The thing that's rarely answered sufficiently is the question of how to find a good co-founder. The answer is often "Find someone you worked with or went to school with that wants to start a company with you"
The thing is that there are a limited number of people to pick from based on these criteria. Out of these you have to find someone that's smart, gets things done and has the stamina to do a startup. For most people this amounts to a grand total of zero people.
I've done startups where I slacked on the co-founder criteria, thinking "Oh he's not the smartest guy I know, but he's a hard worker" or "he knows everything there is to know about this domain, but he's not 100% motivated" and I've been disappointed every time.
If you don't have a perfect match I'd recommend going it alone.
+1.
I'm doing a startup with a friend (I'm engineering, he's business). And I know a bunch of smart, capable people through my 10 years of doing startups in Silicon Valley.
I think finding smart, capable people is the easiest thing to do. Harder than that is finding people who want to do a startup (as many of my peers, now with 10 years experience, get comfortable paychecks). Harder than THAT is finding people who want to try to do a startup that's not funded. Harder than THAT, is finding all of the aforementioned stuff and someone who's has the burning desire to work in the space/industry that you think could use a new solution.
The thing I've realized is that when it's your idea, you see the potential of what could be. When you approach others, they only see what can go wrong with your idea. And, admittedly, you're trying to get them to buy into a vision that you've thought about endlessly while they've only had the pitch you gave them over lunch.
It's tough. Paul Graham's article about entrepreneurs as animals is right on.
I think you're missing the personality differences. Several of the ventures I've been a part of I joined simply because it looked like such a challenge. I enjoy pushing the limits of my mind, of what I know and of what I can do. This isn't a "do it the hard way because it's more fun", it's finding that simple, elegant solution to the impossible problem, or like a touch of red pepper in spaghetti sauce to give it that tiny kick it needs to be perfect. If you're trying to sell people on your idea to be co-founders, they aren't the right person. If you tell them and they start talking in plans and ideas and acting like it's their idea, too, you have a good co-founder.
Apart from the usual Gates/Allen, Jobs/Woz, Larry/Sergey anecdotes, there's little evidence that two is a natural lower bound on the number of founders. It's sometimes claimed that a startup is "too much work" for one person, but the productivity of individual programmers is not fixed; with today's tools, solo founders can be as productive as a dozen developers from fifteen years ago. Another common argument is that you need a cofounder as a sounding board and as a source of moral support. These roles are vital, but they don't necessarily have to be filled by a cofounder. Einstein needed the help of his friend Michele Besso to develop special relativity, but Besso wasn't a coauthor on Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper.
Unfortunately, the need for cofounders is a deeply entrenched belief among investors, so much so that it risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A big issue for investors is also the survivability of the business. Investing in one founder is a risk. They can get sick or take a long leave due to a family crisis. Investing in a team greatly increases your chances that the business is going to continue to exist.
It's something that investors most definitely think about. Investing in early stage companies is often a decade long investment. A lot can happen in that decade, and minimizing your risk is important.
It seems your problem is its own solution; I would argue that many of the productivity enhancements you cite as allowing one founder to go it alone also enable founders to go without investors.
This is definitely true to a certain degree, which was one of the points of the linked article. But it's still lamentable that some solo-founder startups that could benefit from funding will fail to raise money because of irrational investor bias.
well yes. I mean, my company would probably also benefit from investment; it is a rather capital intensive industry, after all. In my case, though, I think there is at least as much irrational bias on my end as on the investor end.
I think we might be coming at it from the wrong angle. Fundamentally, why does the Internet enable businesses which scale (out of proportion to headcount, out of proportion to budget, out of proportion to time, etc) in ways which are difficult to imagine for businesses historically?
I think you could identify a couple of things here: Google (and the App Store and Twitter and Facebook and all the things you cool people use) is a huge force multiplier for distribution. OSS is a force multiplier for software development. Modern web frameworks are a force multiplier for software development. The whole lean startup ball-o-wax is a force multiplier for customer development. Cheap outsourcers are a force multiplier for any sort of easily described, easily checkable, repetitive work. The astounding variety -- an ecosystem of ecosystems -- of companies/APIs which you can just throw trivial time/money at and hook an enterprise-scale solution into your business is a force multiplier for, well, pretty much anything you can think of. ("Oh effity I have no accounts receivable department full of people whose only job it is to chase down folks who owe me money, get their money, and then make sure it gets to my accounts. Wait, you mean Paypal makes that irrelevant? For like a buck a transaction? And it can be integrated into a website in like an hour? Whoa!")
Heck, some of these are less multipliers and more exponentiators.
The question is -- which if any of the above are not available for you if you have one person but might be available if you have two? And the answer, I think, is none of them.
The barriers are getting further lowered all the time, too, and the things force multipliers are getting better. A great example of this -- and I swear, it will create several multi-million dollar businesses this year -- is Twilio. You can now run a telephony company from your freaking kitchen. Holy "#$&"#$"#$"# we are living in the future.
It's a great time to be single. (Not that it's a bad time to have co-founders -- I wish y'all the best, too. Make awesome stuff and have lots of success doing it.)
