Hacker News Reader

Comment by sthomps | Hacker News Reader

oh my god, give me a break. Everyone has their own opinion on what works for them. Single, co, tri, quad, what does it matter? Sure if you have the perfect people working together in unison then it will be easier. It comes down to YOU, as you allude to. And just because you can't do it alone doesn't mean that you have to lump everyone in together.

This is like the NYC vs SF debate, we are like schoolchildren. "My way is better". Now it's the single vs co-founder debate. Statistically, two people starting a company are usually better than one. But remember that every situation is unique, and what works for people works for people. That's the reason that we have so many different types of companies.

View on HN

Finding a co-founder is probably harder than finding a life time soul-mate. Unless the union between you and your co-founder feels 100% natural don't even try it. I say that it is better to be alone than to be in bad company. In this case you might as well start the journey alone, if you happen to find a great co-founder along the way great, if not, continue the journey alone. To advise somebody to not start a company until you find a co-founder is bad advise. Good if you have one, not terribly bad if you don't.

Well I disagree that it is harder than finding a soul-mate, but I do agree it is tricky, and I do agree that you shouldn't partner up with someone you are not feeling great about. I actually wrote that you shouldn't wait to start your business, so we're in agreement fmora, but there are good reasons why you should continue to seek a complementary partner and not be overly stingy in order to bring them on board. Obviously have vesting schedules and protect yourself in case it doesn't work out.

Your critique is totally fair. I agree that every situation is unique -- tried to say that in conclusion -- but I did want to take a strong stand especially for newer entrepreneurs trying to figure out their path. I've seen these pieces saying you don't need a co-founder, and haven't seen much recently saying, "wait a minute, hold up there."

I also tried to clarify twice that I'm talking about companies with a strong software component, where team is so essential. At the end of the day, everyone has to carve their own path, no arguments, but there are general points that can increase the odds in your favor and that's merely the warning I tried to give.

Your strong stand made me feel better about going solo.

I mean, almost everybody agreed about 'you need a co-founder' until last week, and I was convinced about it. Your reactionary post made it look like the argument had weakness and needed to be defended.

I think that in my case, it's just a matter of 'it should happen in a natural way': let's work, if I need a co-founder, it should appear on the way, if I don't, it will not appear.

You are exactly right Giff. I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing your post in general, it's just the whole discussion in general. I just finishing reading 3 posts this week on NY vs SF and then solo vs co. So this happened to be the post that I commented on :D.

I believe that if you happen to find a co-founder that truly works well with you, amazing things can happen. That is definitely the highest percentage way to go. I am a newer entrepreneur so I get what you are saying. But with very little connections and no real experience, it is much better to start as a solo guy (like you mentioned) and then hopefully find someone along the way.

Although, I still see no reason why those people can't be employees. It all depends on the type of leader that you are. Regardless, good post (and I love your list of lawyers, that's how I found mine, so I appreciate it).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com