team.
They could help develop the long term strategy for the company ...what are the 5,6,20th features the company will sell etc?
edit: also, they can build the skillsite necessary to develop and test business hypothesis. this might be the most important this they do early on.
They could help develop the long term strategy for the company ...what are the 5,6,20th features the company will sell etc?
edit: also, they can build the skillsite necessary to develop and test business hypothesis. this might be the most important this they do early on.
- If you are a technical cofounder, what is the topmost item in the must-learn list for an ideal non-technical cofounder?
- Sales
- Ability to understand the limitations of the team and product
- Hiring/Firing
- Charm
- Sales
- Ability to understand the limitations of the team and product
- Hiring/Firing
- Charm
FWIW years ago I googled "technical co-founder", realized I was the butt end joke of the industry, and have been working my ass off at front-end since. Now contract as a dev / TPM as well. Have made myself useful.
Learning to program meant I was another voice in conversations about what could be done, which instructed what was done.
My advice is learn to implement your ideas alongside of everything else you are doing.
Learning to program meant I was another voice in conversations about what could be done, which instructed what was done.
My advice is learn to implement your ideas alongside of everything else you are doing.
I'd say curiosity, creativity, energy, drive and intellectual flexibility. I think the most telling sign of a good non technical cofounder is one who isn't satisfied with being a non technical cofounder and is actively trying to acquire the knowledge/abilities to be a technical founder, because such a pursuit demonstrates some degree of the characteristics listed above.
IMHO: They should know how the VC/Angel world works, they should be well adept at networking, and they should be "good in a room" (sales wise). If I'm the technical guy building the product I expect the non-technical person to be out raising money and closing deals/pre-orders every moment that they have free.
Business planning and management (budgets, product marketing, sales & operations).
How code works can be learned. But knowing why a customer has a problem with your product vision (and how to address it) is a complex issue and often requires a broader set of experiences in the field.
How code works can be learned. But knowing why a customer has a problem with your product vision (and how to address it) is a complex issue and often requires a broader set of experiences in the field.
If you're not technical, I'd assume your must already be good with sales or have the background for it(social skills).
So, I'd ask technical co-founders and build a network around engineers: it will be the best way to really understand your product and iterate on ideas.
So, I'd ask technical co-founders and build a network around engineers: it will be the best way to really understand your product and iterate on ideas.
How to trust others about things they don't know, help others do the things they don't want to be doing, how to be humble, communicate effectively, share information well, and know when to get out of the way.
Basically their job should be to make everyone else successful.
Basically their job should be to make everyone else successful.
> Ask HN: What is the most crucial knowledge a Non-technical founder should have?
Sales experience, contacts, technical knowledge (seriously, if you're currently not technical, learn how to program) or a massive amount of capital to inject.
Sales experience, contacts, technical knowledge (seriously, if you're currently not technical, learn how to program) or a massive amount of capital to inject.
This:
http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html
Which implies that your question is of the wrong type and that understanding why is a good start.
Good luck.
http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html
Which implies that your question is of the wrong type and that understanding why is a good start.
Good luck.
Being able to execute and follow through on plans/vision. This applies to both technical and non-technical founders. Its the hardest thing to do.
[deleted]
Huge topic. I could probably write a book about this.
Some of it largely depends on the business "phase". In other words things are different if you are pre-launch with no product vs. post launch with some traction, etc.
One of the biggest problems with non-tech co-founders is when they assign themselves far more value than they should. This typically happens when a non-techie has a tech idea and they seek out a tech co-founder to make it happen. I've had cases where people had an idea, no money, no idea how to raise capital, no marketing skills, no management skills, no business experience and a job they could not quit and yet demanded 50% of the startup. In other words, the "tech" co-founder would have to do it all yet the would be valued equally simply because someone without a clue came up with an idea. Run away from those as fast as you can.
In an ideal universe you can't have a co-founder who has zero tech background. It's going to make things very difficult. This person has to have a reasonable understanding of the domain you are trying to address in order to be able to have sensible discussions and make the right decisions. As a technical co-founder you don't want to spend half your management time educating your partner. The relationship has to be symbiotic, and this requires a high degree of overlap in the skill set.
In my opinion it is a far better idea to find a tech co-founder who has an interest in business rather than a non-tech co-founder who might be challenged in learning what he/she needs to learn to make the business go.
I've had the experience of coding 16 hours a day while my non-tech co-founder pretty much just sat there twiddling his thumbs and surfing the web while the product was being built. Useless. Never do that again.
To some degree business isn't hard to learn. You can certainly devote a fraction of that 25% of time you were going to devote to educating your non-tech partner towards learning about business.
