Here's a tip to every reader. If your founders or co-founders are not technical (and never have been) and are pitching stacks using buzzwords, run. Equity is worthless if the startup goes under
Here's another. Exit and product are totally orthogonal.
I would rather work for someone honest than for a bullshit artist. But I wouldn't necessarily decline to work for the world's best bullshit artist. Just that you want to be very sure you know who at the table is the sucker.
Non-technical folks (business/marketing/artistic/bullshit types) can be founders of tech companies, but there needs to be significant tech prescence at the top. I think as a general rule, at least a third of the equity needs to be devoted to technical folks if the company wants to succeed.
Ideally you get someone whose good at both, or at least competent at one and really good in the other, such as Jobs or Gates.
The problem is non-technical folks tend to hire other non-technical folks for leadership (MBAs recruit other MBAs). What ends up happening is the leadership structure shifts from one dominated by technically-savvy people, to a culture of business. Best example is Apple (not a startup anymore, but I think my point will rest). Under Jobs, Forstall, Ive and other teams all prioritized product. Currently, Apple's leadership consists of Cook, Luca, Schiller, Eddy Cue, Williams, Ternus and Craig (they are the ones that effectively make the big decisions). Craig and Ternus are the only "engineers", and neither of them have been engineering first. This is not a founders story, but I am trying to highlight how non-technical folks will put in the decision making seat non-technical folks, which will harm your product in the long run. You can be the best engineer out there. If you report to someone who holds the reigns and is not technical, you are facing a tough road. Of course, there will be exceptions. However, this is rather the norm, and in startup culture, where the odds are already stacked against you, I'd advise against it.
Actually, this is wrong depending on the company and what the specific situation is.
Look at DEC, a classic engineering company failure. DEC failed because they were led by engineers who didn't understand the market. It apparently was a great place to work, because they were so NIH that they built everything from scratch.
Then look at Intel, a company that is in the process of failing because they listened to their customers too much. None of their customers wanted GPUs, or mobile chips, or power savings - until they did. By that time Intel was already behind the curve.
Then look at Microsoft under Ballmer - a company that probably illustrates the point you're trying to make. But then they won with Nadella, luckily.
Apple is a bit different and a bad example because unlike other companies they attempt to define the future. Most companies aren't in a position to try, much less succeed, at this.
