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?
>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.
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.
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?