Some of it depends on the nature of your market. Many years ago I decided I had enough. I had to take control beyond tech and run the business. I took a two-pronged approach. First, I bought a pile of business books. I devoted about half an hour each night to reading these books, typically at night in bed. I took business books with me when going camping.
I made sure I was learning about business whenever I needed a break from tech stuff. You know how sometimes you reach a mental block while working on a design? It is often better to take a break and come back to approach it with a fresh mind. I these cases I would grab a business book and go read it at Starbucks. In other words, learning about business never ate into my engineering duties.
For about two years the going joke at home was that I had more business books by my bed than technology books. And it was true.
The other approach I took was to have our reseller network educate me on sales. Rather than have them handle sales calls I'd ask them to let me handle them. I would buy lunch after the customer visits and ask that they critique my approach. The first three months were horrible. I sucked at it. I "sold" like an engineer. Which means I had no clue how to sell anything. It took about six months to make the transition and about a year before I could walk into a presentation, say only what was necessary and close deals. Some of the biggest deals I closed required not much more than showing-up and greeting everyone in the room while gently guiding the customer into selling themselves. Magic.
This approach isn't valid for all markets and situations. And, I'll admit to be biased against having a non-tech co-founder in a startup. I've seen ugly things that can happen when you have such a pairing. I'd rather see a pair of tech founders who are able to transition into hybrid roles.
Some of it largely depends on the business "phase". In other words things are different if you are pre-launch with no product vs. post launch with some traction, etc.
One of the biggest problems with non-tech co-founders is when they assign themselves far more value than they should. This typically happens when a non-techie has a tech idea and they seek out a tech co-founder to make it happen. I've had cases where people had an idea, no money, no idea how to raise capital, no marketing skills, no management skills, no business experience and a job they could not quit and yet demanded 50% of the startup. In other words, the "tech" co-founder would have to do it all yet the would be valued equally simply because someone without a clue came up with an idea. Run away from those as fast as you can.
In an ideal universe you can't have a co-founder who has zero tech background. It's going to make things very difficult. This person has to have a reasonable understanding of the domain you are trying to address in order to be able to have sensible discussions and make the right decisions. As a technical co-founder you don't want to spend half your management time educating your partner. The relationship has to be symbiotic, and this requires a high degree of overlap in the skill set.
In my opinion it is a far better idea to find a tech co-founder who has an interest in business rather than a non-tech co-founder who might be challenged in learning what he/she needs to learn to make the business go.
I've had the experience of coding 16 hours a day while my non-tech co-founder pretty much just sat there twiddling his thumbs and surfing the web while the product was being built. Useless. Never do that again.
To some degree business isn't hard to learn. You can certainly devote a fraction of that 25% of time you were going to devote to educating your non-tech partner towards learning about business.
Some of it depends on the nature of your market. Many years ago I decided I had enough. I had to take control beyond tech and run the business. I took a two-pronged approach. First, I bought a pile of business books. I devoted about half an hour each night to reading these books, typically at night in bed. I took business books with me when going camping.
I made sure I was learning about business whenever I needed a break from tech stuff. You know how sometimes you reach a mental block while working on a design? It is often better to take a break and come back to approach it with a fresh mind. I these cases I would grab a business book and go read it at Starbucks. In other words, learning about business never ate into my engineering duties.
For about two years the going joke at home was that I had more business books by my bed than technology books. And it was true.
The other approach I took was to have our reseller network educate me on sales. Rather than have them handle sales calls I'd ask them to let me handle them. I would buy lunch after the customer visits and ask that they critique my approach. The first three months were horrible. I sucked at it. I "sold" like an engineer. Which means I had no clue how to sell anything. It took about six months to make the transition and about a year before I could walk into a presentation, say only what was necessary and close deals. Some of the biggest deals I closed required not much more than showing-up and greeting everyone in the room while gently guiding the customer into selling themselves. Magic.
This approach isn't valid for all markets and situations. And, I'll admit to be biased against having a non-tech co-founder in a startup. I've seen ugly things that can happen when you have such a pairing. I'd rather see a pair of tech founders who are able to transition into hybrid roles.
sales. Be good at it, your team will thank you.
Writing good.
[deleted]
I would like to get your thoughts on the subject.
- If you are a non-technical cofounder of a tech business, what would be the first things that you wish you should have known from day 1?
- If you are a technical cofounder, what is the topmost item in the must-learn list for an ideal non-technical cofounder?
I am not asking for which skills, rather for more specific things e.g : They should know about how internet works, how coding / programming works, they should understand the basics of the service architecture etc.
Thoughts?