Posts from: May 2012

Why You Shouldn’t Pay Freelancers in Equity

Recently I’ve come across a few people, online and offline, who’ve raised the idea of new startups outsourcing development to freelancers or agencies, and paying them in equity. For some reason, a lot of people, especially in the student enterprise community, think this is a good idea. I think this is a really dumb idea, and that’s not just because as a developer I’m biased towards people actually paying programmers. My opinion is that if someone receives equity and not cash, they should be considered a co-founder, someone expected to stay for the long haul; paying freelancers with equity is a lose-lose proposition for both sides. How so?

Why is it a lose for freelancers or agencies? Because you’re basically asking them to invest in your startup. The business model of your typical web agency/”body shop” is simple; sell the employees’ time at a profit. Therefore, they need a steady pipeline of work, otherwise they’re paying people for nothing. Likewise for a solo freelancer, though the need to maintain a pipeline of work is more important (and more difficult), since they need to eat and pay the rent.

This model is not suited to making risky moves. But if an agency or freelancer is working for equity, that’s what they’re doing; they’re essentially making a seed investment of whatever is the cash value of their billable hours. It’s going to take a long time for them to see a return on their investment; these are not professional angels or VCs with a few million to invest in a portfolio and several years to wait for an exit. And that’s assuming your startup is any good, which is a big assumption.

I’m going to be honest; when I hear the combination of can’t find a developer and doesn’t have any money my brain quickly does a pattern match, and the output is NOT awesome hustler with a great startup idea. Almost invariably I’m dealing with some “ideas guy”, who’s likely already recruited 4 or 5 of his business student friends, one to focus on finance, one to focus on “strategy”, one to focus on “branding”, etc. There will never be a salesman or anyone with other practical startup skills, such as online marketing or design.

The weird thing is that whenever I meet a bona fide hustler, someone I’d actually want to work with, they almost always:

a) have a track record of hustlin’, and so have money to spend or the ability to get hold of it, somehow; and

b) they’ve tried to teach themselves programming (even if that’s just mashing together WordPress plugins until they’ve built what they need), or they’ve trawled outsourcing sites, or they’ve cultivated coder friends and persuaded them to work with them, or – you get the picture.

IE, a good sign of a business guy/gal you want to work with is that they don’t desperately need a developer. Someone who pines helplessly about the difficulty of finding programmers lacks the problem-solving approach necessary for building a startup. A true hustler, when faced with an obstacle, follows the advice of Hannibal of Carthage: “find a way, or make one”. I bet Hannibal did not spend time handing out business cards at conferences, hoping to find a “Rome Conquering Expert” that would work for free. No. He just marched some fucking elephants across the Alps.

 


 

Anyway, after reading that, you might say “but I’ve found a developer who’s willing to spend 3 months building my app for a 10% stake, I don’t care that I’m screwing him over, mwahhahhah”. OK, let’s say you’re my best friend, the developer is my worst enemy, and I have no ethics. My advice to you would still be not to do it. It’s still a loss for you.

Why? Several reasons. The obvious one is you’re giving away a chunk of equity to someone who’ll only be around for a few months. What happens after they finish your app, leave, and you then realise you need to make a bunch of changes for version 2.0? Find another developer and give away yet more equity? Before long you’ll have given away control of your company.

In my opinion there are four groups of people who should get equity:

  • founders (a big chunk)
  • investors (a big chunk)
  • employees (a small chunk)
  • advisors/mentors/etc (a small chunk)

Basically, people with a long-term commitment to the success of your startup. Random freelancers and agencies have no such commitment, and so should be paid in cash.

The other reason is that paying with equity gives the freelancer little motivation to actually finish the project. The cold truth of most freelance arrangements is that since the freelancer is desperate to get paid, the client holds most of the power; if the client is sleazy they can leverage this with tactics like ratcheting, refusing to pay until extra work is done. (See here for examples). Sucks for the freelancer, but good for the client, who has some guarantee that the developer will finish the job. But if you’re a client that’s paying with equity, suddenly you’ve become powerless, and the freelancer/agency will quickly stop caring about a project with no payday in sight.

I know of one entrepreneur, someone fairly well-known in the UK startup community, who gave away a huge chunk of his new company to a web agency to build his website. Long story short, they dropped the ball, strung him along for several months, and in the end he had to buy back their stake in the company, after having wasted almost a year. Not what you want to happen to you.

In conclusion: if you need a developer, you should either bring on a co-founder/CTO, and pay them with equity, OR hire a freelancer, and pay them in cash.

(There are two exceptions. One is if you’re paying in a combination of cash and equity, though make sure you’re getting enough of a cash discount to make it worthwhile. The other is if it’s a “charity raffle” situation; ie, the developer is really helping you for the Warm Fuzzy Feeling ™, and the equity is just given as a bonus (raffle tickets)).

(Also I found this: http://lawyerist.com/freelancing-startup-equity/, which is a counter-point to my argument, though I think lawyers are in a different position to developers; their time commitment  is a lot less).

Read more

In This Century, Every Company is a Tech Company

I came across three articles today that discussed a similar theme.

