Well, I agree. And that's precisely what incubators like YC are out to solve; the issue of upfront cash flow to fund start ups.
But you can run a software business without knowing how to write a lick of code. I know, because I've done it (okay, I'm not completely inept technically, and I have a keen interest in the industry, but I would never claim to be able to "code").
I think my main point, which I believe to have been re-enforced in this thread, is that programmers often believe they are, bar none, the most important piece of the puzzle. To me, that's arguable.
The auto mechanic is an important part of the car dealership, but he certainly isn't dictating to the owner how to run the business. He can be replaced, as can the programmer. The reality is, most "ideas" only need average abilities, and there are lots of average coders out there. If you're awesome and are doing awesome things code-wise and building amazing products, good for you. You deserve everything you're getting and maybe more. But for my projects, I just need a nice website or a simple app. If you want to flex your muscles to me because you've learned a skill I haven't, I'll pass. Just like you'll pass on a idiotic non-technical founder.
Anyway, this has probably derailed far away from what I and certainly the author intended. Let me just say that it's no accident that most programmers end up working for someone who has never written a line of code.
I don't think you got the GP's point, even though you say you agree. While YC does give you some funds, if you don't have a programmer working for equity, it isn't nearly enough to pay someone to do the technical work. However, if you include the $150K convertible note through the Start Fund, it does become more possible.
Edit: No longer mentioning stuff that isn't essential to my post
Edit: I'm specifically disputing "And that's precisely what incubators like YC are out to solve; the issue of upfront cash flow to fund start ups." The post you were responding to just said that they don't do that well, at least if you have to pay a programmer (although the Start Fund would help with this.)
>"The post you were responding to just said that they don't do that well"
Perhaps not. But I think the premise behind the incubator is to allow coders with ideas to get them off the ground. Obviously, these founders are required to do the actual work. It's sort of a special case. I'm not even sure it makes sense from a non-technical standpoint. Has anyone ever been accepted to YC on a non-technical basis? I know Tech Stars accepted someone...that didn't end well.
>"Entrepreneurship is simply not enough, when all you have is 18k to work with spread among every single cost the company will have, until it's profitable enough to pay for coders: who are very expensive."
That's the point I got; it's pretty hard to fund a tech start up with a non-technical partner when there isn't a whole of money. Nor can a non-coder do it alone, because he would have to pay programmers. And I agree.
Edit: for civility's sake. Glad the internet allows take backs!
Your approach to starting a software business (i.e. by treating coders as replaceable work-for-hire) is pretty close to the sort lampooned on Whartonite-Seeks-Code-Monkey. It's not the model that I'd like to see become dominant.
It comes down to a difference in philosophy. I believe that, for a technical business, the founders ought to be directly responsible for the product creation (as in build-by-git and not build-by-Skype). I'd rather see technical/design skills win out over marketing and business hustle in the end (in terms of capital ownership). And I say this as a business major (who's exercising his coding and design muscles now).
But you can run a software business without knowing how to write a lick of code. I know, because I've done it (okay, I'm not completely inept technically, and I have a keen interest in the industry, but I would never claim to be able to "code").
I think my main point, which I believe to have been re-enforced in this thread, is that programmers often believe they are, bar none, the most important piece of the puzzle. To me, that's arguable.
The auto mechanic is an important part of the car dealership, but he certainly isn't dictating to the owner how to run the business. He can be replaced, as can the programmer. The reality is, most "ideas" only need average abilities, and there are lots of average coders out there. If you're awesome and are doing awesome things code-wise and building amazing products, good for you. You deserve everything you're getting and maybe more. But for my projects, I just need a nice website or a simple app. If you want to flex your muscles to me because you've learned a skill I haven't, I'll pass. Just like you'll pass on a idiotic non-technical founder.
Anyway, this has probably derailed far away from what I and certainly the author intended. Let me just say that it's no accident that most programmers end up working for someone who has never written a line of code.