Looking a bit further, news.yc doesn't seem to be very SEO friendly or accessible either. Maybe there was a reason for not needing to be SEO friendly, but not accessible? By this I mean that apart from the topic not being in the title, there's no use of HTML tags to confer semantics from the blocks of text, e.g. no use of H1-H6 tags, no use of lists for comments.
Is there a reason for this? I just thought it was good practice, but I'm still just starting out in web design.
I think a key point from the post is that non-hackers need to make the first move - because face it, you need them more than they need you, no matter how unfair you think that is.
I've thought about this for a bit and I really don't know who needs who more so I like to think a non-hacker needs a hacker both equally. For example, if a non-hacker can't find a hacker, he'll go hire one. Hiring one might not be the best approach but if you have the money to spend, why not? Of course it's always better to have a hacker as as cofounder. Now, a hacker - can be business savvy so he wouldn't need a non-hacker.
But lets think about this, you have a hacker who thinks he doesn't need a non-hacker. Well, most of the applications that hackers most likely build is for other hackers. When you speak to VCs, how many of them are hackers? Or a bunch of hacker guys building a 'fashion site'...uh what do guys know about fashion. In this case, I would go find a non-hacker chick to join the team b/c she'll know all the avenues and forum girls go to - marketing power.
You can build, but what you build won't always get users. I know there seems to be a view in Silicon Valley that MBAs are morons but it's wrong to lump them all into one group. I could easily say that a lot of hackers, while brilliant, may build something really 'cool' but so entirely 'useless.'
A hacker and non-hacker team is the best combination. You both need each other equally. There's no "I" in "Team."
"For example, if a non-hacker can't find a hacker, he'll go hire one."
You can't build a successful tech business with a hired hacker. By choosing to hire, you'll only be able to attract programmers who are willing to work for the money you can pay them. The cream of the crop will pass you up in favor of startups that give them equity. Your first technical person sets a ceiling on the technical ability of your subsequent hires, because bad programmers are not able to recognize great ones.
If you're right and you do find a market niche that's extremely profitable, you'll invite competition. One of those competitors will inevitably have a top-notch hacker as a cofounder, and then you'll get eaten for lunch as their small, nimble team of elite hackers copies everything you do and then innovates way beyond it.
Many companies tried this approach in the dot-com boom, with predictable results. For example, Altavista/Lycos/Infoseek got eaten by Google, Value America by Amazon, Friendster and now MySpace by FaceBook.
"MySpace by FaceBook" -- that's kind of arguable because MySpace was acquired and I really don't know who's making more money than whom. What about Digg? As for Google eating those companies you listed up..heck Google eats everyone up.
Having a hacker as a co-founder is always better than hiring which I stated. The point is, having a team of just solely hackers is not always better than having a team of a non-hacker and hacker.
Is there a reason for this? I just thought it was good practice, but I'm still just starting out in web design.