13 ms·

Stop Looking for a Cofounder

280 points by adrianmsmith 11y ago

j_lev 11y ago
"Finding" a co-founder wasn't a choice for the uncountable husband-wife partnerships over the ages. Sometimes for better or for worse you're stuck with your spouse as your co-founder. I remained in the corporate world for about five years after making the decision mentally to quit until I had confidence that both the technology and my own skill had reached a point where I could have a good shot at hustling a living with my wife as "co-founder." The article somewhat vindicates my decision.
api 11y ago
"If you’re unable to convince friends to start a business with you, PG says it’s a vote of no confidence. But, what if you’re like me and you don’t have a lot of entrepreneurial friends? Or, maybe you do, but they don’t want to work on your ideas? It doesn’t really matter what your friends think of your ideas or you in regards to starting a business–the votes that count come in the form of paying customers. Since it’s cheap and easy to spot faults in unproven business ideas, early votes of no confidence, even from well-meaning friends and family are standard fare. Expect and take them with a grain of salt. Some of the best companies today sounded pretty dumb on paper yesterday." This is probably the clearest refutation of Graham's single founder section I've seen. I'd expound a bit on one of the later points: If what you're doing is somewhat domain-specific, only the opinions of people in your target area and market matter. You might know a lot of people, but if they're not in your target area and market they might not get it. If you're getting negative feedback from them, it might be irrelevant. The only negative feedback you should listen to is from people who really get your target area.
- paulryanrogers 11y ago
  > The only negative feedback you should listen to is from people who really get your target area. And perhaps not even in that case. If they are entrenched in their ways or feel threatened then their advice may hinder. Still, is probably wise to get a variety of input just to avoid overlooking important fundamentals.
- espitia 11y ago
  I agree. I am working as a solo-founder and think about this issue a lot. The way I see it, the time spent "networking" to find a co-founder is time wasted when compared to working on your product/customers. I say it with first-hand experience. I spent a few months going to every possible tech event in my city and had no luck. Finding a good co-founder is not easy. It's almost like trying to find a partner to marry but every second is time against you because no real work getting done. I'd rather build and get enough traction to the point where you can hire/attract some talent.
- pcmaffey 11y ago
  PG wrote that in 2006. Market forces and opportunities around startups have changed astronomically in the past 9 years. It was probably harder for 2 people to start a "growth" business in 2006 than it is for 1 person today.
  - api 11y ago
    Yes, the OP makes that point as well and it's also very relevant. PG's point on that issue is dated. Today we have a "stack" that automates a lot of the grunt work: ZenPayroll, Clerky, Stripe, etc. A single founder can just set up a business and run it using these services to do a lot of stuff that was once manual. I personally think the single-arity is near. (Title for a blog post I never wrote.) The single-arity will be when we have the first one person "unicorn." It won't stay one person forever, but pretty soon we will see an example of one founder -- working as the only full time employee -- building something with astronomical growth. On one hand it's pretty cool, and on the other hand it speaks to the degree to which we've created a winner take all economy with an insane hockey stick compensation distribution.
    - nostrademons 11y ago
      We had that in 2003 with Marcus Frind & PlentyOfFish or Brad Fitzpatrick & Livejournal - or, arguably, in 1995 with Craig Newmark & Craigslist or Pierre Omidyar & E-bay. Multi-founder startups that took off like a rocketship before they took investment include HotOrNot, Google, Facebook, and SnapChat. It's been possible to do this since the web came out. The problem is that it very much is a lottery, and the median startup usually goes through significant tribulations before striking it big, struggles that make most single founders quit.
  - ianstallings 11y ago
    It was. I did it with a partner in 2003 and we had to take time out and physically go to a lawyer, an accountant, etc. And the info on how to do it all was not as prevalent. A lot of it was new to us and we had to really dig to find it. These days I can do everything online, have a company rolling (incorporation pending approval of course), get payroll up, start advertising, and easily find others I can reach out to for help, in a single day.
- Macsenour 11y ago
  I've grown to like a few no's to getting a ton of yes. I'm sure someone here knows the quote better than I do, something like: If you don't get a few no's, you're not innovating enough. I have a lot of tech friends who are busy doing their own things. I set up an informal board of directors and I consult them on ideas, tech problems etc. I feel no need to have them as partners. They pick me up when I'm down, give me advice, help with direction, keep me focused.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
makeitsuckless 11y ago
> Today’s full-stack engineers have replaced yesterday’s sysadmins, DBAs, and webdevs altogether. Seriously, when is this "full-stack" nonsense going to stop? With the exception of a few geniuses, "full-stack" is just shorthand for "less than mediocre at a lot of different things".
- paulryanrogers 11y ago
  True. But a jack of all trades with powerful tools may get to market sooner than a large group of specialists who can't see the forest through the trees.
- benologist 11y ago
  His point remains though, a single person can have a broad enough skillset to achieve a lot today and we're still getting more efficient.
- nilkn 11y ago
  I've seen people promote themselves as full-stack engineers who literally just spent three months studying Ruby on Rails and some JavaScript and don't actually know any true front-end development or back-end development. I've found that people who might actually qualify for the title (and they do exist) generally don't use it to describe themselves.
  - ownagefool 11y ago
    It's all relative but I think a lot of us have the problem of puffing ourselves up whilst knocking others down. I'm multifaceted but folks just assume I'm hiding weakness. Also, at least in London, full-stack pays a lot less than devops.
- octaveguin 11y ago
  This isn't really true. Most great developers I know have interest and experience up and down the stack though not expertise in all parts. Often, those that stay specialized in one layer of the stack are less helpful because they don't see the forest for the trees. There's an analogy of specialization causing extinction somewhere in here, too...
