I think you can make the argument that the "non-hackers" are hackers in the sense that they know and understand the technology of social dynamics, psychology, relationships, selling. And sometimes they are unaware of how they do what they do - they just do it - like some hackers. As Joe Kraus said in his Startup School lecture, it's easier to start a startup in 2006 than in 1996 but it's still as hard to start a business.
Totally depends on the startup. What's the core problem of your solution? If it's technical, you need hackers. If it's user-experience ("we'll make a better solution because the current solutions are clunky!"), you need a UX god. If it's a sales/distribution twist, then you need a smart sales/biz guy.
There are certainly scenarios where a non-hacker will be valuable. But for 90% of the startups I see on HN (and elsewhere), someone who is not a "builder" (code, design, copywriting) is a non-critical element for the first phase of a company.
IF something starts to take off, that can change. Google hired Eric Schmidt, and I hear that Mark Zuckerburg wants a biz CEO. But until it starts to take off (which is the hard part), a non-builder is non-critical. Not useless, mind you-- just less valuable than the alternative. Better than nothing, though!
Oh, and saying that Steve Jobs is a non-hacker is ridiculous. He certainly evolved into something else, but the guy started out going to homebrew computer clubs, working as a technician at Atari, and attending after school lectures at HP.
Eric Schmidt is a hacker who became a manager. The executive search at Google was dreadfully prolonged because Larry & Sergey wouldn't accept someone without technical experience.
Well, we (http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/) were founded by me, who plays the "lead hacker" role, and a friend of mine who handles graphic design, marketing, client contact, accounts, contracts etc.
Basically he provides the business half of the "developer abstraction layer" that Joel Spoelsky describes (we also have an extremely talented sysadmin who handles that half) so I and my team can get on with building software.
Seems to work pretty well for us, but we're bootstrapped so we've been building a stable consultancy business first to fund product development and therefore maybe aren't an example of the style you're looking for.
I think where you run into problems is when one founder doesn't have any knowledge of the other founders areas of expertise i.e. the Bus Dev guy and The Programmer.
The ideal setup seems to be a designer with a bit of marketing skill and business acumen (doesn't have to be huge amount) and a coder.
These two can leave each other alone to work when it matters but they also have the crossover skills to help each other work through a problem.
A good designer on the web is going to know a little bit about coding and a good coder is going to know a little about design.
Its a nice mix and you dont run into any bike shed problems where you have 4 different people checking out the same code.
If you're going to go at it with a non-hacker, I suggest finding someone who at least understands the process (maybe one who has written even a small program) so that he will have a respect for what the hacker half does. Likewise I think it would seem easy for a hacker to underestimate the importance of a salesperson, designer, marketer, business developer, etc., so take the time to understand and appreciate this aspect of your startup. In the end, you'll both learn a lot from each other, and you'll have a well rounded and balanced set of founders.
I've worked for two non-hackers who sold a successful start-up. They had very differing skills. One done the accounts. One was a saleman. Neither was completely in charge.
In the case of Jobs and Woz, its easy to see that they have differing skills. However, Jobs had to offer a very complimentary set of skills because he couldn't contribute directly in the creative process.
In the 8 bit days, Woz designed the hardware and wrote the firmware. Jobs made sales. In the 16 bit days, Jobs specified design constraints, such as form factor and noise limits which techies solved. Jobs would have been involved in technical decisions in a managerial capacity only. There is a creative process in marketing and suchlike, but Jobs wasn't coding or designing components.
That's the issue under discussion. Is it worthwhile to have a non-programmer as a co-founder? Yes, if they have very complimentary skills.
My startup has 4 full-timers, of which I'm the only hacker. There's a (damned good) web designer and two business people. The business people and myself are the "co-founders". This reflects the nature of our business, which is largely technical, but has a significant non-technical component.
So far so good, but we're still just getting off the ground.
Like all vague, sweeping questions of this sort, the answer is it depends. There's a hell of a lot of non-hacking work to do in a startup, how much exactly depends on the particular one.
But any non-hackers probably should have done at least some programming, so they at least have a feel for the strengths/limitations of their technology.
I think there must be (atleast) another pair of eyes which doesn't think in terms of bits and bytes. I am not a good web designer (I hate picking colors) and I prefer to ask someone else (definetely a non-hacker) the layouts and color combinations.
My wife and I will be co-founding after school's done this summer. I'm the hacker, she not so much. But, she's pretty handy with a database, and an organizational genius. She's worked in high tech before, too.
On the plus side, we know that we work together well.
I've got a non-hacker cofounder. He quality controls the project and helps me move the it in the right direction (He works in the industry we're targeting). He's also chasing down clients.
what we've got here is faiiiiilure to communicate!
From Guns'n'Roses civial war song, in my opinion, as long you manage to communicate nicely, you won't have problems.
Most ppl fail, to communicate! Hackers Non-Hackers alike.
Ultimately, wikis, git and the plethora of other IT tools, are here to create better communication, they are social tools, and theory behind them is social, ... i mean, they try to solve many social issues, of trust, communication etc ...
Your greatest enemy is pride, just because others dont have your skills, doesnt mean they are ignorant and useless. Be modest ... listen and always try to be non confrontational