I don't think technology has anything to do with it though: the reasons PG and others give for having more than one person are almost all 'human' issues, which probably don't change much whether you're starting a taco stand or trying to create 'the next Microsoft/Google/Facebook/whatever'.
It seems sort of pointless to spend too much time worrying about it though; if you don't have anyone to work with, you have to either choose to go it alone or to not make an attempt. Why dither about something you can't change?
I'm compiling a list of founders who have achieved OPP. There are the obvious ones like Markus Frind and Gabe Rivera, but I'm sure there are many HN readers who have also successfully bootstrapped as single founders.
Anyone know of a verified one person profitable startup? Have any YC founders accomplished it?
I support around 40,000 users and half a million a year in revenue from my web apps and ecommerce sites. You could say I've been OPP since I was 15, when I was making enough from websites I'd built to pay hosting costs, cable modem service, and buy my own computers. I'm 25 now, have never been cash flow negative in my life, no debt. I have no cofounder or employees, I own 100% of my LLC.
My goal is simply to build useful services for as many people as I can reach. I don't think I'm alone. Anyone who has the right mix of technical, design and business skills can run the whole shop for themselves if they prefer that to consulting.
To my knowledge, prgmr.com (VPS provider) was and is a one-person company that's profitable, though it has a few employees now. I don't know if he's an HN reader, though he hangs out in some of these kinds of circles. I believe it had a long (~2-3 year) bootstrapping process where he basically supported it out of income from his day job, which he described as "working for venture capital".
well, we're not ridiculously profitable, and I didn't do it by myself, but, uh, I do have all the equity.
I believe that if I didn't have all the equity, it would have died from one of my many early mistakes. There is no way I'd have expected anyone else to pour money into a hole for three years.
Also, even though I kept the equity, I had a lot of help. There is no way I'd have been able to do this by myself.
Of course, I'm the first to say that sometimes you should give up, but I'm pretty happy with how prgmr.com turned out. It probably hasn't yet paid out what I put in, but it's getting there, (and according to offers, it's worth about what I've put in now)
I'd say that this has a lot to do with the availability of cloud computing, app stores, and powerful third-party APIs. There are probably thousands of profitable single founders out there.
One person startup here, now 6 people (and taking on a partner).
The biggest problem I've had is that there are too many hats for one person to wear. Yes you can do it, it's damned painful and sometimes there isn't anyone who can help you avoid bad decisions as employees don't always want to challenge you.
FWIW I was close to taking on a partner before and it would've gone very bad, which as a learning experience has prepared me for the partner I'm looking at taking on now.
For the sake of your loved ones / significant other, make sure you do your documentation, proper code control, and procedures so that they can sell the company if something bad should happen. It's good discipline and will allow someone else to take over (or be prep for when you hire staff so you can go on vacation).
I've never brought it up with family, but I have a "should I die" list of instructions for quickly winding down my business while minimizing effects on customers in a safe in my bedroom. The key to the safe is on my key chain so it'd get opened sooner or later.
Yes, the "hit by a bus" scenario. This actually is a good point that should be raised, but just as with the "moral weight" argument if you can reach OPP fast enough then you can start hiring and avoid this problem.
Single person profitability sounds great. But I guess it really depends on why you started a company in the first place.
Did you start a company primarily because you didn't want to work for anyone else and really didn't care to work with anyone else?
Or did you start a company because you wanted to work on an idea that would change the landscape of the industry you're entering? Did you do it because you wanted to build something 10s of thousands (if not 100s or millions) of people would use? Did you do it to grow a real company that would have real impact and be worth a decent amount of money?
I think that if you want to do the latter, 9 times out of 10, you need to have more than 1 person. I'd rather be Mark Zuckerberg pre-profitability than random person doing random thing but profitable. That's just me.
If you want to be single-person profitable, you can always just do your own consultancy.
The big problem with consulting is that it takes so much /time/ and when you stop working, the money stops coming in. There is a lot to be said for owning a product business as your primary means of support.
Product companies often allow you to invest capital at a much higher rate of return. (I get several hundred percent return on my hardware purchases)
Product companies also allow you to avoid more of the work you don't like, and to work more on your own schedule. (Personally, I think it's quite a chore to wake up at the same time every day; as a product company, nobody cares.)
Zuckerberg probably could have reached profitability solo before hooking up with Sean Parker. Facebook's success might have taken a little bit longer, but maybe this would have helped him avoid the missteps that now are a blemish on the company's history.
Co-founders can create a feedback loop between themselves that a single founder cannot.
Comparing my "single founder" and "one of two" experiences, when there is another party the ability to talk and get feedback makes a huge difference. When you are on your own it is much easier to go down the wrong path because questions didn't get asked earlier on. It is much easier to become demoralised. It is much easier to waste time.
Having someone else around doesn't work as well as having a co-founder. While you can get some feedback, the nature of the conversations changes (at least for me), and there are some things you don't really talk about to others.
Co-founders can create a feedback loop between themselves
that a single founder cannot.
Single founder can get feedback from other sources too: customers, friends, etc. On the plus side that feedback can be less biased.
