

A Single Founder: Why Start with Such a Tremendous Handicap? - thinkspace
http://thinkspace.com/a-single-founder-why-start-with-such-a-tremendous-handicap/#
Reasons to have a co-founder rather than be a lone wolf. How to deal with co-founder disagreements and things to think about when writing a bullet proof partnership agreement.
======
xal
I picked a guy with lots of carisma as my co-founder. I thought he would do
the business side and I'd do the technology side. 3 years later I had to kick
him out of the business. 6 years later I bought out his share for millions.

Get a cofounder if you find someone insanely good but it's definitely not
required.

Edit: The now common facility of founder vesting improves this situation
somewhat. Don't rely on that though.

------
keiferski
What's with the constant "you need to get a co-founder" advice? It almost
seems like insecurity: "well, if you don't get a co-founder (like us), you're
doomed! Better give up now." There are plenty of companies that started with a
solo founder, and starting a company solo is better than not starting one at
all.

Not everyone has the ability or desire to spend 6 months hunting for that
perfect cofounder. The exit strategy of someone else is also going to be
different, which in my mind is a huge issue. Personally, I despise the idea of
an acquisition (vs. building a long-term organization), whereas a majority of
the industry feels (and caters to) the contrary. Each additional cofounder
increases the likelihood of the "cash-out" mentality and gives one less
control of the company's future.

------
wccrawford
How about: Because it's better than being shackled to a loser who will destroy
your business?

How about: It's better to strike while the iron is hot?

A co-founder is not something that should be obtained just to have it. You
should carefully choose your co-founder, and you shouldn't let the choosing
slow you down.

------
diminium
You know a lot of "co-founders" weren't really co-founders but really good
first employees of the founder. You don't need a co-founder and sometimes, you
just need to start a company w/o one or have no company at all.

Take Apple for example. Steve Jobs was the founder who completely ran the
company. Steve Woz was a really great employee who helped make Job's vision a
reality. Yes, they were "technically" co-founders but they aren't at the same
time. Not to say Woz wasn't important - he was very important - however, I
think Apple could have been created without him. In a way, I would say Mike
Markkula was more of a co-founder than Woz was and he was brought in after the
company was founded but that's going into a whole different world. I suppose
the lesson on this is, you might find that "co-founder" your looking for after
you created the company.

Now for opposite end of the spectrum, try Larry Page and Sergey Brin. From
what I've seen, they equally contributed and created Google and the company
would have never been created without them. If one or the other disappeared,
Google would have not been Google.

------
jcc80
Part of what hasn't been mentioned yet in favor of co-founders is that on the
right team everyone makes everyone else better. Or, in this case, with the
right combo you both make the product better together - over time. When I see
someone focusing on the immediate benefits of a co-founder, I wonder if it's
short sighted.

For an analogy that may resonate with this community - think about a hacker
house or group of programmers that are friends. Those relationships can make
each of you better programmers. In effect, you're each helping each other move
from, say C or B players, to A players. Imagine if you only thought someone at
an equal or higher level than you could teach or help you with something.

You might carry more weight for the first 2 years, your partner's skills may
become more valuable for the 2 after that. That's either a reality you accept
in creating a true team or a point of tension for you - depending on your
personality.

Of course, a solo founder can be a part of a community that helps them become
better, just another perspective.

------
gscott
It is hard to find a person with the same level of commitment, who is normal,
and can survive barely while getting everything going. If they flame out your
holding the bag that they partially own and still have to do everything
yourself.

------
glimcat
It's easier to land (and vet) a cofounder after you've done some initial work
on the concept.

Particularly if you've been going out of your way to meet people who might be
suitable for some time beforehand.

------
6ren
And HP, Warnock and Geschke (adobe), Morita and Ibuka (sony).

But there's also Wilson (xerox) and of course Edison.

------
Mz
_My favorite analogy for one founder vs two or more is that it’s possible to
raise a child as a single parent, but vastly more challenging and personally
taxing to get the same outcome._

One difference between a start-up and a child is that raising a child means
taking time away from making money whereas if your start-up is successful it
should be making you money. So I think that is a big flaw with this analogy.

~~~
wccrawford
Only if you define 'money' as the only value you could ever obtain from
anything.

~~~
Mz
I have no idea what you mean. I did the stay-at-home parent thing. So I had no
income of my own for a long time. I don't regret it and I still have a very
close relationship to my now adult children but it did hurt my earning
capacity.

------
Hisoka
I can't speak for others, but I do want a co-founder. But 1 of 3 things
happen:

1) The person I really really want to be my co-founder is working on his own
gig, and can't join me, and I can't join them.

2) They're not the entrepreneurial type and are content with their "safe",
secure job.

3) I don't trust they can bring much to the table.

Trust me, I would really really love to have a co-founder. I ain't greedy. But
a lot has to fall in place to have a good co-founder. I'm not looking for
perfection, but if they don't meet any of my criteria and won't bring some
value to the table, why should I settle for less?

And if I can't find a co-founder, I'm not gonna twiddle my thumb and wait for
someone. Life is too short for that. I'm gonna suck it up, brace myself, and
get right to work to bring my dreams to reality. I'm not gonna rely or depend
on other people to start what I want, and risk regret.

------
chailatte
Not sure why alot of hacks these days with no startup experience or success
feel the need to tell entrepreneurs that they need certain things.

I've never heard Richard Branson or Li Ka-Shing say that being a single
founder is horrible.

~~~
keiferski
Branson actually wasn't a single founder; see Nik Powell. 1

That said, he owned the majority of the company and more or less made the
final decision. Perhaps the moral of this story is that one person should
ultimately have the final say.

1.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nik_Powell>

~~~
chailatte
Virgin Group wiki says the only founder is Branson.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group>

One of these wikipedia page is lying :)

~~~
keiferski
Having read multiple Branson biographies, I can assure you that he had (and
has) help.

Edit: Branson may be the sole founder of Virgin Group, which is a holding
company. He definitely was not the sole founder or Virgin Records, Virgin
Atlantic, or _Student_.

