"If you’re unable to convince friends to start a business with you, PG says it’s a vote of no confidence. But, what if you’re like me and you don’t have a lot of entrepreneurial friends? Or, maybe you do, but they don’t want to work on your ideas? It doesn’t really matter what your friends think of your ideas or you in regards to starting a business–the votes that count come in the form of paying customers. Since it’s cheap and easy to spot faults in unproven business ideas, early votes of no confidence, even from well-meaning friends and family are standard fare. Expect and take them with a grain of salt. Some of the best companies today sounded pretty dumb on paper yesterday."
This is probably the clearest refutation of Graham's single founder section I've seen.
I'd expound a bit on one of the later points:
If what you're doing is somewhat domain-specific, only the opinions of people in your target area and market matter. You might know a lot of people, but if they're not in your target area and market they might not get it. If you're getting negative feedback from them, it might be irrelevant. The only negative feedback you should listen to is from people who really get your target area.
I agree. I am working as a solo-founder and think about this issue a lot. The way I see it, the time spent "networking" to find a co-founder is time wasted when compared to working on your product/customers.
I say it with first-hand experience. I spent a few months going to every possible tech event in my city and had no luck. Finding a good co-founder is not easy. It's almost like trying to find a partner to marry but every second is time against you because no real work getting done.
I'd rather build and get enough traction to the point where you can hire/attract some talent.
I've grown to like a few no's to getting a ton of yes. I'm sure someone here knows the quote better than I do, something like: If you don't get a few no's, you're not innovating enough.
I have a lot of tech friends who are busy doing their own things. I set up an informal board of directors and I consult them on ideas, tech problems etc. I feel no need to have them as partners. They pick me up when I'm down, give me advice, help with direction, keep me focused.
> The only negative feedback you should listen to is from people who really get your target area.
And perhaps not even in that case. If they are entrenched in their ways or feel threatened then their advice may hinder. Still, is probably wise to get a variety of input just to avoid overlooking important fundamentals.
Yes, the OP makes that point as well and it's also very relevant. PG's point on that issue is dated.
Today we have a "stack" that automates a lot of the grunt work: ZenPayroll, Clerky, Stripe, etc. A single founder can just set up a business and run it using these services to do a lot of stuff that was once manual.
I personally think the single-arity is near. (Title for a blog post I never wrote.) The single-arity will be when we have the first one person "unicorn." It won't stay one person forever, but pretty soon we will see an example of one founder -- working as the only full time employee -- building something with astronomical growth.
On one hand it's pretty cool, and on the other hand it speaks to the degree to which we've created a winner take all economy with an insane hockey stick compensation distribution.
We had that in 2003 with Marcus Frind & PlentyOfFish or Brad Fitzpatrick & Livejournal - or, arguably, in 1995 with Craig Newmark & Craigslist or Pierre Omidyar & E-bay. Multi-founder startups that took off like a rocketship before they took investment include HotOrNot, Google, Facebook, and SnapChat.
It's been possible to do this since the web came out. The problem is that it very much is a lottery, and the median startup usually goes through significant tribulations before striking it big, struggles that make most single founders quit.
It was. I did it with a partner in 2003 and we had to take time out and physically go to a lawyer, an accountant, etc. And the info on how to do it all was not as prevalent. A lot of it was new to us and we had to really dig to find it.
These days I can do everything online, have a company rolling (incorporation pending approval of course), get payroll up, start advertising, and easily find others I can reach out to for help, in a single day.
This is probably the clearest refutation of Graham's single founder section I've seen.
I'd expound a bit on one of the later points:
If what you're doing is somewhat domain-specific, only the opinions of people in your target area and market matter. You might know a lot of people, but if they're not in your target area and market they might not get it. If you're getting negative feedback from them, it might be irrelevant. The only negative feedback you should listen to is from people who really get your target area.