antaviana 11y ago
I found the following book to be quite a good tool with practical advice for the proposed approach: http://www.amazon.com/Start-Small-Stay-Developers-Launching-ebook/dp/B003YH9MMI http://www.amazon.com/Start-Small-Stay-Developers-Launching-...
- csytan 11y ago
  I haven't read Rob Walling's book, but I found his video on "Finding your flywheel" to be useful: https://vimeo.com/47465229 https://vimeo.com/47465229
jcrubino 11y ago
PG context of a startup is a company that has the potential to make it into a leading stock market index. Anything else is considered a "life style" business and not within YC or most other VC's scope of interest for funding.
- dboreham 11y ago
  My response whenever I hear the "life style" label is to ask who's life style are we talking about? For me, the only difference is that in the traditional VC startup case it is the life style of the VCs that is being enhanced.
  - jcrubino 11y ago
    They hedge your risk of time and effort by giving you resources of capital, networks, IP to make things happen plus a bonus if the startup gets traction enough for a public offering or profitable exit sale. There are many devils in the details but getting paid to do something you are committed to completing is not a bad offer.
    - MCRed 11y ago
      They also greatly increase the likelihood that your startup will go bankrupt, and decrease the likelihood that it will be moderately successful. Thus they do not hedge your financial risk they increase your risk. VC only makes sense if you are bound and determined to make a billion dollar, or at least 100 million dollar company. They do not give you access to networks IP or make things happen, they give you money and then they double dip on the backend. The romanticized view of VCs present on this site is not reflective of reality... or my nearly 30 years of dealign with them.
    - dboreham 11y ago
      I think I may not have made my point sufficiently clear: I'm well aware of the mechanics of VC funding. I wasn't talking about that, but rather specifically the label "lifestyle company". VCs tend to use the term as a pejorative, implying that a person who owns a business should not seek to improve their lifestyle. My observation is that the difference between the self-funded and VC-funded scenario, as regards "lifestyle" optimization is only who's lifestyle is being optimized (the business owner in one case, the VC and their investors in the other case). The VC isn't going to give up their fancy Sand Hill offices and the Tesla any more than the self-funded entrepreneur is going to give up their quality time with their kids and family.
MCRed 11y ago
I'm leaning this way now myself, after previously believing that co-founders were essential and prior to that being dubious about their value. Two things I've seen kill startups are bad cofounder relationships, and Venture Capitalists. Almost 50-50, with VCs in the lead because they cause a lot of the bad co-founder relationships. The person you are likely to make your cofounder should probably be your first employee. Make them significant, give them a VP title or whatever, get feedback from them, pay them in equity. But don't let them be in a position where leaving or failing to pull their weight would doom the company. Finding a good cofounder is nearly impossible for many people for many reasons. If you are a group of people who know each other already and want to start a company-- great. But cofounder dating is a bad, bad idea. Couples live together for years before getting married, yet co founders want to "get married" within days or months? Even if you choose well on a number of areas, you simply can't know your cofounder well enough.
- ams6110 11y ago
  Couples live together for years before getting married There's a well-founded point of view that this is not a good thing for a strong marriage.
  - shawn-furyan 11y ago
    I recall seeing some reporting on research about this. The problem that I had with that study, is that it seemed to be working from the assumption that decision of whether or not to cohabitate before marriage was akin to a coin flip for the population. The study controlled for a couple factors like education and claimed religious and political affiliation, but I contend that these controls are insufficiently granular to capture potential fundamental worldview differences[1]. Therefore, I contend that the conclusion that the decision of whether or not to cohabitate is the primary causal factor (rather than merely an indicator of an unidentified effect) is invalid because the two groups are unlikely to be sufficiently similar for outcomes to be assumed to be directly transferrable. [1] For instance, there are portions of the republican party that would not condone the decision of a couple to live together before marrying (e.g. many of the religious conservatives), but others that would be expected to tend to be indifferent (e.g. much of the business and libertarian contingent). The same logic extends to claimed religious affiliation. For instance, I think that the Catholic Church's official stance would be against cohabitation before marriage, but among people who identify as Catholic, there are varying degrees to which the certain official policies are considered practical and/or legitimate. Keep in mind, lapsed Catholics/Jews/Muslims/Protestants/etc that still identify culturally with a religious group are counted as among those groups under the methodology. Overall, I would have felt more comfortable with the legitimacy of the conclusion if instead of looking for rough indicators of attitudes toward pre-marital cohabitation, they would have just chosen a few cohorts, and directly asked what their attitudes toward pre-marital cohabitation were, and then controlled for that factor.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
At the same time I would say, don't dismiss the benefits of having a cofounder. It's easier to explore new territory as a team then it is alone. Just the psychological boost that comes with camaraderie is well worth it.
omouse 11y ago
A cofounder just makes some things easier; you have someone that's available 24/7 to talk about ideas and implementation. When it's just you it feels a little easier to give up unfortunately.
- bengali3 11y ago
  agreed, someone to bounce ideas off of and someone who encourages you to continue when you're down. The closest things i've found for solo-support: a) micropreneur academy ($50/mo-in 2009- but all solo software folks) b) mastermind groups Other Suggestions?
rcarrigan87 11y ago
