

If I were a single founder... - foysavas
http://www.foysavas.com/blog/2011/08/30/if-i-were-a-single-founder.html

======
jazzychad
As someone who went through YC as a single-founder, then got a co-founder,
then became a single-founder again after a year I've been on both sides of
this fence. I've been meaning to write an article about this experience, and I
guess this post has given me motivation to actually do it. There are so many
misconceptions from both sides about the other. Hopefully I can find time in
the next few weeks to write it all down. Are there any questions/topics you
would want to see included in such a write-up?

~~~
bigsassy
Whenever I read articles railing against single founders, I usually assume the
person writing the article doesn't have a meaningful amount of single-founder
experience. This makes me question their reasons given to not be a single
founder.

I'm sure some of these reasons should actually be carefully considered before
deciding to go it alone, but I feel that many of them can be safely ignored
given one's appetite for risk. After all, if you aren't willing to take
chances, why are you trying your hand at a startup in the first place?

tl;dr - Of the common assertions against being a single founder, which are
myth/overblown and which are serious concerns?

~~~
DenisM
>the person writing the article doesn't have a meaningful amount of single-
founder experience

Yes, that... or his name is Paul Graham! :)

From investors point of view second founder is social proof of the idea and
the first person, a much lower chance of entire team getting hit by a bus, and
a demonstrable ability to work in teams. They have no downside in modest
increase in the number of founders, unlike the first founder who is slashing
his pie in half.

You, too, should worry about social proof. If no one wants to hang out with
you, maybe your idea _is_ on the wrong side of crazy, and you are the kind of
person unable to tell good ideas from bad ideas. Who knows? The thing is, if
you have bad judgement, you likely don't know about it, can't know about it.

~~~
rick888
I think it also keeps you focused and on track. A single founder can easily
just keep changing directions (which I've done myself) when they should be
focusing on one idea.

------
limedaring
This mirrors a lot of my own feelings (being a single founder myself). I
originally applied for YC for the W11 round, and I rushed to find a cofounder
before applying (even wrote this for HN: [http://www.limedaring.com/technical-
co-founder-wanted-for-di...](http://www.limedaring.com/technical-co-founder-
wanted-for-disrupting-the-wedding-industry/))

I spent a few weeks "interviewing" cofounders and working with a few, before
choosing one and starting to build a product and applied (and scored an
interview) for YC. But during that time I realized that this person was _not_
the person I wanted to start a startup with. Thankfully we didn't get in, and
parted ways. Since then, I've decided that having a partner would be _awesome_
but I'm not wasting time looking for someone (especially with the very small
pool of people that want to work on wedding startups)... instead focusing on
building as fast as possible on my own (product: <http://weddinglovely.com>,
launched and making small bits of revenue).

I'm applying again for YC this round as a single founder, and I would
encourage people not to rush out and find last minute cofounders just to
apply. Spend time now finding a cofounder, then apply for S12 after a good few
months of working together — and if you can't find the right cofounder, then
start building yourself (especially if you're not technical).

~~~
notahacker
There seems to be a misconception here that the observation _most successful
large startups have more than one founder_ implies _if I were to add another
person to my startup it would be more likely to succeed_. It doesn't, unless
that person is addressing a particular deficiency to the extent that they
deserve ~50% equity.

If a complimentary skillset, alternative perspectives and/or shared workload
isn't worth that to you then don't look. However important it may be to an
external investor betting on you, you don't need to signal to yourself you're
committed enough not to drop startup life in favour of that dream job at
Google or pivot towards a "lifestyle business". People looking for cofounders
_solely_ to improve their chances of getting into incubators probably ought to
reassess their priorities.

------
bignoggins
I'm a single founder with a fairly profitable business (low-mid six figure
profits after 1 year). I guess out of ignorance, I never even considered
getting a cofounder. I can't say I regret my decision. Having 100% control
over the course of my company is something I wouldn't easily give up. In terms
of workload, what does a cofounder give you that you can't get for much
cheaper with contractors or employees? In terms of emotional support, I think
being married actually helps quite a bit. Even though my wife is not actively
involved in the company, I bounce ideas off of her all the time.

