As someone who went through YC as a single-founder, then got a co-founder, then became a single-founder again after a year I've been on both sides of this fence. I've been meaning to write an article about this experience, and I guess this post has given me motivation to actually do it. There are so many misconceptions from both sides about the other. Hopefully I can find time in the next few weeks to write it all down. Are there any questions/topics you would want to see included in such a write-up?
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 would very much like to see this. My current philosophy is to go it alone until I have made some things that would demonstrate my abilities, with an eye to impressing others who also have a track record.
I would like to know: How you were able to cover aspects of your projects for which you did not have the skills. Not having the skill for design (for example) has been a double blow for me - I don't know what I don't know, so I can't evaluate the scope of projects, nor determine the best use of money and the timing for bringing in external resources.
0) Not important, just interesting. On the moral side: did you reason going solo as to avoid loosing money/control and generally didn't bother or was it just that you didn't find someone acceptable.
1) For the skills you lacked: did you hire someone or tried to learn the skills and figure out how to lessen the importance of this part of the product.
2) Money wise: did you originally planned to bootstrap or wanted to bring in the investors. And how your reasoning about convincing the investors went.
3) Investors: when you finally met real people with money how you convinced them to trust in you
4) Co-founder: What was the primary reason of parting ways with your co-founder
5) Sum up: do you believe that there are 'single-minded' people and they will be better of not trying to find a co-founder at all. That said, it means such people should reasonably adjust their expectations about the product they can pull off alone.
How do you cope with self motivation? To who do you talk to when you have problems, or questions, or feel like just throw everything away to get a 100k job? To be a single founder, do you need to be as good in the marketing/business side than in software and technologies?
I was alone for a long time with Playtomic, although I had a mostly-uninvolved friend helping with server bills and stuff, and then a second friend joined early this year.
Motivation is easy for me ... I love what I'm doing. Even on bad days. When it's too much though just do something else, or pick some low hanging fruit and knock out some easy achievements. You might have to just make yourself work sometimes, cause if you leave it too long it'll become another dead project/game/whatever.
Who do you talk to? Users. In my case I was fortunate enough to have lots of users including some really great, accomplished people.
You do have to wear every hat and that can make you uncomfortable but you just have to man up and do it, a cofounder's not going to insulate you from everything you're not good at / not comfortable at.
Even though you're back at being a single founder, what do yo miss? What's more difficult compared two being together? What are the pittfalls? How do you get feedback? Will you consider ever getting a co-founder again?
This mirrors a lot of my own feelings (being a single founder myself). I originally applied for YC for the W11 round, and I rushed to find a cofounder before applying (even wrote this for HN: http://www.limedaring.com/technical-co-founder-wanted-for-di...)
I spent a few weeks "interviewing" cofounders and working with a few, before choosing one and starting to build a product and applied (and scored an interview) for YC. But during that time I realized that this person was not the person I wanted to start a startup with. Thankfully we didn't get in, and parted ways. Since then, I've decided that having a partner would be awesome but I'm not wasting time looking for someone (especially with the very small pool of people that want to work on wedding startups)... instead focusing on building as fast as possible on my own (product: http://weddinglovely.com, launched and making small bits of revenue).
I'm applying again for YC this round as a single founder, and I would encourage people not to rush out and find last minute cofounders just to apply. Spend time now finding a cofounder, then apply for S12 after a good few months of working together — and if you can't find the right cofounder, then start building yourself (especially if you're not technical).
There seems to be a misconception here that the observation
most successful large startups have more than one founder
implies if I were to add another person to my startup it would be more likely to succeed. It doesn't, unless that person is addressing a particular deficiency to the extent that they deserve ~50% equity.
If a complimentary skillset, alternative perspectives and/or shared workload isn't worth that to you then don't look. However important it may be to an external investor betting on you, you don't need to signal to yourself you're committed enough not to drop startup life in favour of that dream job at Google or pivot towards a "lifestyle business". People looking for cofounders solely to improve their chances of getting into incubators probably ought to reassess their priorities.
I'm a single founder with a fairly profitable business (low-mid six figure profits after 1 year). I guess out of ignorance, I never even considered getting a cofounder. I can't say I regret my decision. Having 100% control over the course of my company is something I wouldn't easily give up. In terms of workload, what does a cofounder give you that you can't get for much cheaper with contractors or employees? In terms of emotional support, I think being married actually helps quite a bit. Even though my wife is not actively involved in the company, I bounce ideas off of her all the time.
