Is it really that shocking though? RIM made its nest in the business community, not exactly a demographic you would anticipate would care a huge deal about apps. When the market shifted in the way it ultimately did, RIM proved unable to cope because it required a fundamental shift in their platform, which is not an easy pivot for a company of that scope.
It's easy to say you're passionate about a product, but how are you expressing that? Do you know the ins and outs of their product? Their market? Have you researched their competitors? The point I'm trying to make is that passion is great, but showing that you've turned that passion onto the needs of the position you're seeking is better. If you're looking for a technical position, get as deep into the technical nature and differentiators between their product and competitors. If it's marketing, talk about key demographics, key markets, etc. At the end of the day, you want to show them that while that college grad may come in and give them X level of production versus your (0.5)X on day 1, by day 50 you'll be at 2X while that grad is still at X. That's all you can do.
This is also the case with many professional fields. There are plenty of lawyers, accountants, marketers, etc. who start a small firm and then run it the rest of their life without expanding much, if at all. There's nothing wrong with a lifestyle business, it's just not a "startup".
The expectation would be that our revenues will grow to the point that retaining talent won't be a problem. We only just started the market entry process at the start of the month, so it's too early to say, but if I'm losing talent in a couple years because I can't afford to retain it, then our problems go way beyond our talent growing too expensive.
Not yet, but that's probably because we just started our market entry process about two weeks ago. That said, our operating costs are tiny (all combined they're currently less than my rent) so we'll hopefully get to that level in the near future.
As a non-developer solo founder, this article resonates with me more to the point of "as a founder, you can't expect to devote all your energies to any one thing". My responsibilities with my startup have varied pretty much by month.
First it was working with potential customers to figure out what kind of product they wanted. Then it was time to find the technologies that would allow me to create that product. Then it was finding a technical staff that could build our product using those technologies. Then it was preparing our sales strategy, materials, and sales staff to sell the product. Now it's primarily marketing, pitching to writers, blogs, and doing what I can to get the word out to consumers. If I had to forecast the next month or two, I'd say that preparing investor pitches and materials will start to absorb an increasing amount of my time, and I will probably end up finding a marketer to take over my marketing responsibilities so I can focus on the funding side.
Each of those stages basically involved devoting myself overwhelmingly to that particular issue that was most crucial to the business at that time (product development, sales, marketing, etc) then finding someone to delegate that work to once I needed to move on to the next step. Frankly, I'd never want to do it any other way, because it means I know every aspect of my business, my product, and my customers, and I know exactly what I need to delegate to make sure things get done right.
Moreover, by knowing every aspect of my business, no one is indispensable to me. When my original programmer decided he had to take a full time/weekly paycheck job for financial reasons, I knew my product and technologies well enough that I was able to seamlessly bring in a replacement to finish the work because even though it wasn't my code, it was my product so I could specify exactly what had to be finished, and what he'd be working on after it was done.
Last point, because it seems to be a widespread misconception here: Programming is only a part of the technical side. My startup uses multiple pieces of technology that my programmers weren't aware existed until I showed the APIs to them. Now, I couldn't have used those technologies without those programmers, because I lack the ability to actually take the APIs and plug them into our code, but I can find the technology that does what I need done, and then have them integrate it. If on the other hand I'd brought one of those developers on as a "technical co-founder", and relied on them to handle the technical side, we would have been dead in the water or would have ended up with an inferior product.
None of this is intended to be antagonistic, or to diminish the importance of programming to a tech startup. I simply state it to show there is more than one way to bake a pie, and that a non-programmer can still handle all the technical aspects of a company needed to create a successful startup. Food for thought!
No, you don't. I can't code my ass from my elbow, but I know how the technology works, I know where to find the kind of technology I want in my product, and I can find the people who can put it together.
I guess the distinction I'm trying to put is that there's a distinction between "non-technical" and "non-programmer". I can't program, but I know all the technically pertinent details of my product that any VC or customer is going to care about. To some extent, I think it frankly works better that way than if I was doing the coding, because I know what's really important in the product, and won't miss the forest for the trees.
You don't need to know how to code to be able to handle the technical responsibilities of actually running a tech startup. You just need to know the technology itself.
No, you put in the time to find a good programmer who will work for a reasonable price. Typically that means finding someone who graduated fairly recently and is looking for additional work, or someone that doesn't have a lengthy track record/portfolio. It's not easy (I've probably talked to a hundred some odd programmers in the last year, and maybe three would fit the bill), but you can find the right people if you put in the work.
It's no different than finding a good salesman, or a good PR person, or a good anything. You can find great talent at a reasonable price if you're willing to dig. Rockstars don't always come at rockstar prices, because a lot of the time they don't even know they're a rockstar.
By way of explanation, my startup is closing in on its launch, and we've decided to do a front end redesign while certain issues on the back end get wrapped up (let's just say our original designer was admittedly not a front-end expert by any stretch). We have a designer lined up, and we're leaning towards adopting a responsive web design as part of the redesign process. This is probably our best opportunity to make any major changes before things really ramp up, so getting a fresh perspective on what we should consider changing, adding, subtracting, etc at this point would be immensely beneficial. So what say you HN, what glaring issues are we missing because we look at this site everyday?
I posted this above, but to reiterate: Be very careful about hiring interns. You cannot just hire someone to be free labor. According to Federal regulations, you must receive "no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded".
Trust me, I'd love to hire some marketing interns to free work for my startup's launch, but that's just not legal.
This is basically the path I've followed (I guess I'm at your stage 2?), and I can't recommend it enough. I've worked with 3 developers now, and talked to God knows how many more, and while I think my current developer may end up being a fit as a true partner/co-founder, I'm really thankful I didn't jump into bed with either of the original two I was working with for various reasons (limited technical skills, lack of dedication, etc).
It's very easy to say "get a cofounder". Finding a worthwhile partner is much harder.
This is really not impressive if you know the POS sphere. Starbucks' POS is a Micros-based system. Micros is the only major POS provider that is currently working with 3rd party vendors (such as Square) to allow direct integration between those vendors and Micros' clients. If this pays off for Micros, maybe we'll see more of it, but for now, others like Aloha are making so much revenue off their own products that they've shown no indication of adopting Micros' strategy.
Long story short: Don't expect many non-Micros clients to start getting added to Square, or anyone else, any day soon.
Find your state and see if you can find a pro bono attorney or two. Give them a call. See if one can refer you to someone who does pro bono patent work. Gather whatever materials you can that prove your business was created prior to the filing of the patent, and have it ready to give to a lawyer. Do not reply to their lawyer again until you speak to a lawyer yourself.
Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? As a non-technical business founder myself, I just can't understand what that guy possibly would have been thinking. I'd never give up that much of my company unless the other party was coming on board as full partner, meaning they're also going to be sharing all the financial and legal risks (and yes, that means contributing money as well as time). If you value your company at all, 40% is a massive sum to pay someone unless they're sharing all the risks with you, not just spending some of their time. Just giving yourself a $1 million dollar valuation, that means paying someone $400,000 to handle just one element of your business...and you could probably get it done a lot cheaper if you just took the time to go through your options.
As for finding technically skilled people who are available and want to work, it's not easy, but nothing in business is easy. It's no harder than any other part of a business, it just requires persistence and knowing where to look (I should know, I've hired a bunch of them in the last 6 months). Taking a shortcut and throwing a bunch of equity at the problem just shows the kind of lack of foresight that should make you question whether you really want to work with that kind of person.