> But a valuable business co-founder brings extensive domain expertise, a network of people, sales skills, management skills, and fund-raising talent.
A valuable technical cofounder brings the skills to literally create what you're trying to sell. Otherwise, have fun selling dust. Or networking to sell nothing.
The "0 to 1" here isn't "no management to management" it's "not having a product built to having a product built".
Selling dust is the job of the business co founder before the product is built. This is how you verify there is customer demand before wasting everyone’s time. It’s surprisingly easy if you’re solving a real need. It’s also how you can demonstrate meaningful value to your technical cofounder.
There's no point having the skills to build a product if you can't fundraise to build a team, market, sell, refine to find product-market fit, etc. etc.
You’re saying that there’s no point in having the skills to actually do something (building a product), unless you have someone derivative skills as well (all the business things you state).
That really comes off as trying to justify the business cofounder. I can build independently. You can’t build a team (which I can do), market (which I can do), sell (which I can do), or refine (which I can do) independently.
>> You’re saying that there’s no point in having the skills to actually do something (building a product), unless you have someone derivative skills as well (all the business things you state).
yes, with the proviso that the "someone" might include yourself.
>> You can’t build a team (which I can do), market (which I can do), sell (which I can do), or refine (which I can do) independently.
If you can do those things, then great, you have the "someone" you need.
But, it's fair to say that most techies do not have those necessary skills. As evidence see the endless stream of question in the "Ask" section of HN trying to get advice on those activities after the product is built.
So the point is not "There's no need for a business founder". The point is that to have a business all the bases must be covered, and you need as many people as you need to cover those bases. Sometimes it's 1. Sometimes it's 2. Sometimes it's 5.
The most common successes have 2 or 3 founders, but that don't make the other numbers impossible, it's just a trend. Which makes sense - the more hats you wear, then less time you have to devote to each of them.
I think that comment is saying that there is a difference between building a project and building a feasible company that productizes the project. There are many other aspects of company building that purely technical folks often trivialize as unimportant.
One can have 3 technical cofounders but the paperwork still needs to be done and someone has to do it.
A valuable technical cofounder brings the skills to literally create what you're trying to sell. Otherwise, have fun selling dust. Or networking to sell nothing.
The "0 to 1" here isn't "no management to management" it's "not having a product built to having a product built".