What you're feeling is the reason even people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs needed cofounders. I'd recommend finding one. It will also greatly improve your chances of succeeding.
For me, the desire to prove pg wrong supplied all the motivation which is normally supplied by a cofounder. :-)
It's more that I'd like to demonstrate that there are exceptions -- and so far I can't think of a single instance where having a cofounder would have helped me.
I don't see two as a natural lower bound on the number of founders. As the productivity of individual programmers continues to rise, I expect to see an increasing number of single-founder startups succeed.
You need a sounding board and a source of moral support absolutely. This is best done by a co-founder. However, it CAN also be done by someone who is not a co-founder and more of an advisor.
Also, you do NOT absolutely need co-founders with complimentary skills. That is a myth. Larry and Segie did not have complimentary skills. Bill Gates and Paul Allen did NOT have ALL the skills required to build their business. They had or developed (read learned) a lot of skills on the way, for which they could not hire immidiately - which is the only thing that is required of a founding team.
there should be plenty
1. better understand your strengths (i.e. what you have to offer)
2. better understand your weaknesses (i.e. what you'd like in a cofounder)
3. know how to get started. (huge!)
All of these things will make you a more valuable partner in the future. While a cofounder could bring value, I wouldn't consider the lack of cofounder a deal breaker for moving forward.
I'd agree with the latter, but I think finding a co-founder from scratch is a pretty massive task. Like harder than being a single founder and succeeding (If you're determined enough).
Seems like the best co-founders are people you went to school/college with, or worked with, or worked together on open source - all things that take time.
Having no co-founder is better than settling for a less than great co-founder surely?
It's an interesting question how bad a cofounder would have to be before no cofounder would be better. I think as long as you got along well with someone and they encouraged you to work, they could be pretty middling technically and still be a net win. Merely having someone enthusiastic to bounce ideas off could easily make you 2x more productive than you might be alone.
I think though that the 'encouraged you to work' can quickly be fulfilled by your users once things take off. There's nothing more motivating than users emailing with feature requests, or telling you something is broken.
For me, the biggest irritation not having a co-founder has been the ups and downs. When I think "this thing sucks! It's stupid it's all wrong it's broken rubbish I should stop it now", there's no other co-founders to balance that out.
I'd agree with the 2x more productive being possible. Also very cool if you start to get competitive with each other - "Bet I can get this new feature done by end of the day" etc
Co-founders are nice for a good checks and balances type system, to see if you're new ideas are on some sort of right path.
What happens when you find the person, make the deal to bring them on board and their work input/contributions are minimal? What happens when they don't make attempts to help out the way you expected? I think this happens a lot and it's aggravating because it's wasted time and creates a strained relationship.
I've found just building it on your own first as a means to prove what you're talking about is more convincing then just talking about it. Most people aren't leaders, they are followers. Most friends I've had aren't as interested or bail during the "idea phase" and then are "ready to help" when I've iterated a few times.
Hi!
Also, I think there is little reason to believe that either bill gates or steve jobs got over their cold feet because of co-founders. Not to say that having co-founders might be a big reason behind their massive success. but at the same time they might have had smaller successes without co-founders.
So, to be more specific, do absolutely spend time in finding a co-founder or advisors that you can confide too, but again get over the cold-feet before that.
Getting over the cold-feet is a two step process: Do it directly and quickly.
1. Cross over to startup land by quiting your job already. 2. Burn the bridge by telling everyone, your friends, family, (now) old colleagues that you are doing a startup.
Always remember, the only way you will get around to fighting the devil is when the deep sea is behind you.
I know not everyone is a Tim Ferriss fan here, but this particular blog post is brilliant:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/10/03/harnessing-e...
Having a counsel of people you can go to is a viable option instead of a cofounder in my opinion, but it's hard to put said counsel together without blazing away in business for a few years.
A council is a group of people from whom you seek counsel.
Sorry, but that's terrible advice IMHO. You could convince any number of people to be co-founders... That doesn't mean in any way that they would be an asset, or that your startup has any legs. Convincing 1 person isn't that hard a job (For some values of person).
I think you should amend that to something like "If you can convince someone to quit their job, and go in with you, who you also think would be an asset, and be able to work with..."