

Yes You Need a Co-Founder - giffc
http://giffconstable.com/2010/08/yes-you-need-a-co-founder/

======
pvg
These become a lot more fun to read (after the 5th one or so) by replacing the
debated term with something else. Let's say, 'pants', for instance -

Yes, You Need Pants

Don’t think about pants in terms of equity.

[...]the ideal number of pants is two or three.

I feel incredibly lucky to have my brilliant pants[...]

Revel in the intensity of your pants team.

Oh and if the author happens to be reading, it's 'for all intents and
purposes' rather than 'intensive purposes'.

~~~
dasil003
All the more so if you are in the UK

------
sthomps
oh my god, give me a break. Everyone has their own opinion on what works for
them. Single, co, tri, quad, what does it matter? Sure if you have the perfect
people working together in unison then it will be easier. It comes down to
YOU, as you allude to. And just because you can't do it alone doesn't mean
that you have to lump everyone in together.

This is like the NYC vs SF debate, we are like schoolchildren. "My way is
better". Now it's the single vs co-founder debate. Statistically, two people
starting a company are usually better than one. But remember that every
situation is unique, and what works for people works for people. That's the
reason that we have so many different types of companies.

~~~
giffc
Your critique is totally fair. I agree that every situation is unique -- tried
to say that in conclusion -- but I did want to take a strong stand especially
for newer entrepreneurs trying to figure out their path. I've seen these
pieces saying you don't need a co-founder, and haven't seen much recently
saying, "wait a minute, hold up there."

I also tried to clarify twice that I'm talking about companies with a strong
software component, where team is so essential. At the end of the day,
everyone has to carve their own path, no arguments, but there are general
points that can increase the odds in your favor and that's merely the warning
I tried to give.

~~~
sthomps
You are exactly right Giff. I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing your
post in general, it's just the whole discussion in general. I just finishing
reading 3 posts this week on NY vs SF and then solo vs co. So this happened to
be the post that I commented on :D.

I believe that if you happen to find a co-founder that truly works well with
you, amazing things can happen. That is definitely the highest percentage way
to go. I am a newer entrepreneur so I get what you are saying. But with very
little connections and no real experience, it is much better to start as a
solo guy (like you mentioned) and then hopefully find someone along the way.

Although, I still see no reason why those people can't be employees. It all
depends on the type of leader that you are. Regardless, good post (and I love
your list of lawyers, that's how I found mine, so I appreciate it).

------
dublinclontarf
I like that he links to how to choose a co-founder down the bottom, but what I
want to know, how the hell do you find one in the first place?

If your in SF or any other startup hub then thats fine, but what if your in a
proverbial co-founder desert?

Now my situation will be somewhat unique, being in China and all(not even a
big city, some backwater, the main industry here is agriculture, this is
China's rice basket) but I really wouldn't know where to start and many others
would be the same.

------
niico
This is that I think.

Sometimes finding a "co-founder" could take more time than developing the
whole project. Time, that btw, you don't have. Time = Money. Money that you
don't have either.

So...

If I ask you "Name a friend that you would love to work with and believe he is
up to the entrepreneurial challenge of this project" and you take more than 10
seconds to figure out who might be suitable for the challenge, you simply
don't have one.

I believe co-founders, partners (however you wanna call them) is more of an
attitude thing than a skill thing. Startups require a lot of balls to jump in,
even more if you have a full time job and you need to quit it to get this
project on track.

Searching for the right partner could be just like waiting for the bus. I
could just stay at the bus stop or start walking (coding) to the next stop and
then maybe wait there. You could even get to meet your new biz partner half
way the road.

It's a good head-breaker paradox. Wait till I find someone to work with or
simply start doing it by yourself.

Partners don't always have to actually START the startup with you. They could
jump in at any time and it could be extremely handy. Having an extra pair of
eyes and hands is always good (you will have to learn to filter critics that
you didn't have before and convert them into feedback)

------
donaq
_You cannot do this alone — it is way too hard, both work-wise and
emotionally._

Who's "You"? Does he know every person planning to be a single founder that
well?

~~~
jscore
I also disagree with a lot of what he says, but then I realized it's his
personal blog.

I know plenty of people running small companies by themselves.

~~~
chc
The fact that it's his personal blog doesn't make his opinions on what I can
do any more or less valid.

------
thinkcomp
Generally, articles that make complex issues seem black and white are silly.

------
zemanel
i've given up on finding co-founders ....

~~~
niico
then stop looking for one and start building, eventually you will get to meet
people that would be interested in your work.

This could be actually better in terms of equity. Since you already started
the work you could ask for 50+% ;)

~~~
zemanel
that's the spirit lad, wish i had 10 man like you

------
startuprules
...Because you're weak

Because you can't stand the pain.

Because you would like to end up with 10% of the company after working 14 hour
days.

Because you need someone to complain to after every setback.

Because you don't have the money or patience.

Because you don't know how to hire the right employees.

Because you're not an entrepreneur.