Too many people who are new to entrepreneurship only see startups as their entry point. Part of this is media coverage, everyone is talking about funding mega rounds and the VC fueled entrepreneur world. I think many entrepreneurs are less interested in building Billion dollar companies and are more seeking freedom from suppressive corporate jobs. But when the only narrative you see is mega startups it starts to seem like that's the only worthwhile path to entrepreneurship. Small business sounds like your Mom's flower shop - lame. So you have to find a co-founder and raise VC and pick a huge market, and work on your pitch deck, etc. etc. Reality is having a couple million a year business can really lead to a fantastic lifestyle if done properly.
- jchendy 11y ago
  Do you know of any resources to learn about tech lifestyle businesses?
  - MCRed 11y ago
    All of the "Startup" resources, like The Lean Startup, etc that aren't busy glorifying VCs or the SV model, are useful for these businesses. The only difference between a "lifestyle" business and the "Silicon Valley" model is whether you are in control over your own destiny and focused on building a business, or whether you're selling out to people who want to increase your risk and their possible profits, with the expectation that you'll get a nice bonus in your acquihire. In a way, YC and VCs have ruined startups, by making people think this SV model -- which is great for Facebook, google and yelp, but terrible for the billion other startups is the One True Way.
    - rcarrigan87 11y ago
      There is truly a place for VCs and yes some businesses definitely need that kind of funding. But right now it seems VC is so available things are getting funded that will never be able to hit that 10x mark. So businesses that could have been great bootstrap businesses will grow too fast with too high a burn rate and flame out at a series A or B crunch. Meanwhile, if the business could have taken it slower they could have built something really valuable for themselves.
aesthetics1 11y ago
I believe John is writing for an audience that PG is not addressing. He is taking his lifestyle business approach and saying that it should apply to businesses that are seeking funding and trying to ultimately have an exit, or become a shiny unicorn. This just isn't the right advice for YC style companies.
- dceddia 11y ago
  I think there's a lot of overlap in the two audiences though. Someone who doesn't want a corporate job might say "I should start a startup." Maybe in their head they're thinking a one-man shop, but then they google about startups and read PG's essays about these larger efforts involving fundraising and such, and get deterred from their original (quite do-able) plan. This article is saying to those people: "Nevermind what you hear, go back to thinking you can do it on your own, because you can. I'm here as proof." You're right though, for the people who are squarely in the YC/fundraising camp, this article is not speaking to them.
  - aesthetics1 11y ago
    Fair enough! I think there is a lot of information out there, and it can certainly be overwhelming.
crocal 11y ago
Having just gone through bad experience with co founders, I should be on the same page as John. But I am not. It is essential to have co founders even with all this accelerating software available, just because of the fatigue. It's a lot of work to achieve quality and willingness to pay in software, no matter what. My mistake was to try to make it all by myself with only non-tech partners. If I had had just one strong cofounder as involved as I were I think things would have turned out very differently. Be humble!
graeme 11y ago
As others have noted, this is addressing a different type of business than PG was talking about. The author is talking about bootstrapped businesses. There are many niches where a well run business can earn revenue of $100,000-$500,000 per year, and be ably run by a single person. These niches do require upkeep, but they are not so likely to be invaded by major competitors or large companies. The returns are too small. However, the returns are excellent for a single founder. It is also true that it's easier to scale such a business than it used to be. So there is probably more bootstrapping potential than before, especially as more people move online and there are therefore more niches to fill. But this approach also rules out many types of businesses, and with rare exceptions it rules out larger revenue streams. These are among the trade offs.
- eloff 11y ago
  A bootstrapped business does not have to be exclusive with larger revenue streams. Guy Kawasaki says that he's seen many more businesses die because they tried growing too fast (e.g. using VC money to scale the company) than because they grew too slow. Joel Spolsky is famously a critic of the SV VC-based model as well. He put his money where his mouth is with Stack Exchange, which only recently raised VC money. He says the obvious, that if take things as far as you can without VC money, then you get better terms when/if you finally do take it. There are a bunch of companies, especially those with strong network effects like social companies, that face a very real risk of growing too slow. There are others, especially hardware companies, where the startup costs are high. So the bootstrapped model is definitely not for everyone! I think it's best to stay small and agile until you've found a strong product-market-fit that can the company can be scaled up into. You may or may not need VC money during that stage. When your biggest problem is you lack the resources to scale up as fast as your real product demand, then you should be looking for VC money (or a alternative financing like a loan.) Before then it may well do you more harm than good.
  - graeme 11y ago
    Oh, to be clear I meant a solo bootstrapped business. I think that's what the original article was talking about. Certainly a bootstrapped business with employees can grow quite large. (You can go higher solo too of course, it's just not common)
jlarocco 11y ago
I've always thought people desperately looking for cofounders on HN, or asking how to find them, are kind of goofy and lame. Has there ever been an even moderately successful company cofounded by strangers who met while slumming the internet for cofounders? It seems to me that PG almost certainly didn't mean people were better off starting companies with random strangers than they would be starting off alone. Looking at the big successful companies that were started with multiple founders, it was almost always a group of friends, or co-workers, or acquaintances from school with similar interests, or something like that. There's more to being "cofounders" than just meeting randomly and deciding to start a company together.
- bengali3 11y ago
  how did you and your cofounder meet?
  - rachellaw 11y ago
    not the OP, but I met mine in grad school. We were working on different projects in a similar area. We really only decided to become cofounders after a year of graduating, because finishing one thesis and immediately hopping to another seemed like the fastest way to a burnout.