Business Insider, Why Grilled Cheese Is The Next Frontier Of Technology

It’s the same thing with McDonald’s. Each burger is really a piece of technology: each ingredient has to be thought through in terms of how it can be procured, sliced and diced, frozen, taken to restaurants all over the world, and then assembled on demand quickly and effortlessly, and how it fits into the whole chain and the company’s offering and brand.

 

Forbes, The Rise of Developeronomics

This means that if you are in apparently more fundamental professions — perhaps you are a baker with a small business — you are effectively useless, not because bread isn’t important, but because surviving in the bread business is now a matter of having developers on your side who can help you win in a game that Yelp, Groupon and other software companies are running to their advantage. If your bakery doesn’t have an iPhone app, it will soon be at the mercy of outfits like Yelp.

 

 

Peter Thiel/Marc Andreesen, Stanford Startup Class Notes

Peter Thiel: Your claim is that software is eating the world. Tell us how you see that unfolding over the next decade.

Marc Andreessen:  There are three versions of the hypothesis: the weak, strong, and strongest version.

The basic, weak form is that software is eating the tech/computer industry. The value of computers is increasingly software, not hardware. The move to cloud computing is illustrative. There’s been a shift to high volume, low cost models where software controls. It’s very different from the old model.

The strong form is that software is eating many other industries that have not been subject to rapid technological change. Take newspapers, for example. The newspaper industry has been pretty much the same, technologically, for about 500 years! There had been no significant technological disruption since the 15thcentury. And then boom! The digital transformation happens, and the industry frantically has to try and cope with the change.

The strongest form is that, as a consequence of all this, Silicon Valley type software companies will end up eating everything. The kinds of companies we build in the Valley will rule pretty much every industry. These companies have software at their very core. They know how to develop software. They know the economics of software. They make engineering the priority. And that’s why they’ll win.

It’ll be interesting to see how this unfolds over the next 10-20 years.

Read more

Tim Cook’s Emails about the Foxconn iTV Leak

So Foxconn’s chief let slip about Apple’s rumoured iTV , confirming that an all-in-one TV set is in the pipeline.

I don’t imagine tech’s most secretive company taking too well to a leak of this scale:

From: t.cook@apple.com

To: gou.t@foxconn.com.cn

Subject: Re: leak

No worries. I understand how sneaky the press can be. Why, just now I accidentally let slip to a WSJ journalist about what really happened to your Chengdu workers. But no-one in China reads the American press, so no problem, right?

 

From: t.cook@apple.com

To: leekh@samsung.kr

Subject: Re: Masterplan

It’s all going well. As we suspected, Foxconn can’t be trusted; it looks you’re our only true Asian manufacturing partner. Good thing we only gave them the plans for the fake prototypes — can’t believe the fools think a better TV is our next revolutionary advance.

PS: Love the latest prototypes you sent us. Not sure about the name though. iBrain? Also we’ll have to go back to using monkeys as test subjects — only thing I’ll miss about our Chinese ex-partners is their supply of expendable humans. And lemme know when the new chips are done; Johnny’s itching to finally test his iTelepathy app.

Read more

What is Jeff Bezos up to?

The following article was posted on Hacker News today: Nobody Seems to Understand What Jeff Bezos is Doing. Does He?

Here was my comment:

A very dumb article. A shame, as it seems the author did have some interesting insights, but missed the main point completely.

Bezos is a very, very smart guy. He’s the closest thing we have to Steve Jobs right now.

(Though that’s not really a fair comparison — Jobs excelled at product and branding. Bezos isn’t as good in those areas, but he has a solid background in finance and tech, and he’s *far* better at strategy.

Jobs was a samurai warrior that was so good at swordfighting he didn’t need much guile. Bezos is a ninja; not as tough in a straight fight, but he never lets it get to a straight fight.)

E-books are a massive growth industry right now. In a growth industry, it’s generally strategic to invest heavily in growth at the expense of profit. If you want to have a nice profitable business, within a few years your business will be undermined by the “foolish” guys that burned cash to gain market share. Walmart followed a similar strategy.

(Lesson: if you want a nice profitable business, don’t enter a new, high-growth market).

First the publishers ignored e-books, then laughed at them and hated them. Now they’re fighting, and some time in the next two years, Bezos will likely win. When you look at the Kindle strategy, you’re looking at a business unit mobilised for war. An army doesn’t return a profit until after the land is conquered.

I read Bezos’ biography recently. From that, and from other comments about the guy, I think the guy is thinking long-term. Not just “a roadmap for the next 5 years and vaguer plans for the next 10 or 15″ as another commenter said.

I’d guess he has concrete plans out to at least 2030 (though obviously with room for various contingencies and black swan events). His current areas of focus like retail and cloud computing are likely just preliminaries. As one internet commenter put it:

“I wouldn’t be surprised if Jeff’s secret goal is to achieve Singularity in space by 2030. That isn’t my guess, but that’s the scope you should be considering.”

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2011/12/14/the-amazon-playbook/

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/04/understanding-amazons-strategy.html

More HN discussion here.

I think Bezos is the man, and I’ll likely have more to write about him post-exams.

Read more