Perhaps a cofounder is more useful for startups that want to grow very fast (the type YC likes to invest in). But for the organic/bootstrapped style startups (ie 37Signals / FogCreek) is having a cofounder really necessary? Everyone likes to quote PG on this, but consider the source. His experience is with fast growth, VC funded, shoot for the moon style companies. So it may not necessarily apply to everyone's situation.
I'm also a single founder with a fairly profitable organic/bootstrapped style business. Having a supportive wife has been huge for me as well.
I imagine it can feel better to have a cofounder, to feel like you're not in it all alone. But if you want to make something great, there needs to be one person with a vision and the power to make it reality. Nothing really great was ever designed by committee.
This article rings very true to me. I applied to YC in Summer 2010 with two fellow grad students I picked by sending out a "founders wanted" email, then meeting each of them for lunch. We got invited to interview, but weren't accepted. So we went with another accelerator, Betaspring, and proceeded to fall apart almost immediately.
The biggest problem was that we didn't really have a template for making decisions. Up to that point, our only goal had been getting into an accelerator, which we somehow expected to solve all our problems. And I'd already decided that I'd rather lead a startup than get a PhD, so I was very focused on that goal, while they were more focused on schoolwork. So the way decisions were made before the summer was that I'd say "I did some research, and think we should do this" and they'd say "OK." It was very unilateral. Once we started working together full-time, though, that wasn't tenable, and there was a very fine line I had to walk, to provide both autonomy and a sense of direction. And we never could come to an arrangement that made everyone happy.
That's not to say that I would have been more successful as a single founder—I had pretty minimal dev experience at the time—but there's a very good reason that one of the YC application questions is "Please tell us about an interesting project, preferably outside of class or work, that two or more of you created together." If you don't have a good answer for that, my advice is to hold off on doing YC and just figure out something substantial that you can build together.
Awesome piece. Having great cofounders is certainly ideal, but scrambling to find them unnaturally because you think you need them to satisfy a requirement is a bad idea. Most successful founders seem to find each other naturally and work together over and over. It's pretty hard to find people you genuinely like, respect, and want to work with.
In my experience the best way is to start alone and actively promote your work to others. Pretty soon people who are serious about working with you will present themselves.
I've seen a LOT of "single founder companies" just sort of sit around and never really make any irrevocable moves. It's easy, especially if you have other income, to just keep something at the hobby stage.
The absolute best way to prevent this is to have customers demanding your product now (or by a certain date). The next best is either to be dependent upon the startup for income, or to have other people pushing (and pulling) you forward (or pushing them, at other times). Not sure which is better.
What does "single founder" have to do with "keeping something at the hobby stage"? I don't see those two as having much to do with each other. I've known single founders who've pushed ahead, and 2-3 founder startups stay a hobby for a long time.
Being a single founder has made me tougher, sharper and focused. I've been through Hell and back for the past 4 years. Finance background turned brogrammer.. to mobile strategist / development firm working with large clients.
I've been focused on credibility and positioning. Waiting for the right co-founder. Forming strategic relationships, staffing up and making key investments. Book deal pending, just acquired a software company.
I'd be curious to see any actual data about relative success rates with single and multiple founders (where success is measured as 'business profitable or sold after N years' rather than 'got funded').
Like in so many things, it's best to minimize the hand-wringing and make a decision based on your personal working style, who's available to join you, and how badly you want to be funded by an entity with a strong bias against solo founders.
Forgive me my ignorance, but why is it such a disadvantage having a single founder? Think about it: if the founder is a Jack of all trades, gets the product out and hires specialized staff when the startup gets revenue, why would he need a cofounder?
Startup founders get tired now-and-again. Knowing a co-founder is working while you're resting is a source of invaluable relief against the pressure to get things done.
Long-term, this kind of emotional stability prevents burn-out. That's important because startups don't die, founders quit.
A very valid point. If you are a solo founder, nothing happens unless you make it happen and as you experience the downs it becomes very easy to lose momentum. Co-founders can provide a good counter balance and keep progress steadier.
It has been my experience that, while working in a group, it's actually harder to get things done. You have to reach a consensus first before you can act. The progress may be steadier, but in the long term slower.
Maybe I'm suffering from a bad college trauma. During college, we were forced to work in project groups. This was always a disaster, I remember calling group members at 2AM to email their contributions to the project, only to find it full of mistakes and largely copied/pasted from the internet. I'd spend the rest of the night editing the piece 'cause I sure as hell wasn't going to flunk on their behalf. When I would do a project on my own (my Thesis, for example) I'd get substantially higher grades with less hassle in less time.
