

Having Co-founders Is Valuable But Not Crucial - billswift
http://www.rolfnelson.com/2009/11/having-co-founders-is-valuable-but-not.html

======
boris
I believe if you feel you have found a good co-founder, go for it; it is much,
much better to have a co-founder than to go solo. But a bad co-founder is
worse than no co-founder.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Exactly. I won't put words into anyone's mouth, but I believe the value of
cofounders is for the investor - given many startups to fund, a good cofounder
group will make faster progress, have fewer roadblocks, play cheerleader to
one another, reduce the incidence of depression and despair. Its about return
on investment. Why fund a unicycle when you can choose from many functional
bicycles?

------
davidw
I think the key point is more about how YC operates. At least from afar, it
seems that they stick to the model that worked for PG and company, which means
they strongly favor having cofounders. PG has also said, repeatedly, that they
do occasionally found a single founder, so they're not dogmatic about it, just
heavily biased.

An important thing to keep in mind is that you don't want a "cargo cult co
founder", where you are trying to sign someone up "because you're supposed to
have one".

~~~
megamark16
I've been avoiding the "finding a cofounder for the sake of having a
cofounder" mistake myself. It gets lonely sometimes, coding and trying to work
out user experience all alone, but I'd rather do it alone (for now anyway)
then have a cofounder who I have to babysit. Maybe I should send my wife to
take some Web Design classes and teach her to find her way around jquery :-)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Rule 2: never go into business with your spouse!

~~~
joshhart
Loads of successful businesses were made by couples. Cisco comes to mind
first.

~~~
boundlessdreamz
flickr too if i remember right

~~~
papersmith
Six Apart.

------
edw519
Thank you for the great post on a subject near and dear to many of us.

I am a single founder who constantly wonders if I should be. I have founded 2
startups before and both imploded solely because of founder issues. One had 4
of us and I spent more than half my time playing referee. I will never go
through that again. AFAIC, nothing is more important than being in business
with the right people (except having plenty of customers, maybe.)

I am working hard and steady on my new venture, but I do not actively recruit
potential co-founders. I freely share what I'm working on (hinting at
opportunities for co-founders) and sit back to see what happens. Since I
believe the single most important trait of a good co-founder is sheer
determination, I hope someone will come to me insisting, "We should do
this...," "I could do that...," "Let's try this...", etc. Sorry to say, this
strategy hasn't worked too well, but I'd still rather be alone than be with
someone who doesn't push as hard as I do.

I know about half a dozen excellent people who I'd love as co-founders, but
all have mortgages, families, and other commitments. Our startup would always
be a child to me, but only a step-child to them. So I don't push.

I understand pg's concern about single founder startups; they're a lot of
work! There are many times I wish I had someone to share with or help me out.
But under the circumstances, I'd rather plow along, always positioning myself
to have a co-founder, but just as ready to launch alone if need be. I'm not
afraid to do that and I don't think other single co-founders should be either.

OP's links were great and for a single co-founder, a little reassuring. Who is
fauigerzigerk? I don't recognize him here.

OP's discussion about the "bozo" factor was just silly. Sure, if you're still
in school, you should have no trouble finding suitable co-founders. But as you
get a little older, there are many good reasons for being a single founder
without being a bozo. Those of us who are should remain open to accepting the
right co-founder, but in the meantime, just keep on working hard.

~~~
icey
With regards to the "bozo" thing - I read it a little differently. I took it
to mean that anyone can be committed to their own crazy idea; but when you are
able to talk someone else into being committed to it, it acts as a kind of
validation of the idea. So, that makes it a handy litmus test for investors to
use since you've already convinced at least one other person that it's a good
idea.

~~~
edw519
_...when you are able to talk someone else into being committed to it, it acts
as a kind of validation of the idea._

I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it. All it really proves is
that group think is alive and well.

Two classic counter-examples:

1\. I can come up with the most ridiculous idea in the world and still find
_someone_ who I could convince of anything.

2\. I can come up with the best idea in the world and still not be able to
convince anyone to join me, but be able to convince many people to _buy_ it.

~~~
alain94040
I disagree with your characterization.

Have you ever tried to convince someone to join a truly ridiculous idea? You'd
be surprised. People aren't that stupid. We are talking about someone joining
as a co-founder. Therefore, that person has some basic notion of what a co-
founder is, what a startup looks like, etc. We are not talking about finding a
random person on the street who'll give you a quote "great idea".

For the best idea in the world, I also challenge you _not_ to find anyone who
believes in it.

Now, to be practical rather than extreme, my experience shows me that having
co-founders brings a lot of value during the brainstorming phase. Although I
like to think of myself as very smart - I could figure out everything on my
own, right? Co-founders bring balance. Once in a while, I have a crazy idea
that deserves to be killed. But I'm crazy enough that on my own, I might do
it. With co-founders, you get very quick reality check.

The secret is to find co-founders who share your vision 90% of the time, and
help keep you on the right track the 10% when you are wrong.

If you don't share the vision with your co-founders and can't even agree 50%
of the time, then you are correct: it will be a waste of your time, arguing
endlessly about trivial stuff.

~~~
padmapper
I think your 90% vs. 50% characterization is spot on. I once tried to found a
company with someone who has fairly fundamentally different views on many
things, thinking it would balance my crazy ideas out with an alternate
viewpoint, but we just ended up fighting about trivialities, and could barely
get anything done.

I think close to 100% is ideal, as long as noone is being a yes-man.

------
Confusion
I find the two sources he mentions in his post rather irrelevant, given
completely wrong impressions.

Firstly, the absolute number of successes is not interesting: if there
1-founder startups outnumber 2-founder startups by a factor of 10, then
1-founder startups are suddenly a lot less likely to succeed.

Secondly, both lists list not just successful, but a very limited set of
_extremely successful_ startups. These lists tell you nothing about your
chances of being the next Dropbox. It's an entirely different category of
companies.

