If you honestly believe that your programming skills merit 10+ times the share that my connections and skills do, then you better prove it by getting me a decent MVP with new releases on a weekly basis (and then, after a year or two, unless you understand that companies grow after finding the right business model and change yourself, I will have to make you stop running the show).
Stop making generalizations, they don't work. You look like you had a bad experience, that happens, we all do, just don't make the generalization that every business guy is like that, that's a fallacy.
I've never heard of an engineer getting 90% of the equity (prior to future dilutions) while the well-connected MBA gets 10%, but the reverse isn't uncommon.
If you are going to start a company with someone you shouldn't even take a step unless you feel like this person could be your brother or sister. That means you have to be honest with each other about your weaknesses and strengths and accept them for what they are.
You should also have partnership agreements that allow you to buy the other one out if they are not pulling their weight.
From what you have written you are going to discount anyone that is non-technical but worse, you will constantly focus on what other team members are delivering to earn a seat at your table. It only takes on person on the team like that to ruin the whole thing.
There are a lot of "entrepreneurs" out there who have mediocre ideas, mediocre skill at the parts of business that actually matter (such as negotiation, marketing, and leadership), and minimal technical knowledge, but who justify disproportionate equity and authority splits based on "connections".
It can be an attractive proposition, when you're just starting out, to work for them. It's hard to tell a mediocre idea from a good one (Twitter seems mediocre on paper, but it worked) but connections obviously matter. If someone's genuinely well-connected, he'll be funded no matter what the idea is.
My advice is: don't work for them. If they were legitimately well-connected, they wouldn't need you to work for them on a low or zero salary.
The number of people in the world who are "well-connected" enough to be funded regardless of the idea are smaller than you think.
It would seem this way, but if you ever try to rent (much less buy) a place in the Bay Area or New York, you learn that there are a lot of rich fuckers kicking around.
However, every one of those negotiating skills is going to also be put to use when negotiating salary and equity split with your company. It's a double-edged sword.
I don't buy into the notion that business-minded people undervalue engineering talent in general. Sure, there are plenty of anecdotes otherwise, but the savvy business people know exactly what engineering talent is worth. However, that doesn't mean they won't still try to maximize their own share of the company's equity and payroll. Meanwhile, they have every incentive to minimize the amount of equity and salary handed out to engineering talent so they can hire as many people as possible without spending a dollar more than necessary.
It's not personal, it's just business. I'm not suggesting it's right, of course. Learning good negotiation skills and how to sell yourself well will go a long way to leveling the playing field.
There are just as many jerks with over-inflated egos on the programming side as there are on the business side.
most of these "business guys"
aka: I wish I had just freelanced. Live and learn
If you honestly believe that your connections merit 10+ times the share that my talent and skill do, then you better prove it by getting me in a room with the likes of top venture capitalists, CEOs at target clients, and heads of state on a weekly basis (and then, after a year or two, unless you treat me extremely well, I'll be independent and start my own show).