I don't think college projects correlate well, for the main reason that you often can't pick your teammates like you pick your cofounder. The motivation is a grade, not money, and there are other grades (distractions) you must concern yourself with. With a good cofounder (or even coworker) there will be division of labor and trust to speed things up. And hopefully you'll see how you work together before you commit.
Have you ever noticed how few successful startups were founded by just one person? Even companies you think of as having one founder, like Oracle, usually turn out to have more. It seems unlikely this is a coincidence.
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.
But even if the founder's friends were all wrong and the company is a good bet, he's still at a disadvantage. Starting a startup is too hard for one person. Even if you could do all the work yourself, you need colleagues to brainstorm with, to talk you out of stupid decisions, and to cheer you up when things go wrong.
The last one might be the most important. The low points in a startup are so low that few could bear them alone. When you have multiple founders, esprit de corps binds them together in a way that seems to violate conservation laws. Each thinks "I can't let my friends down." This is one of the most powerful forces in human nature, and it's missing when there's just one founder."
You get more done faster. When things suck, you have someone to cheer you on. Complimentary skillsets (hopefully) — one person can chase deals and funding while another continues to code. Encouragement.
I'm a single founder, and while I haven't found success with my first app, I've definitely noticed some unique challenges.
First, designing and building an app by myself is different than anything else I've done in my career. It's incredibly exhilarating. Also a bit scary. Everything is on me. It can be stressful, but I don't think I could go back to the old way.
Second, when people realize it's just me behind the scenes, they don't take the app as seriously. I don't try to hide it. Kind of similar to how tech bloggers don't take you seriously unless you have funding. (But that's a different topic.)
Third, it's tough to get context or a neutral perspective. You're so close to it that seeing where you go wrong can be difficult. This is why I disagree with point #2 in the post. I worked on an app for a year and didn't realize it was a lost cause. (Dumb, I know.)
By and large, I think the pluses outweigh the minuses. Especially since I had cofounders bail on 4 projects before I went solo.
I find it quite difficult to agree with this statement based on personal experience. For me, it is quite easy to try things to see if they work which often leads to going round in circles until a solution becomes obvious. I found that when working with other people, it is a lot easier to put ideas out there and you usually get the weak points shown to you right away. Also, having said that, I am also finding that the most of my dev activity on my current project involves stripping out functionality that simply turned out to be unnecessary or half baked. I feel that having a co-founder would be great help in avoiding some of the unnecessary work in first place.
I keep hearing the same story of how most people meet their co-founder "x and y met in school".
I'm a few years out of university and have moved around a lot. Most of my trusted friends now days are non technical which makes my candidate pool near empty. I agree completely that getting on board with someone you don't know well is a bad idea.
It seems to me that all the rules placed around how you must have a team to get funded is restricting startups to the realm of college/uni students and there's probably a lot of opportunities being missed.
"I agree completely that getting on board with someone you don't know well is a bad idea."
Eh I kind of disagree about this.
I ended up working on a project through a friend of a friend. A guy was doing some work on his own and needed some pro-bono help for his project. We have very different personalities but our skills complemented one another perfectly. We ended up moving out to the Bay Area together to work on our own projects. A year later, we've meshed extremely well given some tough circumstances.
There's absolutely no way we would've met back in Uni, as we frequented different circles.
I don't see how a 2-bizhead team can hurt, unless they're focused on an market outside their areas of expertise/work experience.
A lot also depends on the type of product. E.g. for a consumer oriented startup with a tech-enabled (not tech-centric) product, the immediate big challenge (assuming business model has been established) is often sales & other "businessy" challenges.
Not a founder myself, but the people I've been scheming with are either college friends or co-workers from other startups. IMO, working at a startup great potential source of future teammates (but I rarely see that mentioned around here).
I met my first co-founder in college and my second one through the local tech scene. In both cases I made sure that these were people that I could get along with before anything. Skills are picked up along the way but if you don't work well together it's going to be a painful ride.
Co-founding is like getting married, except without the sex.
i personally met my co-founders through super smash brothers: melee and during college (separate occasions). we've been good friends for over 4 years, most likely due to our similar interests.
i agree with your post that you should not rush or force yourself to find a co-founder. for those sole founders, i recommend attending mixers to meet people with similar interests and approaching people without the intent of finding a co-founder. make true friendships instead; your co-founders/life partners will follow.