When you are on your own it is much easier to go down the
wrong path because questions didn't get asked earlier on.
It has little to do with a number of founders. Two or more can be asking questions, but those can be wrong questions.
It is much easier to become demoralised. It is much easier
to waste time.
Why? I'd argue that more than single founder have even greater opportunity to waste time arguing if there is some disagreement; waste time trying things thad you don't think will work but your cofounder convinced you to try, etc.
> Single founder can get feedback from other sources too: customers, friends, etc.
> On the plus side that feedback can be less biased.
But the cycle time is so slow. Feedback with a co-founder happens very quickly, and both parties are deeply involved and working on the venture. This gives a level of detail and understanding that you can't really get from customers and friends. That is not to say that customers and friends should not provide feedback; they should. However, it is different.
This was the point of my last sentence: "While you can get some feedback, the nature of the conversations changes (at least for me), and there are some things you don't really talk about to others." This refers to the kind of feedback you are talking about, and while it has value, it is not the same thing.
>> When you are on your own it is much easier to go down the
>> wrong path because questions didn't get asked earlier on.
> It has little to do with a number of founders. Two or more can be asking questions, but those can be wrong questions.
You still have two people asking questions. And with a fast feedback loop you can get interesting questions quickly that actually make a difference.
I am not arguing that it is impossible for a single founder company to work, I am arguing that having two skilled and "compatible" founders gives a advantage over one.
>> It is much easier to become demoralised. It is much easier
>> to waste time.
> Why? I'd argue that more than single founder have even greater opportunity to
> waste time arguing if there is some disagreement; waste time trying things thad
> you don't think will work but your cofounder convinced you to try, etc.
Not my experience, yours might be different.
When I've had disagreements, the outcome has usually been that everyone has a clearer view and goes in the same direction (or call the whole thing off). Those disagreements are opportunities to get a better outcome for everyone.
There are multiple variables. If your co-founder spends all his time convincing you to do stupid things and you agree with him, then you have other issues.
just curious, is there a compiled list of compelling single founder startups which are profitable or made an exit recently? the only thing that comes to mind right now is aaron patzer (mint.com)
I don't know if a list exists. Pinboard is profitable and I'm the only 'founder'. I believe Tarsnap (cperciva) is a one-man show. And the bingo card guy who posts here a lot runs things alone.
Some of those "single" founders have other support, like family and spouses - a local guy that's profitable leans heavily on his wife, who left her job for the company, so she should be counted as a "cofounder" :)
why does everyone on hacker news think they need to defend solo founders?
if you can do it alone, do it. I haven't done that in either of the two companies I've started, but I like the camaraderie. Not everyone needs a partner.
It probably has something to do with pg frequently reminding us that "single founder" is a top reason that startups fail[1], and saying his top advice for single founders is "find a co-founder."
And perhaps trying to convince him to take single founders seriously, or at least to engage with and respond to these counter-arguments so we can understand his position better.
This isn't just a matter of defending solo founders, but perhaps we should consider using some clear standards like one person profitability to make being a single founder able to be more of a conscious decision than a last resort.
there just seems to be a lot of posts on this lately. I think as far as it being a "last resort", it all depends on how well you know yourself, and, in the case where you're the kind of person who needs a cofounder, how lucky you've been in finding someone compatible.
Basically, if a company's revenues are greater than its spending, it is profitable. It doesn't matter if the company hasn't eliminated debt or hasn't recouped the initial investment yet: being profitable means that it's being successful at getting at either of those goals.
"No debt" really means not enough debt so that you don't own a super-majority of equity.
Giving away a few percentage points for enough cash to keep the lights on is fine. But I've seen arrangements where founders didn't end up owning their companies, even after an ostensible "seed stage" round.
I'm assuming it's more along the lines of 'no personal debt'. Many single founders, as they typically have trouble finding funding, find themselves taking on personal debt to fund the business.
Being a single founder is great for building amazingly great products. The same person is leading the product vision and also obsessing over every detail.
If there's more than one founder, somebody has to be in charge.
Would a painter ever co-paint an oil painting with another painter?
If the investors would appreciate the fact that they are the second person, then no one would have anything different to say about single founders, because any extra load would effectively be taken up by the resources that the investors give the true founder (adding someone to the team when there is too much load doesn't make them a founder just because it's early on, they can help in just the same way as if they were a normal employee).
Also the investor should (and is in a better position to) act in the same manner than a second founder does by encouraging and prompting the founder to deliver - it makes a huge difference when someone respectable with power is just saying "so have you got it done yet?". I think a second "founder" plays a large role in this respect, through just small actions.
The thing is that there are a limited number of people to pick from based on these criteria. Out of these you have to find someone that's smart, gets things done and has the stamina to do a startup. For most people this amounts to a grand total of zero people.
I've done startups where I slacked on the co-founder criteria, thinking "Oh he's not the smartest guy I know, but he's a hard worker" or "he knows everything there is to know about this domain, but he's not 100% motivated" and I've been disappointed every time.
If you don't have a perfect match I'd recommend going it alone.