Sorry, my view is that a solo founder
can be just fine. I'm a solo founder and
believe I don't need and shouldn't want
a co-founder.
Here's why: The bottleneck in my project is just
cutting my way through bad documentation --
all the rest, especially the crucial, core,
secret sauce, original applied math,
technical part along with typing in the
code itself and getting it into good shape,
has been fast, fun, and easy.
A co-founder might be able to
get Windows Server 2012 and
SQL Server Enterprise Edition or
some such installed and running
quickly while I would have to do
all the mud
wrestling with wildly obscure
and inaccurate documentation.
Okay, but I really should,
as is commonly said, know my business
and, thus, should get SQL Server
running myself, take notes, etc.
And when I have good revenue,
I will just call for paid support
and get a tutorial, explanations
for each step, corrections when
the steps don't work, take notes
again, etc. -- still no co-founder
needed.
But, again as founder and 100% owner,
I need to "know my business". So, no matter
how obscure the Microsoft documentation is
for, e.g., how to get a connection string
for SQL Server (took a week of mud
wrestling, in the dark -- with
clear and correct documentation
I could easily have done it in
10 minutes), it's just work --
mud wrestling in the dark with
alligators and poisonous snakes
while being treated to
a barbed wire
enema and an unanesthesized
upper molar root canal procedure
while being poked two dozen times
with a red hot branding iron --
I have to do.
For a prototype or using lean
development methodology, no thanks:
I just wrote the darned code,
wrote it as fully solid, production
quality code, at least according
to common standards for such code.
I tested it, timed it, documented
it. I was in a team at IBM that
shipped IBM Program Product
code (IBM's highest quality
software category), and the code
I've written for my startup
looks as good as Program Product
code to me. And I documented the
heck out of the code because I know that
if my startup works and becomes
a big thing, then I will have to
return to some parts of the code
to put in tweaks for high
scalability, e.g., for Web user
session state, for a positive
integer n, partition all the
possible session state keys,
each a GUID, into n partitions,
have one session state server
for each partition, and, then,
in the server side code of
a Web page, given a key,
do a fast lookup to find the
IP address of the session state
server for that key -- simple
code tweak, but, still, I want
the code to be tweaked
very well documented.
Net, for the crucial, core work,
I don't want to delegate it.
So, no need for a co-founder.
So, no risk of any co-founder
disputes. So, get rid of one
of the worst risks for a startup.
If my startup works, then I will
start to hire but not any co-founders.
Instead, the first hire will be
an office manager! She, likely
a woman with a lot of social
maturity and general business
experience, will do the first
interface to the phones, mail,
e-mail, bookkeepers, accountants,
lawyers, landlords, bank account,
credit cards, expense accounts,
the advertisers,
billing, depositing checks,
paying bills, record keeping,
etc.
As that job grows, she
can hire assistants. Eventually
her work will be that of the
COO, CFO, and HR. She would
be a candidate for one of
those slots or just remain
as my assistant or something
else.
Some of my work will become that
of the CTO, e.g., run the server
farm.
And in time I will want a
staff, e.g., to come up with
ideas, study issues, propose
solutions, present their
work in papers and talks, etc.
During the initial growth, I
will be able to manage all that
work because early on I will have done
the first, small, beginning
cases of all of it so know
at least the first parts.
But, during the growth, no one
hire, if they left, could sink
the company. The only key
person in the company will be
me.
So, grow? Yes. Hire? Yes.
Co-founder? No. E.g.,
I helped start FedEx, was
right there, my office next
to COB, CEO Fred Smith's.
I saw a lot of how he did it
and saved his company twice.
He had no co-founder.
This stuff about co-founders
looks like something equity
investors want: It appears
that they want
(1) a ready source of a new
CEO if they don't like the
current CEO, (2) want the
power of a solo founder as the
unique, key player
diluted, and (3) want to
be able to have more control
over the company via divide and
conquer among the co-founders.
No thanks.
The whole startup equity funding
situation looks like very fishy
business to me: So, clearly the
way it works, nearly always, is,
I do all the work to go from
nothing to a product or service,
with users or customers
and revenue, and then someone
with a term sheet and a checkbook
might write me an equity check.
But, as a solo founder, it won't
take much revenue to make my
little sole proprietorship
profitable, a life style business.
E.g., at current ad rates, keeping
a $2000 server at my left knee busy
sending Web pages can get me
by far the nicest income of my life.
Then, if the business is good,
that is, lots of people on the
Internet like my work,
I'll have plenty of cash for
organic growth without equity
funding. If my business is not good,
then I don't deserve
equity funding anyway.
Basically as a solo founder,
I can't get equity funding until
after I don't need it.
But, I shouldn't much complain:
US Main Street businesses,
e.g., auto repair, restaurants,
convenience stores, print shops,
plumbers, electricians,
HVAC companies, etc. don't
get equity funding, and
my information technology
startup needs much less
capex to start and opex
to run than any of those
Main Street businesses.
So, what startups get offered
and take equity funding?
Maybe a promising startup
with four founders,
each with a maxed out
credit card and a pregnant
wife? I only have a debit
card, no credit cards.
I don't have a pregnant
wife, don't even have a wife.
So, maybe I'm seeing more
reason to be a solo founder.
> The more progress you make on the business, the easier it will be to get a great cofounder.
Yes, and the less I will need a co-founder!