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    If I were starting a company, I would do it by myself or possibly with some friends. I'm very weary of the VC based startup bubble and don't have much interest in starting a company.
- chjohasbrouck 11y ago
  I've been that person, and that's exactly how I felt while I was doing it. I don't try anymore, the hours were for nothing and it's a complete waste of time. A cofounder needs a very strong skillset, a life circumstance that permits them to drop everything for a startup without dire consequences, a level of enthusiasm and drive that to other people seems almost delusional, and your opportunity needs to out-compete all their other opportunities for more than a year. That's an incredibly rare person. There are probably more successful pop stars than there are people who fit that profile. PG says if you're solo, you should look for a cofounder. When he gave that advice, it was because he observed that the majority of successful startups had multiple cofounders. But I don't think he bothered to consider the fact that approximately zero of those confounders met each other by going on a "cofounder search."
brightball 11y ago
He's not wrong, but a lot of what he says is very dependent on self-discipline. Having a partner, in addition to all of the other perks, also gives you a point of accountability the forces prioritization and a real plan. It is entirely possible to start a business by yourself. People do it successfully every single day but there are a whole lot of complicated factors from financial, legal, technical and psychological at play just to get started. Having a support system around you can insulate you from a lot of the complications that come from going it on your own, but that support system is usually based on goodwill not vested interest. Even people who "go it on their own" but happen to be married when they do so very clearly have a partner in the business.
- MCRed 11y ago
  Founding a startup with my spouse was very useful in a lot of ways, but unfortunately, despite enthusiasm my spouse lacked sufficient skills and experience, so unless your spouse has also been working at startups for a decade, it's not always ideal-- but you can count on loyalty there. Truth is, give me a cofounder who has been working for startups for 10 years and what you say makes sense. But co-founding with someone whose first experience at a startup is founding one and it doesn't make sense. And it's not like more resources are bad, it's a question of their cost.
  - brightball 11y ago
    That's true. It's not always going to be the same from an advice standpoint but at worst you will have the accountability factor from somebody who's equally vested.
- dontscale 11y ago
  This is really insightful. The psychological factor you mention bears the most weight in terms of getting started. So, people should change the way they think about starting. Building an app by yourself isn't cap intensive like building a railroad. The beauty is: you're not even going to waste time if you give up since you gain wisdom that carries over onto future projects. +1 for the knowledge worker. Open source developers work in peace and reap those rewards because they don't self-impose the same psychological barriers.
jasonswett 11y ago
When I discovered that there was a third path between job and startup, a whole new world opened up for me. http://www.jasonswett.net/the-whos-who-of-the-micro-isv-world/ http://www.jasonswett.net/the-whos-who-of-the-micro-isv-worl...
swalsh 11y ago
If you're a programmer, and you're relatively young (like under 40) you probably don't have a lot of experience. Sure you have a lot of experience programming, and solving problems. But it's VERY unlikely that you know an industry, and it's unsolved or badly solved problems. To get to know these problems, I think you need some outsider experience. For example, i'm in the healthcare industry. I can name a whole bunch of problems here, but none of them are ripe for a new startup. That's because I really only find out about a problem from my little part of the world. The few times i've had glimpses beyond my world I certainly haven't had enough of a glimpse to really try and tackle it. So to me, that's important. Without a cofounder who really knows an industry, you're going to work on 1st world problems that a normal person might run into, that are solvable by a single person. To be honest, of the problems left in that space they're not really interesting businesses. Either they won't make too much money, or they solve a boring non-problem. As a technical person I want to find someone who has ran into good problems, and will know if a solution will work or not.
- MCRed 11y ago
  You're making a couple assumptions I disagree with. Even when I was under 40 I knew of more problems that needed to be solved than I could possibly address. Every job I've had has exposed me to industry problems that were big... and you can found a company in an industry, be a single founder and then hire people who have domain expertise. Domain expertise doesn't mean one has to be a cofounder. Also, consider does this domain expert have the background in startups that would be useful? Or were they being an employee in that domain? I can think of a half dozen purely technical problems that would improve a billion people's lives-- and I'm talking purely software here.
seizethecheese 11y ago
The post is saying that you don't need a cofounder for the subset of ventures that a very technical person can tackle alone. The types of ventures that YC funds are generally not plausible to tackle alone. There is no conflict between PG's ideas and this essay so long as you accept that there are ventures of differing scope, some need more than one founder and some don't, and YC generally invests in the latter.
- MCRed 11y ago
  No serious venture is plausible to tackle alone. But every venture that YC has funded could be done with a single founder. There are other people in companies and they're called employees. You can get to demo day with one founder and employees. How many YC companies have failed or split or reformed because the founders visions didn't align?
latishsehgal 11y ago
I have been trying to bootstrap a one man software shop for the last 2 years and recently released v2 of the software. How I usually explain it to my "work" friends is that the highs are higher and the lows are lower while trying to do everything yourself. I would have jumped at the opportunity of having a cofounder for that reason, but never found the right people interested.
- MCRed 11y ago