Perhaps a cofounder is more useful for startups that want to grow very fast
(the type YC likes to invest in). But for the organic/bootstrapped style
startups (ie 37Signals / FogCreek) is having a cofounder really necessary?
Everyone likes to quote PG on this, but consider the source. His experience is
with fast growth, VC funded, shoot for the moon style companies. So it may not
necessarily apply to everyone's situation.

~~~
sreitshamer
I'm also a single founder with a fairly profitable organic/bootstrapped style
business. Having a supportive wife has been huge for me as well.

I imagine it can feel better to have a cofounder, to feel like you're not in
it all alone. But if you want to make something great, there needs to be one
person with a vision and the power to make it reality. Nothing really great
was ever designed by committee.

------
TrevorBurnham
This article rings very true to me. I applied to YC in Summer 2010 with two
fellow grad students I picked by sending out a "founders wanted" email, then
meeting each of them for lunch. We got invited to interview, but weren't
accepted. So we went with another accelerator, Betaspring, and proceeded to
fall apart almost immediately.

The biggest problem was that we didn't really have a template for making
decisions. Up to that point, our only goal had been getting into an
accelerator, which we somehow expected to solve all our problems. And I'd
already decided that I'd rather lead a startup than get a PhD, so I was very
focused on that goal, while they were more focused on schoolwork. So the way
decisions were made before the summer was that I'd say "I did some research,
and think we should do this" and they'd say "OK." It was very unilateral. Once
we started working together full-time, though, that wasn't tenable, and there
was a very fine line I had to walk, to provide both autonomy and a sense of
direction. And we never could come to an arrangement that made everyone happy.

That's not to say that I would have been more successful as a single founder—I
had pretty minimal dev experience at the time—but there's a very good reason
that one of the YC application questions is "Please tell us about an
interesting project, preferably outside of class or work, that two or more of
you created together." If you don't have a good answer for that, my advice is
to hold off on doing YC and just figure out something substantial that you can
build together.

------
dkrich
Awesome piece. Having great cofounders is certainly ideal, but scrambling to
find them unnaturally because you think you need them to satisfy a requirement
is a bad idea. Most successful founders seem to find each other naturally and
work together over and over. It's pretty hard to find people you genuinely
like, respect, and want to work with.

In my experience the best way is to start alone and actively promote your work
to others. Pretty soon people who are serious about working with you will
present themselves.

------
rdl
I've seen a LOT of "single founder companies" just sort of sit around and
never really make any irrevocable moves. It's easy, especially if you have
other income, to just keep something at the hobby stage.

The absolute best way to prevent this is to have customers demanding your
product now (or by a certain date). The next best is either to be dependent
upon the startup for income, or to have other people pushing (and pulling) you
forward (or pushing them, at other times). Not sure which is better.

~~~
mgkimsal
What does "single founder" have to do with "keeping something at the hobby
stage"? I don't see those two as having much to do with each other. I've known
single founders who've pushed ahead, and 2-3 founder startups stay a hobby for
a long time.

------
tzm
Being a single founder has made me tougher, sharper and focused. I've been
through Hell and back for the past 4 years. Finance background turned
brogrammer.. to mobile strategist / development firm working with large
clients.

I've been focused on credibility and positioning. Waiting for the right co-
founder. Forming strategic relationships, staffing up and making key
investments. Book deal pending, just acquired a software company.

Crush it...

------
jayliew
Related: If you're a single founder (I am too), I'll help you make 10 cold
sales calls to get feedback. No strings attached!

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2943170>

------
idlewords
I'd be curious to see any actual data about relative success rates with single
and multiple founders (where success is measured as 'business profitable or
sold after N years' rather than 'got funded').

Like in so many things, it's best to minimize the hand-wringing and make a
decision based on your personal working style, who's available to join you,
and how badly you want to be funded by an entity with a strong bias against
solo founders.

~~~
jc123
Here a little 'data' here from Ron Conway and David Lee video:
[http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/david-lee-and-ron-conway-
bu...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/david-lee-and-ron-conway-bust-
entrepreneur-myths-on-stage-at-disrupt/)

------
dirkdeman
Forgive me my ignorance, but why is it such a disadvantage having a single
founder? Think about it: if the founder is a Jack of all trades, gets the
product out and hires specialized staff when the startup gets revenue, why
would he need a cofounder?

~~~
foysavas
Startup founders get tired now-and-again. Knowing a co-founder is working
while you're resting is a source of invaluable relief against the pressure to
get things done.

Long-term, this kind of emotional stability prevents burn-out. That's
important because startups don't die, founders quit.

~~~
dmitri1981
A very valid point. If you are a solo founder, nothing happens unless you make
it happen and as you experience the downs it becomes very easy to lose
momentum. Co-founders can provide a good counter balance and keep progress
steadier.

~~~
dirkdeman
It has been my experience that, while working in a group, it's actually harder
to get things done. You have to reach a consensus first before you can act.
The progress may be steadier, but in the long term slower.

