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.