  You're making a good point- you never found the right person. Alas, PG's essay has come to be takend as "you must have a cofounder or you aren't serious" with little attention paid to finding the right person. The right person is damn hard to find. And when "not having a co founder means nobody believed in you" (the converse of what he actually said) then any co founder becomes the right cofounder. This is the problem with HN, and even YC to a lesser extent-it's become cargo cultism based on PGs essays, propagated by people who have little to no experience in Startups.
  - latishsehgal 11y ago
    I am guessing his intentions were "You must have a cofounder to have better odds of surviving"?. I always use the marriage analogy for finding a cofounder. I love being married and would recommend it to other folks if they find the right person, but wouldn't recommend it just for the heck of it.
mindcrime 11y ago
See also: Micro-ISV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_ISV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_ISV http://www.amazon.com/Micro-ISV-Vision-Reality-Bob-Walsh/dp/1590596013 http://www.amazon.com/Micro-ISV-Vision-Reality-Bob-Walsh/dp/... http://ericsink.com/bos/Micro_ISV.html http://ericsink.com/bos/Micro_ISV.html Make sure to read this to get a different take though. http://www.singlefounder.com/the-day-the-microisv-movement-died/ http://www.singlefounder.com/the-day-the-microisv-movement-d...
paulsutter 11y ago
Even if you want to build a scalable/fundable startup, stop looking for a cofounder. It's needy and the wrong motivation. Start working on the project get help from the smartest people you know / can find. Get their help in any capacity you can. You're more likely to find a cofounder indirectly through on this path than in an overt "cofounder search". Plus you'll actually be making progress.
- hkmurakami 11y ago
  I was just about to write, "You don't look for cofounders. Cofounders happen white you're already on the journey." Well put.
eldude 11y ago
Please don't stop looking for a cofounder. It's true that all it additionally takes to be a solo-founder is self-discipline, but as a human being you are psychologically and emotionally unequipped to deal with this. Let me explain... On History, there's a self-filmed TV show about 10 survivalist dropped off separately on Vancouver Island competing for $0.5M to be the last standing. The show is fantastic, not for the impressive survival skills, but for the human psychology. The show is called "Alone," and I'm fairly certain they (re)named the show after filming. What you witness over the course of just weeks, is nearly every wilderness expert abruptly losing their will to go on because there is nobody to share it with. They openly acknowledge that they have what it takes to continue, and were originally okay with being away from their family indefinitely, but they all just completely lose their desire and interest in winning or continuing because they are so alone. In short, isolation doesn't just make it more difficult for you to achieve your goals, it rips the desire to achieve them from your psyche altogether! This is empirically shown and self evident in numerous aspects of society: solitary confinement being classified as torture, team dynamics, mentors, pair bonding, tribalism, etc... It's also why YC (mostly) doesn't accept solo-founders, as well as many other respected VCs. [1] http://www.history.com/shows/alone/about http://www.history.com/shows/alone/about
- SneakerXZ 11y ago
  This also heavily depends on your personality. My guess would be the survivalist were extroverts and it was also the main reason why they went into this show. But most programmers are introverts and lone wolfs and they don't necessarily need others to share their experience with.
  - dopeboy 11y ago
    I respectfully disagree. Being introverted != no need to share their experiences. Every human craves to share their experience with someone and be validated (see social media). Some do it more than others and through other means. Also, at some point that lone wolf programmer is going to need to stop building and start selling. Overcoming 100 compiler errors is much easier and faster than getting 100 nos and 1 yes. Try going through a brutal sales cycle like that and tell me whether that introvert would last without someone to ride the roller coaster with.
hughguiney 11y ago
As someone who has been stressing over “needing a cofounder” lately, this is an encouraging and timely post. However, I dislike the phrasing here: > a 100% owner requires half the earning power of 50/50 partners–that gives him a huge advantage. …which assumes the founder is going to be a man.
- hughguiney 11y ago
  Downvoted already! Sexism in tech is alive and well I see.
- dontscale 11y ago
  Thank you Hugh. I thought about pronoun choice when I wrote that. I was deliberating between 'her' or 'him or her'. The problem I had with the former is I always notice when male writers do it--I can tell it's deliberate. The problem with the latter is it breaks rhythm a little, I think. In my mind, the sexes are equal so him == her. It's something I feel strongly about too especially having a daughter. But nonetheless I understand the implications of what I wrote. edit: Oh, and I upvoted you :-)
  - sidawson 11y ago
    For future reference - gender neutral pronouns are super easy to use and don't detract from the reading flow at all. In this case: "...that gives them a huge advantage." (and "their" for his/her)
  - hughguiney 11y ago
    While I appreciate your viewpoint, it is not obvious to the reader. I think it is more important to not alienate women any more than already happens in this industry, than it is to form a sentence that has a certain rhythm. I would also examine why male pronouns “sound right” while non-male ones “don’t”. And I agree with @sidawson that gender-neutral pronouns maintain the same rhythm besides. Edit: And thank you for the upvote. I am glad that you are open to constructive criticism even if the crabby status-quo-loving anonymous users aren’t.
unabst 11y ago
Building shareware and selling it has nothing to do with building a business, let alone co-founders. What the author here has done is comparable to a composer selling music or an author selling a book. He built an ebay tool, and ebay sells it for him. There are many indie game developers and app developers that are successful the same way (microsoft and apple take on the sales and marketing burden respectively). Finding a co-founder is inapplicable to his situation. The piece might as well be called "how to avoid building a business". If you want to build a business, shareware can be a good start, but avoiding getting help is no way to build something that eventually you want ticking without you. Building a business does not equate to simply making money. Any capable programmer can make money either through employment or on their own. This should never be confused with building a business. As for building a world class business, no matter how capable you are, if you still believe you can do it alone, you still haven't grasped the magnitude of what you're in for or the foundations you need to build. Businesses are made of people. A business builder is a job creator. If you have a team working like bees, you've built a business. If you have money growing on trees, it's just income.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