Maybe I'm suffering from a bad college trauma. During college, we were forced
to work in project groups. This was always a disaster, I remember calling
group members at 2AM to email their contributions to the project, only to find
it full of mistakes and largely copied/pasted from the internet. I'd spend the
rest of the night editing the piece 'cause I sure as hell wasn't going to
flunk on their behalf. When I would do a project on my own (my Thesis, for
example) I'd get substantially higher grades with less hassle in less time.

~~~
liquidcool
I don't think college projects correlate well, for the main reason that you
often can't pick your teammates like you pick your cofounder. The motivation
is a grade, not money, and there are other grades (distractions) you must
concern yourself with. With a good cofounder (or even coworker) there will be
division of labor and trust to speed things up. And hopefully you'll see how
you work together before you commit.

------
studiofellow
I'm a single founder, and while I haven't found success with my first app,
I've definitely noticed some unique challenges.

First, designing and building an app by myself is different than anything else
I've done in my career. It's incredibly exhilarating. Also a bit scary.
Everything is on me. It can be stressful, but I don't think I could go back to
the old way.

Second, when people realize it's just me behind the scenes, they don't take
the app as seriously. I don't try to hide it. Kind of similar to how tech
bloggers don't take you seriously unless you have funding. (But that's a
different topic.)

Third, it's tough to get context or a neutral perspective. You're so close to
it that seeing where you go wrong can be difficult. This is why I disagree
with point #2 in the post. I worked on an app for a year and didn't realize it
was a lost cause. (Dumb, I know.)

By and large, I think the pluses outweigh the minuses. Especially since I had
cofounders bail on 4 projects before I went solo.

------
6ren
YC summer 2011 had 9 single founders (out of 64).
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2938349> Although YC doesn't favour them,
it's far from impossible.

However, I'm not sure what the odds are for _successful_ single founders. And
at least some acquire co-founders (like dropbox).

------
dmitri1981
> A lone founder never wastes time

I find it quite difficult to agree with this statement based on personal
experience. For me, it is quite easy to try things to see if they work which
often leads to going round in circles until a solution becomes obvious. I
found that when working with other people, it is a lot easier to put ideas out
there and you usually get the weak points shown to you right away. Also,
having said that, I am also finding that the most of my dev activity on my
current project involves stripping out functionality that simply turned out to
be unnecessary or half baked. I feel that having a co-founder would be great
help in avoiding some of the unnecessary work in first place.

~~~
veyron
I think the idea is that the force multiplier WORK(2 people) / WORK(1 person)
< 2, which IME is very true.

------
deniz
I keep hearing the same story of how most people meet their co-founder "x and
y met in school".

I'm a few years out of university and have moved around a lot. Most of my
trusted friends now days are non technical which makes my candidate pool near
empty. I agree completely that getting on board with someone you don't know
well is a bad idea.

It seems to me that all the rules placed around how you must have a team to
get funded is restricting startups to the realm of college/uni students and
there's probably a lot of opportunities being missed.

~~~
thomasgerbe
"I agree completely that getting on board with someone you don't know well is
a bad idea."

Eh I kind of disagree about this.

I ended up working on a project through a friend of a friend. A guy was doing
some work on his own and needed some pro-bono help for his project. We have
very different personalities but our skills complemented one another
perfectly. We ended up moving out to the Bay Area together to work on our own
projects. A year later, we've meshed extremely well given some tough
circumstances.

There's absolutely no way we would've met back in Uni, as we frequented
different circles.

------
Vaismania
I'd argue on the fact that having two business oriented co-founders can
sometimes hurt you more than having a lone co-founder.

~~~
Geekette
I don't see how a 2-bizhead team can hurt, unless they're focused on an market
outside their areas of expertise/work experience.

A lot also depends on the type of product. E.g. for a consumer oriented
startup with a tech-enabled (not tech-centric) product, the immediate big
challenge (assuming business model has been established) is often sales &
other "businessy" challenges.

------
foysavas
Question for anyone: if you're not a single founder, how did you meet your co-
founders?

~~~
jewgonewild
I met my first co-founder in college and my second one through the local tech
scene. In both cases I made sure that these were people that I could get along
with before anything. Skills are picked up along the way but if you don't work
well together it's going to be a painful ride.

Co-founding is like getting married, except without the sex.

~~~
alfiejohn_
You are obviously not married

------
designium
I have the same reasons for being a single founder.

<http://www.chimkan.com/2011/07/05/the-pros-of-going-solo/>

------
matusz13
encouraging and well thought out points.

