

You can do it alone - ryancarson
http://ryancarson.com/post/35939367603/you-can-do-it-alone

======
pg
You can certainly start a business without a cofounder. What's hard to do,
empirically, is to start one that gets really big. There are a handful of
counterexamples, like Amazon, but Treehouse is not one of them yet.

We have a lot more data about what happens in startups than any individual
founder does. What interest would we have in mischaracterizing it?

~~~
erichocean
_What interest would we have in mischaracterizing it?_

Advantages to YC of multi-founder companies that have nothing to do with
"growing really big":

1\. Multi-founder companies shrink the available pool of founders.

Assume the pool of available founders is fixed at any given point in time. By
requiring start ups to have 2 or more founders, YC is able to capture a larger
part of that pool, harming competitive incubators and increasing the
likelihood that the founders they've been able to capture will produce for YC.

2\. Split ownership is much easier for YC to manipulate favorably.

By providing YC with two or more avenues to affect the actions of a company,
the autonomy of a founder is reduced even below the numerical amount: a single
founder in a company with two isn't just half as influential, it's probably
more like 1/3. The extra influence is retained by YC, which can play the
founders against each other.

3\. To maintain this competitive advantage and influence, YC effectively
forces successful single founder companies like Dropbox to dilute themselves
and gain a founder.

The entire process is now self-reinforcing, with YC actively manipulating the
inputs while claiming the outputs are unbiased. (1) and (2) above demonstrate
why YC has incentives to do this.

Of course, pg is a good person and would never blah blah blah. I agree, he is
a good person. That doesn't mean the above things are untrue though, even if
YC is consciously telling themselves they don't matter, or even "don't want"
these advantages. Humans are really good at deluding themselves, _especially_
when they have something to gain.

~~~
macspoofing
I think all your points are nonsensical, bordering on insane.

"Shrink the available pool of founders"?? In country of 300 million, how in
the world is that even possible for a relatively tiny incubator to do??

"Split ownership to manipulate the startup" - YC takes a 5-10% equity stake!

"YC effectively forces successful single founder companies like Dropbox to
dilute themselves and gain a founder" - HOW?!?!

~~~
mgkimsal
..."Shrink the available pool of founders"?? In country of 300 million, how in
the world is that even possible for a relatively tiny incubator to do??...

It's not a pool of 300 million that would be included. The number of people
that are considering starting venture-backed companies that are "swinging for
the fences" by trying to build a 9-figure company is much much smaller than
300 million.

~~~
macspoofing
OBVIOUSLY 300 million are not doing start-ups. But it is a country of 300
million and the biggest economy of the world. I cannot imagine that a little
incubator that signs 100 start-ups a year can possibly "shrink the pool of
founders" in any meaningful way. Give me a break. It's idiotic to claim that.

------
petenixey
As I think Ryan would be the first to agree, he may have built Treehouse on
his own but his early businesses have all been very much built with the
support and partnership of his wife Gill.

Ryan has also been a master of bootstrapping businesses upon business. He
built Carsonified on the foundation of simple workshops he ran, he built
ThinkVitamin on the foundation of Carsonified and he built Treehouse on the
combination of both of them.

I say that not as a critic but as an admirer. I think he's done a first class
job of building his reputation, wealth, influence and expertise through all of
these.

However I think it's somewhat disingenuous for Ryan to state that because he
has done Treehouse on his own, "so too can you". It's what the people want to
hear and it will bring the enthusiasm of the bulk of HN readers who are going
it alone.

However the risk for most startups is not that they will exit for millions and
the CEO will only own a paltry 20% of the company rather than 70%. It's that
they will die. It has taken me many years to realise it but the presence of a
true co-founder dramatically reduces this likelihood.

It feels odd writing this all these years later because I knew Ryan at the
very start of my career and almost the start of his. I then was a single-
founder, he was working with Gill. I feel like we've passed each other going
the opposite direction.

I gave only a small fraction of equity to my first co-founder and paid a high
price for that. I have now come full circle and realise the importance of a
good co-founder and of an even split between you.