tgeery 11y ago
The whole time i could not stop thinking of this wozniak quote. Although... I guess he eventually had a cofounder. http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/01/18/woz-on-creativity-and-innovation/ http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/01/18/woz-on-creativity-an...
adidash 11y ago
Met the founder of a startup accelerator in Singapore and shared my idea. His first question - "will it be a billion dollar company?" I said no but has the potential to scale to a few million dollars and his reply was - "then its not a startup but just a lifestyle business."
danieltillett 11y ago
I am going on a rant, but can we stop using the term lifestyle business for non-VC startups? Almost anything would be better - I came up with the term founder focused as an alternative [1], but almost anything would be better than the term lifestyle. A serious business is a serious business no matter the funding source. 1. http://www.tillett.info/2014/11/24/lets-kill-the-term-lifestyle-business-for-founder-focused-start-ups/ http://www.tillett.info/2014/11/24/lets-kill-the-term-lifest...
- w4 11y ago
  Not disagreeing with you in the slightest, but how about just calling them all "businesses" and adding the qualifier "VC-funded" if they've taken funding? It makes more sense to qualify based on VC funding, rather than lack there of, since taking venture capital is the exception in business, not the norm. Terminology aside, Silicon Valley's argument that this is a what a real business looks like, not that, is ridiculous. They're all businesses. And if you really want to play that game, it's often the VC-funded startups that aren't "real" businesses (no profits, revenue, etc), not the derisively labeled "lifestyle" businesses.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I agree that having to preface the term business is stupid, but since this is the current terminology it is hard to get people to change back to just using business. Even the term startup is redundant as a startup is just a new business. The problem is if you don’t preface then someone else will do it for you. Letting the VC industry choose the preface is not ideal - I don’t run a lifestyle business, I run a serious and highly profitable technology business with the aim of maximising my returns as the founder. The fact that I don’t have outside investors is irrelevant to what my business does or the value it offers my customers.
    - w4 11y ago
      > Letting the VC industry choose the preface is not ideal This actually touches on an important point. The whole reason that, "No no, that's not a real business," gets bandied around is because it benefits VCs. If founders think that they need to take VC money to assuage their insecurities about being a "real" business, that doesn't help the founders. It helps the VCs' deal flow.
rebootthesystem 11y ago
With the right project, skills, dedication, some funding and a little luck it is quite possible for a single person to build a business that produces $100K to $200K per month free cash. I understand that SV culture of building for $100MM+ exits but that is utopia. All you have to do is run the stats against total business startups (and failures) per year to confirm this claim. As for single vs. multi-founder companies. I see SV from afar as an environment where young VC's incubate all manner of ideas by young inexperienced people. It's an educated shotgun approach. And it obviously works or it would have died off a long time ago. In that context I would say it is absolutely imperative to have more than one person on a team. Why? Because business is hard and most 20-somethings today have never done anything even remotely as hard in their lives. When business slaps you around and tests your limits and you are an inexperienced young person without a support system around you failure is almost guaranteed. Add co-founders to spread the stress, discuss, find solutions and feel like a team with a dose of guidance, money, advise and the benefits of the experience of good VC's and you can make interesting things happen. Again, in that context, yes, you need multiple founders. With more experienced entrepreneurs who've been tested in business I don't think the solo founder thing is a problem at all. We can manage the business just fine and we can hire good people to do what's needed. The benefit of experience is that problems are met with aplomb and a mental and business toolbox that turns mountains into hills. Money is a a thing separate from the single/multi founder issue. You can fail miserably with lots of money and a large team and you can succeed with little money and a guy coding at home (PlentyOfFish anyone?). What money can and does do is light a rocket under a good thing at the right point in time to make it go. Money is like the blood in the veins of a business. Without enough of it you are not going to go run a marathon and win.
free2rhyme214 11y ago
Having cofounders or not is a matter of personal preference. Statistically teams in 2 or 3 do better than teams of 1. Look at the most successful tech IPO's and funding rounds. Sure there's Amazon & Flexport etc. but those are exceptions.
- general_failure 11y ago
  You are right if the measure of success is IPO or money. My understanding is the OP has a much broader view.of success.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cha-cho 11y ago
I feel that this line should be in bold: "It doesn’t really matter what your friends think of your ideas or you in regards to starting a business–the votes that count come in the form of paying customers."
jondubois 11y ago
I think if someone needs a cofounder to motivate them to keep going, then they probably aren't that passionate about the idea. Founders should have realistic expectations and give themselves a lot of time to find a market fit. I think the less funding/marketing/hype your startup has, the longer it will take to find market fit but once you do find it, it will be rock solid. If you can find people to use your product in spite of it being completely unknown, then that is the highest form of validation that a product can receive. If, on the other hand, people only use your product because 'every one else is using it' then that is a really weak form of validation.
tblomseth 11y ago
A recent tweet might indicate that PG is voicing a more nuanced opinion on the "utility" of co-founders these days: "In order of utility: Good cofounder, no cofounder, bad cofounder." https://twitter.com/paulg/status/615949374317723648 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/615949374317723648

