

The Single Founder Myth - bootload
http://www.singlefounder.com/2006/10/23/thesinglefoundermyth/

======
Zak
FTA: _Y Combinator refuses to work with individuals_

YC FAQ:

 _Can a single person apply for funding?_

 _Yes, but the odds of being accepted are much lower. A startup is too much
work for one person._

It is my understanding that YC has funded several single-founder startups. I
can recall someone listing a few of them recently.

~~~
Roridge
Thanks for posting that, I was going to ask.

It feels odd that Y Combinator wouldn't fund single startups. If I wanted to
apply for funding would I be better taking on a faux-cofounder? Of course I
wouldn't do it, i'd just apply as me, but it feels false.

------
david927
There's one factor the author forgot: persistence.

The best programmers I know are also friends of mine. But I pay them to do
work for me. I could ask them to join me as a co-founder, but they would have
to be willing to cross the Antarctic on foot to make the company succeed.
Frozen toes, black fingers. It's something I would do, and I expect that of
anyone with the title "co-founder". If they can't bring that (and that's hard
to find -- I've looked), then I'll pay them, we'll remain friends, and I'll
remain a single founder.

Investors are many, good investments are few. They might say they have rules,
but they'll drop those in a heartbeat to be part of something good. In other
words, I don't care about what investors want; I only care about making
something great.

------
wheels
Putting it off on funding seems a bit odd. That's kind of like saying feet are
shaped the way they are because otherwise they wouldn't fit into shoes.

If there's a bias against single founders from investors, it's likely to be
rooted in them being less likely to succeed. If the opposite were true some
investor would probably have figured that out by now and would be spanking his
competitors who didn't have that rule.

~~~
billswift
>being less likely to succeed

More likely in their being less likely to succeed _as big and as quick_ as the
investors would prefer.

Also, from what I have read (mostly on HN), many VCs tend to be pretty
control-freakish who often play-off founders against each other, which they
can't do without co-founders.

------
eplanit
I think often the term Startup is used in a way that confuses this kind of
conversation and analysis. The term Startup, itself, really implies only that
it's a new business. The word does not imply anything regarding the market or
business model (i.e. how new vs. established each is). I think to many,
especially in this forum, Startup implies innovative products in emerging
markets using novel business models. Were this the frame of discussion, then
I'd tend to agree that co-founders are important if not essential.

But, given a broader perspective of Startup types (i.e. the me-too crowd, or
those with humbler aspirations than to be Googlesque) I think it's less true.
That is, I think there are plenty of single-founder technology/web companies
doing quite well.

------
RobbieStats
StatSheet (<http://statsheet.net>) is "One Person Profitable"

------
rriepe
It's not a matter of skillsets; it's a matter of communication.

Having a co-founder lets you bounce ideas off one another. It lets everything
you do take on its own natural evolution. It's hard to explain unless you have
a co-founder that you can easily and quickly communicate with, but I'll try.

You could compare it the show House MD. House is a brilliant medical mind, and
much better than anyone on his team. Why does he even have a team, you ask? To
throw ideas back and forth. When he can't access his team, he'll go to anyone
to keep the idea in the air. He's even used a bum and an ex-con.

As an individual, you can train in all the skillsets in the world. You can
become better at front-end, back-end, business development, selling, talking
to people... everything. You can be even be better at coming up with ideas.

But you'll never be better at _developing_ ideas.

That's the strength of multiple founders.

~~~
pmjordan
_House_ , being fictitious, might be a bad example though. It's a TV show, so
he _needs_ a foil, how else are the viewers supposed to know what he's
thinking? Besides, House is great because of the dialogue writing.

I'd say how good a programmer I am doesn't depend on whether I have company.
Being a sole founder sucks because there's just so much to do and it's easy to
feel overwhelmed, which means you can lose motivation very quickly, and
there's nobody there to help you get fired up again.

~~~
rw140
It might depend on your personality - although you can be sure that you can be
a good programmer 100% of the time, I know I occasionally make decisions that,
in hindsight, are significantly stupid. Currently I can sanity-check things
with my co-workers (or at least those of them that can spot signs of my
stupidity) - if I were a sole programmer, that resource would not be
available, so I'd either spend much more time checking my work, or end up
wasting more time doing things the wrong way. Possibly even both.

------
johnl
If there were a lot of single founders with good ideas YC might consider
creating a new program called 2and20. If your single founder application is
accepted you have 20 days to get 2 additional founders and resubmit for a
second approval?

~~~
bootload
_"... f your single founder application is accepted you have 20 days to get 2
additional founders and resubmit for a second approval? ..."_

Informally YC appears to be doing something like this anyway. cf Swartz &
Reddit. Is there more?

~~~
gcheong
Dropbox: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=801739>

------
lsc
I think part of it is that running a startup going for investor money requires
similar social skills to running a startup with a co-founder. These skills are
not required, and sometimes don't exist in the lone founder.

The big difference, I think, is that if you have all the equity, really all
that matters is your will and ability to go on. Sure, your employees, friends,
spouse, etc... are incredibly important, but dealing with a friend, spouse or
employee is a rather different thing from dealing with a cofounder

------
wooster
FWIW, Pat House is a fantastic speaker. If you ever have the chance to see her
speak, go. She was in the trenches during a very exciting and interesting time
in the software industry, and besides for being a major player in the
industry, she has a lot of interesting stories and insights to share.

Discounting here role as a co-founder would be a mistake.

------
10ren
One reason is that several different skills are required for a successful
startup, and it's rare to find aptitude for all of them in one person.

OTOH, any intelligent person can develop skills they lack, with sufficient
determination, humility, courage and patience.

~~~
ismarc
and stubbornness. Never underestimate the power of the stubborn.

~~~
billswift
Determination _is_ intelligent stubbornness. Stubbornness by itself is how
many startups run into the ground - as PG has noted, most startups change
direction at least once after they get started.

------
bootload
continuing from this thread, _"One Person Profitable"_ ~
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1144038> and
<http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=arieljraz>

