The Single Founder Myth
singlefounder.com
singlefounder.com
YC FAQ:
Can a single person apply for funding?
Yes, but the odds of being accepted are much lower. A startup is too much work for one person.
It is my understanding that YC has funded several single-founder startups. I can recall someone listing a few of them recently.
It feels odd that Y Combinator wouldn't fund single startups. If I wanted to apply for funding would I be better taking on a faux-cofounder? Of course I wouldn't do it, i'd just apply as me, but it feels false.
The best programmers I know are also friends of mine. But I pay them to do work for me. I could ask them to join me as a co-founder, but they would have to be willing to cross the Antarctic on foot to make the company succeed. Frozen toes, black fingers. It's something I would do, and I expect that of anyone with the title "co-founder". If they can't bring that (and that's hard to find -- I've looked), then I'll pay them, we'll remain friends, and I'll remain a single founder.
Investors are many, good investments are few. They might say they have rules, but they'll drop those in a heartbeat to be part of something good. In other words, I don't care about what investors want; I only care about making something great.
If there's a bias against single founders from investors, it's likely to be rooted in them being less likely to succeed. If the opposite were true some investor would probably have figured that out by now and would be spanking his competitors who didn't have that rule.
More likely in their being less likely to succeed as big and as quick as the investors would prefer.
Also, from what I have read (mostly on HN), many VCs tend to be pretty control-freakish who often play-off founders against each other, which they can't do without co-founders.
But, given a broader perspective of Startup types (i.e. the me-too crowd, or those with humbler aspirations than to be Googlesque) I think it's less true. That is, I think there are plenty of single-founder technology/web companies doing quite well.
Having a co-founder lets you bounce ideas off one another. It lets everything you do take on its own natural evolution. It's hard to explain unless you have a co-founder that you can easily and quickly communicate with, but I'll try.
You could compare it the show House MD. House is a brilliant medical mind, and much better than anyone on his team. Why does he even have a team, you ask? To throw ideas back and forth. When he can't access his team, he'll go to anyone to keep the idea in the air. He's even used a bum and an ex-con.
As an individual, you can train in all the skillsets in the world. You can become better at front-end, back-end, business development, selling, talking to people... everything. You can be even be better at coming up with ideas.
But you'll never be better at developing ideas.
That's the strength of multiple founders.
I'd say how good a programmer I am doesn't depend on whether I have company. Being a sole founder sucks because there's just so much to do and it's easy to feel overwhelmed, which means you can lose motivation very quickly, and there's nobody there to help you get fired up again.
Informally YC appears to be doing something like this anyway. cf Swartz & Reddit. Is there more?
(a) There's not a scarcity of applications
(b) YC is emphatic that you should have known your co-founders for a whileThe big difference, I think, is that if you have all the equity, really all that matters is your will and ability to go on. Sure, your employees, friends, spouse, etc... are incredibly important, but dealing with a friend, spouse or employee is a rather different thing from dealing with a cofounder
Discounting here role as a co-founder would be a mistake.
OTOH, any intelligent person can develop skills they lack, with sufficient determination, humility, courage and patience.