Ryan is right in that he can do it without a co-founder. However if you fit
that mold you probably already know that and are running a business quite
possibly as the sole influencer already. If you don't then I think there is
good reason for the astonishing faith of the valley in the co-founder. There
is a degree of group-thought, sure but there are a lot of very, very sound
reasons not to go it alone.

~~~
ryancarson
Hi Pete - great hearing from you. :)

Yes, Gill has played a _huge_ role in running our earlier businesses. She has
also supported me hugely during the running of Treehouse. But I've shouldered
the weight of making all of the big decisions at Treehouse. The buck still
stops with me.

I wrote this post not as a "anyone can do what I did" post but rather a
counter point to the rhetoric that is coming out of The Valley.

It's important for new Founders to hear both sides of the argument.

~~~
artag
I also believe that people should hear different point of views. Thanks for
sharing your story!

But hopefully people also realize that the existence of a co-founder doesn't
mean that there is no clear leadership. YourMechanic would not be feasible
without my incredibly talented co-founder, but the buck still stops with me. I
talk to my co-founder & team about big decisions, but I make and take
responsibility for all the decisions.

Having run different businesses for 5 years as a single co-founder, I have
found that there is something magical about having the 'right partner' (in my
case, brilliant + 100% dependable).

------
Kiro
"What’s wrong with having one founder? To start with, it’s a vote of no
confidence. It probably means the founder couldn’t talk any of his friends
into starting the company with him. That’s pretty alarming, because his
friends are the ones who know him best."

Wow, pg is so wrong. Whenever I get an idea I want to execute it myself.
Bringing in friends is not something I even consider.

~~~
larrys
"It probably means the founder couldn’t talk any of his friends"

PG also has an age bias in that statement as it would practically be true only
for a certain age group (young, in or recently out of college, without kids)
anyway.

Someone who is, say, 33 years old, married with two kids and with friends who
are in a similar situation (and assuming those friends even live in the same
town at the time) would find it quite difficult to pull those people from
their possibly established careers (say as an attorney, doctor, or rising
manager) to leave on a "startup". Additionally not everybody has a large group
of friends who share the same goals and interests. Obviously.

------
rauljara
"I believe Paul and David are stressing the importance of co-founders because
they’re talking about young founders with no previous business experience."

"I funded the business with cash from my previous business"

Ryan has thoroughly convinced me that if you've run some successful businesses
in the past, it's probably better to go it alone your new one.

However, I don't think he convinced me that PG was wrong (and I'm not sure he
was trying to), just that PG's advice doesn't necessarily apply to serially
successful entrepreneurs. All of PG's cautions about the dangers of going it
alone still seem completely valid. However, it's not like there aren't dangers
to having a co-founder (the marriage analogy, though a little cliche, is
cliche because it rings true).

I suppose, as with all things, the thing to do is take stock of your own
particular situation and weigh the risks. But if you don't have direct
experience overcoming at least some of challenges PG refers to, a co-founder
still seems like the more sensible route.

------
nodesocket
I just applied to TechStars Cloud in San Antonio for <http://commando.io> and
was denied as a single founder. I knew it was a long shot, but had to apply
just for the amazing opportunity that is TechStars and the mentors and
experience.

Being a single founder is bloody hard. Mostly though it is lonely. Nobody to
talk with, nobody to bounce ideas around and debate features or implementation
with. Should we use MongoDB or Riak? Being a single founder you make all the
decisions. Also investors believe if you can't convince anybody else to join
your company, than its probably a bad idea. I don't necessarily believe this,
since I am myself a single founder.

So, why is finding a co-founder hard. I moved up to San Francisco over a year
ago, left my pool of friends, and drove up in my car with everything I owned.
Finding people in San Francisco that are either not already doing their own
startup, or already working at a badass company is extremely difficult. Even
more, there is the catch-22, I don't have any capital to pay you, but I have
equity. Again, not a really convincing proposition for a rockstar developer or
designer.

Startups are hard, the hardest thing you will probably ever do. So being a
single founder is just not mentally healthy and as productive as having co-
founders.

~~~
benatkin
> I just applied to TechStars Cloud in San Antonio for <http://commando.io>
> and was denied as a single founder. I knew it was a long shot, but had to
> apply just for the amazing opportunity that is TechStars and the mentors and
> experience.

You speak this highly of TechStars, and yet you're still running an LLC?

~~~
nodesocket
What does that have to do with anything? By the way, 37Signals is an LLC.

