I see your point, and I think that I'm probably one of the few people that have seen it from both sides - allow me to explain:

The startup I talked about above was some years ago, and I had no idea how to program anything. It worked out because we were extremely persistent, and simply didn't take no for an answer. A year ago I thought that it might be a good idea to actually learn to hack, and so I set about learning it. Now I'm doing a web-based startup and I have to admit that programming it yourself, and knowing what the heck you're talking about gives a number of advantages:

1) your dependance on external partners is minimised

2) you can see what features are trivial to do, which are hard, and which are just impossible.

3) your product becomes better because it is what you want, not someone elses interpretation of what you want.

4) you don't need a lot of capital, just a lot of time.

For people that do try to outsource, the crucial question to ask yourself is "What do I bring to the table that a hacker might need?" I chose to partner with a non-technical friend (who ended up quitting, but at least he gave me full ownership of the startup), because this friend was adept at dealing with people and had connections to several possible angel investors. These are aspects of the startup experience that terrify me, and so I was more than happy to let him deal with them.

For your experience, persistence and not taking no are both really important to startups and very difficult for many technical people. So you added some value that a hacker couldn't get by just going off and doing the same thing on his own.

In the startup I mentioned above, the founders were all technical people and didn't really add anything of business value besides that. They were outsourcing because it was cheap and out of a misguided assumption that they needed a big team (and probably because they were spending Other People's Money). They would've been far better off writing the product themselves.

I don't know enough about drinko to know what s/he brings to the table, but unless it's a lot of sales connections to potential customers, it'll be hard for a good programmer to justify spending time on her project vs. all the other projects out there.

I think that what drino is bringign to the table (this is pure speculation based on the original post) is knowledge of the domain, and persistence. If she is good at selling the solution then I think she has a good chance of succeeding.

An overall note on your post: I think that when you break it all down there are basically only two things that matter in a startup: 1) having a product. 2) being able to sell it. Often the people that are good at making products are terrible at selling them and vice versa. So you certainly need good hackers, but you also need great salesmen. And both of them need to be pretty persistent, since they're facing tough jobs.

> I get the feeling that there's an exception to almost every startup rule.

Well, it would be a lot easier if it were just a collection of rules to follow;-)

I'd be interested to hear what mixmax did, in what field, in order to succeed without technical people, although it's mainly academic interest, as I'm definitely "technical people" myself.