A Single Founder: Why Start with Such a Tremendous Handicap? | Hacker News Reader

A Single Founder: Why Start with Such a Tremendous Handicap?

thinkspace.com

15 pointsthinkspace17 comments

Reasons to have a co-founder rather than be a lone wolf. How to deal with co-founder disagreements and things to think about when writing a bullet proof partnership agreement.

Open articleView on HN

I picked a guy with lots of carisma as my co-founder. I thought he would do the business side and I'd do the technology side. 3 years later I had to kick him out of the business. 6 years later I bought out his share for millions.

Get a cofounder if you find someone insanely good but it's definitely not required.

Edit: The now common facility of founder vesting improves this situation somewhat. Don't rely on that though.

What's with the constant "you need to get a co-founder" advice? It almost seems like insecurity: "well, if you don't get a co-founder (like us), you're doomed! Better give up now." There are plenty of companies that started with a solo founder, and starting a company solo is better than not starting one at all.

Not everyone has the ability or desire to spend 6 months hunting for that perfect cofounder. The exit strategy of someone else is also going to be different, which in my mind is a huge issue. Personally, I despise the idea of an acquisition (vs. building a long-term organization), whereas a majority of the industry feels (and caters to) the contrary. Each additional cofounder increases the likelihood of the "cash-out" mentality and gives one less control of the company's future.

How about: Because it's better than being shackled to a loser who will destroy your business?

How about: It's better to strike while the iron is hot?

A co-founder is not something that should be obtained just to have it. You should carefully choose your co-founder, and you shouldn't let the choosing slow you down.

You know a lot of "co-founders" weren't really co-founders but really good first employees of the founder. You don't need a co-founder and sometimes, you just need to start a company w/o one or have no company at all.

Take Apple for example. Steve Jobs was the founder who completely ran the company. Steve Woz was a really great employee who helped make Job's vision a reality. Yes, they were "technically" co-founders but they aren't at the same time. Not to say Woz wasn't important - he was very important - however, I think Apple could have been created without him. In a way, I would say Mike Markkula was more of a co-founder than Woz was and he was brought in after the company was founded but that's going into a whole different world. I suppose the lesson on this is, you might find that "co-founder" your looking for after you created the company.

Now for opposite end of the spectrum, try Larry Page and Sergey Brin. From what I've seen, they equally contributed and created Google and the company would have never been created without them. If one or the other disappeared, Google would have not been Google.

Part of what hasn't been mentioned yet in favor of co-founders is that on the right team everyone makes everyone else better. Or, in this case, with the right combo you both make the product better together - over time. When I see someone focusing on the immediate benefits of a co-founder, I wonder if it's short sighted.

For an analogy that may resonate with this community - think about a hacker house or group of programmers that are friends. Those relationships can make each of you better programmers. In effect, you're each helping each other move from, say C or B players, to A players. Imagine if you only thought someone at an equal or higher level than you could teach or help you with something.

You might carry more weight for the first 2 years, your partner's skills may become more valuable for the 2 after that. That's either a reality you accept in creating a true team or a point of tension for you - depending on your personality.

Of course, a solo founder can be a part of a community that helps them become better, just another perspective.

It is hard to find a person with the same level of commitment, who is normal, and can survive barely while getting everything going. If they flame out your holding the bag that they partially own and still have to do everything yourself.

It's easier to land (and vet) a cofounder after you've done some initial work on the concept.

Particularly if you've been going out of your way to meet people who might be suitable for some time beforehand.

And HP, Warnock and Geschke (adobe), Morita and Ibuka (sony).

But there's also Wilson (xerox) and of course Edison.

My favorite analogy for one founder vs two or more is that it’s possible to raise a child as a single parent, but vastly more challenging and personally taxing to get the same outcome.

One difference between a start-up and a child is that raising a child means taking time away from making money whereas if your start-up is successful it should be making you money. So I think that is a big flaw with this analogy.

Only if you define 'money' as the only value you could ever obtain from anything.

I have no idea what you mean. I did the stay-at-home parent thing. So I had no income of my own for a long time. I don't regret it and I still have a very close relationship to my now adult children but it did hurt my earning capacity.

On that same analogy, you need to find a good 'co-parent' that you get along with and also loves the child and has the time/dedication/skills to raise the child to be a happy and successful adult.

Depending on who you pick, the child might be raised better by a single parent than 2 parents..

I can't speak for others, but I do want a co-founder. But 1 of 3 things happen:

1) The person I really really want to be my co-founder is working on his own gig, and can't join me, and I can't join them.

2) They're not the entrepreneurial type and are content with their "safe", secure job.

3) I don't trust they can bring much to the table.

Trust me, I would really really love to have a co-founder. I ain't greedy. But a lot has to fall in place to have a good co-founder. I'm not looking for perfection, but if they don't meet any of my criteria and won't bring some value to the table, why should I settle for less?

And if I can't find a co-founder, I'm not gonna twiddle my thumb and wait for someone. Life is too short for that. I'm gonna suck it up, brace myself, and get right to work to bring my dreams to reality. I'm not gonna rely or depend on other people to start what I want, and risk regret.

Not sure why alot of hacks these days with no startup experience or success feel the need to tell entrepreneurs that they need certain things.

I've never heard Richard Branson or Li Ka-Shing say that being a single founder is horrible.

Branson actually wasn't a single founder; see Nik Powell. 1

That said, he owned the majority of the company and more or less made the final decision. Perhaps the moral of this story is that one person should ultimately have the final say.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nik_Powell

Virgin Group wiki says the only founder is Branson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group

One of these wikipedia page is lying :)

Having read multiple Branson biographies, I can assure you that he had (and has) help.

Edit: Branson may be the sole founder of Virgin Group, which is a holding company. He definitely was not the sole founder or Virgin Records, Virgin Atlantic, or Student.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com