~~~
benatkin
<http://ask.techstars.org/corporate-structure>

------
fitandfunction
I'd love to see someone (ryancarson or pg?) write a complementary article
about "what if you _have to_ do it alone?"

In other words, sometimes, it's not your choice to be a solo co-founder. Many
people have compared finding a co-founder to finding a spouse. In both life
decisions, I don't think anyone seriously advocates for "sucking it up, and
going with the least bad option."

Sometimes, you're poorly geographically positioned, or in a "strange" market,
or later in life (friends are already "matched up" or in secure jobs), etc

For myriad reasons, you could sincerely try to recruit a co-founder and come
up short.

The question then becomes ... do you make the best of it and go for it anyway?

Or, is the lack of a co-founder a signal (to yourself and others) that your
idea / plan is unworthy?

I hope the answer is the former because that is what I am doing. Someone
remind me to write this article when I figure it out.

~~~
ryancarson
I think it comes down to personality. For better or worse, I have a
personality that allows me to barrel into big-risk situations and not worry. I
don't think it's bravery though, it's closer to naive optimism (hence the name
of my blog).

If you have no choice but to be a Single-Founder, then it's probably down to
whether or not you could survive your startup failing. If you can, then it's
down to whether or not you feel happy taking the risk.

------
jonathanjaeger
Mark Suster agrees that you don't need the 'typical' co-founder split. Here's
his take: [http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/05/09/the-co-
founder...](http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/05/09/the-co-founder-
mythology/)

~~~
hknews
That's a great link that describes the common problems of having multiple
founders!

If your technical "circle" already includes people that you want to be co-
founders with and you guys agree to start something because the chances look
good, then this is a powerful situation to start from -- better than being a
single founder. But if you don't have that "social infrastructure" established
(and you have not been hanging out with that type of crowd), then just adding
a co-founder may cause more problems than helping.

------
justjimmy
Ryan has built businesses before Treehouse - ThinkVitamin and Carsonified for
example. He knows the people, has the connections, the talent pool to pick
from.

PG's YC (using YC since that's the case being used) are tend to be populated
with fresh/younger people, who probably never ran a business prior to YC.

Not really fair to try and compare the two and draw conclusions that will
blanket the other side of the argument.

Are you going to succeed right out of college as a single founder with your
very first business? Probably not.

Would you succeed if you had decade of experience under your belt, built
previous successful businesses, know the industry, know the players, and etc?
Most likely.

~~~
erichocean
Agree, with one exception: pg isn't arguing about "success", he's arguing that
single founder companies (which he further qualifies to mean "and that have no
early employees") will not, statistically speaking, grow into large companies.

Of course, pg's stacking the deck by disallowing early employees for solo
founders (which he does by claiming that early employees _are_ "founders", and
thus, support his multi-founder hypothesis).

I do think it's correct to say that companies without employees are rarely
very large, but this doesn't seem all that insightful.

The more interesting question is _why_ pg disallows solo founders with early
employees? The vast majority of large, successful companies actually fall into
that camp, and not the multi-founder camp, of which Google is a large,
successful example.

To pg, a "founder" is apparently an early employee who (a) wants the company
to succeed, (b) plays some kind of "important" role (e.g. is not a janitor),
and (c) has some skin in the game to benefit from "success".

I think that's _far too broad_ , and that we should call them early employees
with equity (i.e. what they are), not "founders" (what pg apparently wishes
them to be).

------
bencoder
Somewhat off topic but I'd like to ask about this:

> We’ve grown from three people to 54, and $0 revenue to $3.4m+, all in just
> two years.

I'm completely naive about these things and I'm not involved in business, but
isn't this very risky? That equals to only 63k/head revenue. I guess this is
banking on future growth but is this a standard pattern for a growing startup?

~~~
ryancarson
We're not profitable yet. That's the whole reason we raised $5m in Apr 2012:
To increase head count faster than revenue growth.

~~~
photorized
You think revenue will follow?

~~~
matwood
His actions of hiring ahead of revenue say yes. Investors giving him $5M show
they think the same thing. Actions always speak louder than words.

------
muratmutlu
I think that many founders won't be in the same position as you as having come
from a successful business and be well known and respected in the industry.

