tl;dr version: you need a strong technical person and a strong marketing person. There's absolutely nothing new in this article - he's just applying fancy labels to something most people already take as true.

I also object to his usage of the word Hacker. His definition is all over the place:

A Hacker is more than a code monkey, who can quickly build software and find interesting ways to hack together code. Thats a developer. Thats someone who is definitely an important part of a startup, but not critical to its success. A Hacker is someone who looks the problem, and solves it in a unique and special way. A Hacker finds the process of problem solving exciting and interesting, and spends the majority of their time looking at the problem in multiple ways, finding many potential solutions.

Often the Hacker is a coder, but not always the best coder you have on your team. Nate and Natty, of Everlater, are decent coders at best. In the last couple of years, they have taught themselves, by trial and error, how to code. I would imagine if you asked either one of them if they considered themselves amazing developers, they would probably indicate otherwise. But as Hackers? They are amazing.

I have no idea what he's trying to say. His definition, summarized:

a) A hacker is not just a programmer.

b) Sometimes a hacker is a coder, sometimes he is not.

c) If he is a coder, he may not be the best coder in your team.

d) A hacker looks for creative and cool solutions to problems.

e) A hacker is excited by problem solving.

Uh ... what's your point?