280 points by adrianmsmith 11y ago

j_lev 11y ago

"Finding" a co-founder wasn't a choice for the uncountable husband-wife partnerships over the ages. Sometimes for better or for worse you're stuck with your spouse as your co-founder. I remained in the corporate world for about five years after making the decision mentally to quit until I had confidence that both the technology and my own skill had reached a point where I could have a good shot at hustling a living with my wife as "co-founder." The article somewhat vindicates my decision.

api 11y ago

"If you’re unable to convince friends to start a business with you, PG says it’s a vote of no confidence. But, what if you’re like me and you don’t have a lot of entrepreneurial friends? Or, maybe you do, but they don’t want to work on your ideas? It doesn’t really matter what your friends think of your ideas or you in regards to starting a business–the votes that count come in the form of paying customers. Since it’s cheap and easy to spot faults in unproven business ideas, early votes of no confidence, even from well-meaning friends and family are standard fare. Expect and take them with a grain of salt. Some of the best companies today sounded pretty dumb on paper yesterday." This is probably the clearest refutation of Graham's single founder section I've seen. I'd expound a bit on one of the later points: If what you're doing is somewhat domain-specific, only the opinions of people in your target area and market matter. You might know a lot of people, but if they're not in your target area and market they might not get it. If you're getting negative feedback from them, it might be irrelevant. The only negative feedback you should listen to is from people who really get your target area.

paulryanrogers 11y ago
> The only negative feedback you should listen to is from people who really get your target area. And perhaps not even in that case. If they are entrenched in their ways or feel threatened then their advice may hinder. Still, is probably wise to get a variety of input just to avoid overlooking important fundamentals.
espitia 11y ago
I agree. I am working as a solo-founder and think about this issue a lot. The way I see it, the time spent "networking" to find a co-founder is time wasted when compared to working on your product/customers. I say it with first-hand experience. I spent a few months going to every possible tech event in my city and had no luck. Finding a good co-founder is not easy. It's almost like trying to find a partner to marry but every second is time against you because no real work getting done. I'd rather build and get enough traction to the point where you can hire/attract some talent.
pcmaffey 11y ago
PG wrote that in 2006. Market forces and opportunities around startups have changed astronomically in the past 9 years. It was probably harder for 2 people to start a "growth" business in 2006 than it is for 1 person today.
- api 11y ago
  Yes, the OP makes that point as well and it's also very relevant. PG's point on that issue is dated. Today we have a "stack" that automates a lot of the grunt work: ZenPayroll, Clerky, Stripe, etc. A single founder can just set up a business and run it using these services to do a lot of stuff that was once manual. I personally think the single-arity is near. (Title for a blog post I never wrote.) The single-arity will be when we have the first one person "unicorn." It won't stay one person forever, but pretty soon we will see an example of one founder -- working as the only full time employee -- building something with astronomical growth. On one hand it's pretty cool, and on the other hand it speaks to the degree to which we've created a winner take all economy with an insane hockey stick compensation distribution.
  - nostrademons 11y ago
    We had that in 2003 with Marcus Frind & PlentyOfFish or Brad Fitzpatrick & Livejournal - or, arguably, in 1995 with Craig Newmark & Craigslist or Pierre Omidyar & E-bay. Multi-founder startups that took off like a rocketship before they took investment include HotOrNot, Google, Facebook, and SnapChat. It's been possible to do this since the web came out. The problem is that it very much is a lottery, and the median startup usually goes through significant tribulations before striking it big, struggles that make most single founders quit.
- ianstallings 11y ago
  It was. I did it with a partner in 2003 and we had to take time out and physically go to a lawyer, an accountant, etc. And the info on how to do it all was not as prevalent. A lot of it was new to us and we had to really dig to find it. These days I can do everything online, have a company rolling (incorporation pending approval of course), get payroll up, start advertising, and easily find others I can reach out to for help, in a single day.
Macsenour 11y ago
I've grown to like a few no's to getting a ton of yes. I'm sure someone here knows the quote better than I do, something like: If you don't get a few no's, you're not innovating enough. I have a lot of tech friends who are busy doing their own things. I set up an informal board of directors and I consult them on ideas, tech problems etc. I feel no need to have them as partners. They pick me up when I'm down, give me advice, help with direction, keep me focused.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

makeitsuckless 11y ago

> Today’s full-stack engineers have replaced yesterday’s sysadmins, DBAs, and webdevs altogether. Seriously, when is this "full-stack" nonsense going to stop? With the exception of a few geniuses, "full-stack" is just shorthand for "less than mediocre at a lot of different things".