I think either way is cool, I'm happy to share 50% with my co-founder because
money isn't my primary goal and he's a fun and clever guy to work with which
makes the journey even more enjoyable

------
goldfeld
The point I find to ring the truest with me is that of a single life goal. If
your startup is the love of your life, your ultimate passion and purpose on
Earth, it gets very hard to find someone to share in on that passion. And
taking someone on board for half equity because they see it as an exit
opportunity doesn't feel right.

~~~
cardine
This is the primary reason I am a single founder. I am extremely passionate
about the company I run and have a very clear vision for what I want this
company to accomplish and I do not want to have to fight for this vision with
a cofounder or a board.

------
nhangen
If it hadn't been for my co-founder, I would be insane at best, and at worst,
divorced and nearly dead. We keep each other going, pick up each other's slack
when we're having a bad day/week/month, and keep each other energized
throughout the day.

I'm sure you can do it alone, but I wouldn't want to.

~~~
cardine
I'm glad that you and your co-founder help each other do that. Some people can
self motivate, have enough self confidence to avoid startup depression, talk
to other company owners in the industry on a daily basis, and have enough cash
to hire employees from the beginning to do work that the single founder isn't
as good at.

This "everyone should do it this way" attitude is stupid. For some people
having a co-founder is necessary and for some it isn't.

~~~
nhangen
It's a shame I can't downvote your post.

Such a smug attitude, and so unnecessary. There's not one spot where I said
'everyone should do it my way,' and your first paragraph is a rather
astonishing ad hominem attack

EDIT: I've done some more thinking about this, looking to the times when I
wished I was a solo founder, and I've come to the realization that the entire
thing is situational.

My co-founder and I are co-founders because that's the way things worked out.
For others, it might happen the opposite way.

We've already identified our differences and understand that eventually we'll
have to make new decisions based on our dissimilar visions for our own
personal futures. I completely recognize the desire and drive to be the
captain of your own ship.

------
marcamillion
I am curious, Ryan says: > This is also why I don’t ever want to take
Treehouse public. I hate the idea of having to answer to outside investors who
don’t have day-to-day knowledge of the challenges and opportunities we face.
They also don’t share the insane passion that I have for the business.

But Treehouse has raised $5M. How did that work? What outcome are those
investors looking for?

If you didn't want to go public, then what did you sell the investors on?
Seems to me that you are weakening your hand - because any potential acquirer
knows that your options are limited because you don't want to go public.

What's the point of publicly disclosing something like that?

Given that VC investing is a hits driven business, I can't see any rational
investor being satisfied with you not swinging for a large outcome for them.

Given that you own 70% of your company, if we make the simplistic assumption
that you sold 30% for $5M - which would give you a $16M post-money
valuation...you would have to sell to Google or some other deep pocket for
almost $40M just for them to double their money. Assuming this doesn't happen
for 5 years, those returns look paltry.

What is the end game for them?

P.S. If you never told them that you didn't want to swing for the fences, then
this must be a sucky way for them to find out.

~~~
millennia
An exit is not the only way for a company to return money to investors. If it
makes money it can pay the a steady stream of dividends.

~~~
rpm4321
As a practical matter, how would this work?

Wouldn't there have to be a fair amount of upfront and unique legal legwork to
put something like this in place? Would the investors be guaranteed a certain
percentage of any money Carson takes out of Treehouse?

I'm pretty much allergic to the idea of answering to a board, shareholders,
and and analysts myself. 37 Signals seems to have an interesting idea about
how to compensate employees in the unlikely case of a liquidity event, but
some sort of structure that would allow profit sharing, without requiring a
path to IPO or acquisition would be great:
[http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2987-an-alternative-to-
employ...](http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2987-an-alternative-to-employee-
optionsequity-grants)

------
liquimoon
It's misleading to point out how startups worked in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs
era. Then, it really took a team to build anything.

The technology has improved drastically. 10 years ago, it requires millions of
funding to start a web business. Today, a team of talented developers can
build an impressive app in a weekend.

Even marketing has become easier. With App Store, it's now possible to have
apps distributed to millions of users over night.

Yet, our assumption about startups stayed the same disregarding the change of
context.

Sure, even Steve Jobs had a cofounder. But then what would be the equivalent
of building a PC in today’s age? And have that distributed to millions of
users in that age?

Take into account now it takes a beginner Rails developer 15 minutes to build
a blogging app. If the cost of running a startup is going down as technology
matures, then it really shouldn’t take a team to build a startup. It should
take one guy with a vision, a few freelancers and/or interns.

Solo founders are being discriminated against for all the bullshit reasons.
Time has changed, technology has matured. It’s time to end it!

