Been down that road a few times. Not trying to rain on the parade, but here's my two cents worth based on my experiences:
1. You will probably have better luck seeking Angel
rather than Venture
capital if you go the route you're suggesting.
Venture capital usually wants a product that's either 'ready to go to market' or nearly so. VCs seldom (possibly never?) fund people that just "have an idea." The only exception to that might be when the people with the idea have a strong industry reputation, and a proven track record of delivering innovation both on budget and on schedule.
That's because VCs are not interested in building a company for the long haul. Their goal is to cash out as quickly as possible for as much as possible. Ideally, they want to get back their investment (plus several hundred percent more) within one to three years. That goal can do a number on people that want to build something lasting. Angel investors, on the other hand, are often more willing to fund something they feel is 'right' as opposed to just profitable.
2. One big problem
I've encountered in many business deals comes when one party is providing the idea/product/service, and the other one is fronting the money.
In my experience, I have yet to see that arrangement work. Inevitably, the people that are doing the actual work begin to resent the people that "did absolutely nothing but lend us some money." And the people with the money invariably begin to want some role within the company they've funded.
Usually the 'money people' try to create managerial positions so that they can feel they're a part of the action. And because it's their money, they have considerable clout when they want something. It's a prime example of the Golden Rule of Capital: He with the gold rules.
I suggest that you make something other than just money be a criteria for working with somebody. Make sure they can also provide your venture with some other value such as industry contacts, marketing know-how, or legal services before you take their cash.
3. Be extremely careful if you enter into a co-development
arrangement. That's where you agree to a reduced price for programming in exchange for your retention of rights to the code you develop. The programmer will always absorb the bulk of the risks under this type of arrangement.
The person that paid for development got a program he wanted at a reduced price. If the programmer doesn't deliver, he gets his money back.
The programmer got paid less money for her actual work in exchange for an equity stake in something that, by itself, isn't worth much of anything. If the product doesn't sell, then it's just another case of "Oh well
I occasionally need to contract programming services for some of my clients. There were many times back in the 90s when a coder offered a deep discount on the project quotation in exchange for the right to sell what they were developing for my client to other non-competing businesses.
And guess what?
a) I don't recall a single instance where my clients didn't take them up on the offer.
b) I don't know of a single instance where such programs were successfully marketed to a broader clientele.
(eeek! active ping alert on my screen - server just went down somewhere
Gotta run. More to follow when I get a minute.