Just a variation on the "single founders don't work" argument. Sure, it doesn't usually work, but it does with the right single founder, even if it's not that often. I don't see any new arguments here.

I've been a single founder twice and done just fine (by my standards), but investing in startups with two+ founders is definitely safer if you're the person putting the money on the table. If I had money, I would certainly be reluctant to invest in a single-founder startup, regardless of my own personal experience.

I don't understand why there's a need to take sides one way or another. It's all shades of grey, just like almost everything. No need to make it black or white.

tl;dr version: you need a strong technical person and a strong marketing person. There's absolutely nothing new in this article - he's just applying fancy labels to something most people already take as true.

I also object to his usage of the word Hacker. His definition is all over the place:

A Hacker is more than a code monkey, who can quickly build software and find interesting ways to hack together code. Thats a developer. Thats someone who is definitely an important part of a startup, but not critical to its success. A Hacker is someone who looks the problem, and solves it in a unique and special way. A Hacker finds the process of problem solving exciting and interesting, and spends the majority of their time looking at the problem in multiple ways, finding many potential solutions.

Often the Hacker is a coder, but not always the best coder you have on your team. Nate and Natty, of Everlater, are decent coders at best. In the last couple of years, they have taught themselves, by trial and error, how to code. I would imagine if you asked either one of them if they considered themselves amazing developers, they would probably indicate otherwise. But as Hackers? They are amazing.

I have no idea what he's trying to say. His definition, summarized:

a) A hacker is not just a programmer.

b) Sometimes a hacker is a coder, sometimes he is not.

c) If he is a coder, he may not be the best coder in your team.

d) A hacker looks for creative and cool solutions to problems.

e) A hacker is excited by problem solving.

Uh ... what's your point?

How many hackers have sold used cars or double glazing? How many MBAs have read SICP?

The whole argument is mooted by the statistical insignificance of the number of people who can legitimately describe themselves as both a hacker and a hustler.

The conclusion I'd draw about someone calling themselves "both a hacker and a hustler" would be to assume that he is probably neither, unless I see evidence to the contrary.

The silliest aspect of the article is to represent 'hacking' and 'hustling' as innate traits rather than skills to be learned. None of us were born able to code and none of us were born able to close a sale or work a room. People who understand the product are better able to market it, and people who understand the market are better able to design the product.

"One person can not do it all. Its really that simple."

Not justifying points like these is a really weak start to the post. Makes it hard to take the rest of it seriously.

Example: Apple had two primary founders; Steve Wozniak was a “hacker”, Steve Jobs was a “hustler.” Woz solved difficult technical problems and built cool systems, while Jobs was busy pitching the utopia of modern personal computing. Both were essential in creating the Apple we know today.

I thought Garry Tan was the Hacker in Posterous, ans Sachin Agarwal was the Hustler? Did I get that wrong?

Two of IMVU's founders were Will Harvey and Eric Ries, and each are both hackers and hustlers. A powerful combination indeed.

Thought this post was awesome ... I happen to be one of the people that says "I'm both" and often find this is a problem. Have you gone through a similar problem of trying to do both? What was the solution?

Well, that's weird. I was emailing someone a couple months ago about the New York startup scene, and specifically mentioned that NYC has more "hustlers" per capita than SF.

You probably don't need hustlers, at least at first. They're leverage, and they seem to care more about immediate cash flow. (The ones I know of who got involved in startups either got involved late, were working with half a dozen startups at once, or worked with service-y or consulting companies that would pay a salary right away.)

undefined

Upvote for the funny title :)