~~~
18pfsmt
There is a lot more to a business than simply making the product.

~~~
liquimoon
True, but even marketing has become a lot easier. Like they say, the 1 million
users is the new 100K.

------
ludicast
Since dropbox's valuation might be bigger than that of all the other YC
companies (including airbnb) combined, it serves as blazing evidence that you
don't need a cofounder. Possibly the truth is that singlefounder companies
have more struggles but are capable of bigger wins (which is what investors
should want).

Kinda how many succesful dyslexics (like Ari Emmanuel) credit dyslexia for
their success.

The fact is that many of the extraordinary people YC looks for are often
written off by YC's own bias against single founders. That's silly, but in the
end it hurts YC more than the founder, because of all the other Dropboxes they
miss out on. So forgive them for knowing not what they do.

An investor usually has only one chance to pass or invest, whereas the
entrepreneur has many chances to succeed. Single founder or not, if you are
tenacious you will keep having chances for as long as you are willing to
fight. Many more chances than any one investor does.

------
timedoctor
A big factor if you are trying to succeed while doing it alone is can you hire
a great team to complement your skills. This usually costs more money in the
beginning stages in salaries than having a co-founder. It means the founder
must have some money behind them and usually means they must have succeeded in
business before.

~~~
ryancarson
Exactly. This is why I used cash from my other business to bootstrap.

------
webwright
I don't think anyone has ever said that you can't. Just that it's harder and
success is less likely. Yes, certainly co-founder add additional risks to the
equation and do indeed reduce the magnitude of success, should you find it.
But as others have said, the more important # to optimize is your _chance_ of
success.

I'd love to see data to the contrary versus an (admittedly inspiring)
anecdote... All of the data that I've ever heard about (from PG and other
sources) seems to support that ideas that people who find a co-founder have a
better shot.

~~~
ryancarson
As PG said in the comment above, businesses with Co-Founders have a better
chance of becoming "really big". I'm not sure what data they have about
company survival and what "really big" means in terms of revenue and net
profit.

~~~
chimi
Ryan, I don't know about you, but I didn't start any of my companies to become
big. I started them to be my own boss and achieve the happiness you can only
get through control of your time. I wake up when I want to and work on what I
want to when I want to.

I think both paths can be successful, but each entrepreneur should evaluate
their goals and make decisions from there. A single person who has a great
idea will probably be better off building that idea into a business fueled by
their own passion than they will be by hunting around for someone who will
join them in the quest.

If you come up with an idea in a group or with someone and it's a shared
vision, that's one thing. If you're an individual with a vision that no one
around you understands, don't throw it in the trash because you can't find a
co-founder. Go build it, make money, and then hire people to fill in the gaps.

------
bsims
Everyone commenting on this thread should read Founder's Dilemma to at least
give some statistical information about success rates of founding teams.

[http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating-
Foundat...](http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating-Foundation-
Entrepreneurship/dp/0691149135)

Regardless of one's opinion of solo vs team, statistically it is easier with
co-founders. That doesn't mean it can't be done solo, but you have better
odds. And YC makes investments so why wouldn't you play the odds?

------
david927
What makes some start-ups succeed where others fail is so poorly understood
that superstitions start to creep in -- such as this one: that a co-founder is
needed. It's widely believed and utter nonsense. Worse, it leads people to
find co-founders artificially and to accept a co-founder when they would be
much better served going it alone.

When you add a co-founder, you _might_ have increased your chances of success
but you _certainly_ have increased your chances of failure.

------
vlokshin
I think I speak for most young, yet-to-be-successful, founders when I say: I'd
rather keep 15-30% of something that has a 5% chance of success than 70-100%
of something that has a .01% chance of success.

I thoroughly believe doing it alone (even if you're REALLY good) is a .01%
chance, and doing it with complementary talents that have skin, heart,
reputation in the game brings that up a ton.

That being said, congrats on being in the 0.01% of that equation.

~~~
ryancarson
You act as if I knew Treehouse was going to be a success. When we launched it
I had no idea if we'd make it.

~~~
vlokshin
No no, I'm not being sarcastic in the congratulations. I just actually think
the single vs. co-founded projects are vastly different in % chance of
success. I do think the difference really is .01% to 5%, sorry if I wasn't
being as tactful as I could've been in delivering the message.

I haven't hit a success yet, but I've tried to put the puzzle together alone
and with others. I think it'd be a lot harder to do alone. We disagree there,
and as of today, you have a lot more credibility than I do -- and it's ok to
disagree.

We've all got 100 different factors in the equation, not just 1 control to
tweak. That's why different shoes for different feet are a-ok :)

~~~
ryancarson
I wasn't offended at all :) Just pointing out that I was taking the same risk
as I had no guarantee of success.

------
photorized
Yes you can.

Best part is focus, clarity, and instant decision making. If you feel you have
a great idea, just go for it. Don't waste time convincing others.

------
rvivek
Startups are a function of the morale of the founder(s). When it becomes zero,
the startup dies. And there will be hopeless times when it'll almost approach
zero. Empirically, having a co-founder can be a huge boost during those times
which in turn means you're increasing your odds of success by playing longer.
You can definitely do it alone (kudos), it's all about increasing your odds.

------
zacman85
I went through YC as a solo, first-time founder and I would not recommend it
to anyone. Despite working the hardest I have ever worked in my life, I barely
made it through Demo Day, and my Demo Day presentation was not exactly
riveting. Furthermore, after Demo Day, you still have to continue building the
business.

Solo, first-time founders will undoubtedly lack the emotional support systems
necessary to give them even a baseline sense of sanity and the mental clarity
to persevere. They are far more likely to make stupid and irrational
decisions. It was not until I found a cofounder, long after YC, that our
company began to behave even remotely like a normal company.

Having a cofounder to share the load with has unforeseen compounding value
that one does not have the awareness of to offset in their first company.
Maybe in a second or third company you can pull it off by planning around the
repercussions of being a solo founder. Unfortunately, without previous
experience, you will have no idea how to do that.

------
namank
Doesn't exactly instil confidence when "You can do it alone" is prefaced by
"The Naive Optimist".

That said, upvoted!

~~~
ryancarson
The only way to survive is to be naively optimistic ;)

~~~
fitandfunction
It takes a certain amount of "willful naivete" to try anything new and
uncertain.

Doesn't mean you're an idiot to the facts. Just means that you're willing to
temporarily overlook short-term problems / obstacles to pursue a long-term
goal.

I'm with you on this one

------
seeingfurther
He didn't start a business as a single founder. He had his wife, and I don't
mean as moral support, I mean as a defacto founder. To quote his wife
Gillian's own blog... " I left publishing to start a business with my husband.
We sold that company and we now run an online training company called
Treehouse"

------
ChuckMcM
Fascinating discussion, one of the nice things about multiple founders is you
get to hear people who don't agree with you. I've found a huge number of
people 'self edit' around the boss, even when you tell them not to. So when
you're doing something stupid you really need to hear that from someone else
because if it was obvious it was stupid to you, well you wouldn't be doing it.

That is something that always impresses me about teams with a solid level of
trust, they can talk about anything. They trust that everyone wants the same
thing, success for the endeavor and nobody worries that someone is trying to
make them look bad in front of someone else or to the team.

------
dschiptsov
From you own point of view it is much better to be the only boss - share
nothing, nothing special.

From the point of view of any investor, investing in a single-founder is a
much higher risk. In case of any accident the second founder could be of some
use, where in a single-hero case it would be a guaranteed lose.

Another issue is that smart investor would try everything in his power to
engage all co-founders in a competition, a standard manipulation about
position and respect. Very useful technique.

So, it seems possible to do things alone, and a lot of people do, but
investing in a single-founder startup is too risky - there is a single point
of failure.)

------
eande
yes, you can do it alone and I had some success building up my hardware
company. But at some point I decided to change and bring in co-founders and
our momentum just build up x-times higher.

First hand experience tells me too, that starting up a company alone is not
only really hard, but slower as well, which these days speed is more crucial
than ever.

I have to agree on common wisdom and recommendation here that if you want to
start a company and create something with impact try to partner up. Finding
the right partners is another whole chapter by itself.

------
saddino
Although I am in agreement, I believe it best to re-emphasize the qualifiers
for such an endeavor (totally IMO):

1) A single founder must have already had an exit; 2) A single founder must be
able to speak to their own weaknesses and address how to balance those to
potential investors; 3) A single founder must have domain experience.

Finally, although most people anticipate a single founder as a CEO with
technical skills, I believe that a _better_ single founder is a CTO with
business skills.

But I guess we'll see where I end up... ;-)

------
jamesmcbennett
From what I've learned, Don't find a co-founder because most internet reports
say that a business needs two co-founders to be sucessful. (Despite
statistically proven)

I would of have be much leaner/faster going solo and not worrying who number 2
was, and did the vast majority of work early on anyway of which those co-
founders left. If you know the task you need a co-founder to do, find a co-
founder... otherwise keep moving and find a co-founder/employee later...

------
benatkin
The title of the article is plainly and simply wrong. The _you_ is every
prospective founder of a tech company. A fraction of this group of people can
build a company to the point of testing their hypothesis. A fraction of this
fraction can do that without a cofounder.

Besides that there are some good points in the article, it's fairly well
written, and being a solo founder has put its author in a good position.

------
liquimoon
So, I created a FB group for solo founders:
<http://www.facebook.com/groups/390441457703323/>

It would be great to have a group where we can share experiences and motivate
one another. Remember, just because you are a solo founder doesn't mean you
have to work by yourself.

Would appreciate if you up vote tomorrow around 2pm EST. Thanks!

------
earroway
Glad it worked for you, Ryan. You makes some very valid points, especially in
#3.

As I am learning daily, techpreneurship has so many facets from the core
technical, to biz dev, sales and day to day activities. Can be overwhelming to
go solo (assuming one has all the various abilities). Though I am not
personally sold no the idea of having a co-founder, I think it helps to bring
in folks to augment as needed.

------
dutchbrit
I'd hate to have a cofounder. I'd really have to find someone with same amount
of passion and who's on the exact same line. I don't like people messing with
my vision, having too much control. Don't get me wrong, I listen and take in
other people's advise and views, but I want the final say.

Also, I think a lot of people look for funding, while they don't even need it,
but that's another issue..

------
zerostar07
It may just be down to logistics. In the past starting a company just required
more time in the beginning phase (i.e. someone to build the hardware while
someone else writes the code and someone else does bureaucracy). Nowadays,
with the cloud, the outsourcing of all kinds of work, accounting and legal
stuff, you can build a company literally in a day.

------
jeremyjh
I think a co-founder would be great, but I'm afraid I'd have to totally re-
arrange my life at this point in order to find one. It would be like dating.
It would take up a long time where I wouldn't get as much work done, and I'd
still end up hooking up with someone I wasn't anywhere near 100% sure of.

------
freework
I think single founders have it hard because in order to succeed, you need
both introvert and extrovert personalities present. Most people are either one
or the other. You need one brain thats social and salesman-like. You need
another brain thats analytical and details-oriented. Some people (such as
myself) are terrified of the idea of going to a party to meet people and make
connections. But I have no problem obsessing over a problem that needs
solving. Other people love going to parties to meet new people, but would hate
the idea of staying home all weekend to fix a technical problem. You really
need both 'types' of people to have both types of tasks covered.

~~~
cardine
Introverts can still be authorities in their field and have a big influence
over others. And they can capitalize on this influence. A small company
doesn't need to be doing all of its biz dev at parties or social gatherings.

------
dorkitude
IMO whether or not you have good cofounders correlates pretty well to whether
or not you'll be able to hire good employees.

------
zupa-hu
The article being #1 on the front page tells a lot about how much driven (we)
solo founders really are! ;) Go for it!!!

------
jermaink
Let's ignite a candle and hug each other. And then let's watch Bob Ross
painting a sunset lake.

------
calgaryeng
I'm with ya - you just have be slightly crazier than any "normal" entrepreneur
:)

------
nashequilibrium
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

------
duncanwilcox
Amen.

------
just2n
I'm sorry, but this just comes off as a guy ranting about how he defied Graham
so that he would have more equity and no one to question his decisions. You
know what that says to potential hires and the rest of us? "Huge red flag."