paulryanrogers 11y ago
True. But a jack of all trades with powerful tools may get to market sooner than a large group of specialists who can't see the forest through the trees.
benologist 11y ago
His point remains though, a single person can have a broad enough skillset to achieve a lot today and we're still getting more efficient.
nilkn 11y ago
I've seen people promote themselves as full-stack engineers who literally just spent three months studying Ruby on Rails and some JavaScript and don't actually know any true front-end development or back-end development. I've found that people who might actually qualify for the title (and they do exist) generally don't use it to describe themselves.
- ownagefool 11y ago
  It's all relative but I think a lot of us have the problem of puffing ourselves up whilst knocking others down. I'm multifaceted but folks just assume I'm hiding weakness. Also, at least in London, full-stack pays a lot less than devops.
octaveguin 11y ago
This isn't really true. Most great developers I know have interest and experience up and down the stack though not expertise in all parts. Often, those that stay specialized in one layer of the stack are less helpful because they don't see the forest for the trees. There's an analogy of specialization causing extinction somewhere in here, too...

antaviana 11y ago

I found the following book to be quite a good tool with practical advice for the proposed approach: http://www.amazon.com/Start-Small-Stay-Developers-Launching-ebook/dp/B003YH9MMI http://www.amazon.com/Start-Small-Stay-Developers-Launching-...

csytan 11y ago
I haven't read Rob Walling's book, but I found his video on "Finding your flywheel" to be useful: https://vimeo.com/47465229 https://vimeo.com/47465229

jcrubino 11y ago

PG context of a startup is a company that has the potential to make it into a leading stock market index. Anything else is considered a "life style" business and not within YC or most other VC's scope of interest for funding.

dboreham 11y ago
My response whenever I hear the "life style" label is to ask who's life style are we talking about? For me, the only difference is that in the traditional VC startup case it is the life style of the VCs that is being enhanced.
- jcrubino 11y ago
  They hedge your risk of time and effort by giving you resources of capital, networks, IP to make things happen plus a bonus if the startup gets traction enough for a public offering or profitable exit sale. There are many devils in the details but getting paid to do something you are committed to completing is not a bad offer.
  - MCRed 11y ago
    They also greatly increase the likelihood that your startup will go bankrupt, and decrease the likelihood that it will be moderately successful. Thus they do not hedge your financial risk they increase your risk. VC only makes sense if you are bound and determined to make a billion dollar, or at least 100 million dollar company. They do not give you access to networks IP or make things happen, they give you money and then they double dip on the backend. The romanticized view of VCs present on this site is not reflective of reality... or my nearly 30 years of dealign with them.
  - dboreham 11y ago
    I think I may not have made my point sufficiently clear: I'm well aware of the mechanics of VC funding. I wasn't talking about that, but rather specifically the label "lifestyle company". VCs tend to use the term as a pejorative, implying that a person who owns a business should not seek to improve their lifestyle. My observation is that the difference between the self-funded and VC-funded scenario, as regards "lifestyle" optimization is only who's lifestyle is being optimized (the business owner in one case, the VC and their investors in the other case). The VC isn't going to give up their fancy Sand Hill offices and the Tesla any more than the self-funded entrepreneur is going to give up their quality time with their kids and family.

MCRed 11y ago

I'm leaning this way now myself, after previously believing that co-founders were essential and prior to that being dubious about their value. Two things I've seen kill startups are bad cofounder relationships, and Venture Capitalists. Almost 50-50, with VCs in the lead because they cause a lot of the bad co-founder relationships. The person you are likely to make your cofounder should probably be your first employee. Make them significant, give them a VP title or whatever, get feedback from them, pay them in equity. But don't let them be in a position where leaving or failing to pull their weight would doom the company. Finding a good cofounder is nearly impossible for many people for many reasons. If you are a group of people who know each other already and want to start a company-- great. But cofounder dating is a bad, bad idea. Couples live together for years before getting married, yet co founders want to "get married" within days or months? Even if you choose well on a number of areas, you simply can't know your cofounder well enough.

ams6110 11y ago
Couples live together for years before getting married There's a well-founded point of view that this is not a good thing for a strong marriage.
- shawn-furyan 11y ago
  I recall seeing some reporting on research about this. The problem that I had with that study, is that it seemed to be working from the assumption that decision of whether or not to cohabitate before marriage was akin to a coin flip for the population. The study controlled for a couple factors like education and claimed religious and political affiliation, but I contend that these controls are insufficiently granular to capture potential fundamental worldview differences[1]. Therefore, I contend that the conclusion that the decision of whether or not to cohabitate is the primary causal factor (rather than merely an indicator of an unidentified effect) is invalid because the two groups are unlikely to be sufficiently similar for outcomes to be assumed to be directly transferrable. [1] For instance, there are portions of the republican party that would not condone the decision of a couple to live together before marrying (e.g. many of the religious conservatives), but others that would be expected to tend to be indifferent (e.g. much of the business and libertarian contingent). The same logic extends to claimed religious affiliation. For instance, I think that the Catholic Church's official stance would be against cohabitation before marriage, but among people who identify as Catholic, there are varying degrees to which the certain official policies are considered practical and/or legitimate. Keep in mind, lapsed Catholics/Jews/Muslims/Protestants/etc that still identify culturally with a religious group are counted as among those groups under the methodology. Overall, I would have felt more comfortable with the legitimacy of the conclusion if instead of looking for rough indicators of attitudes toward pre-marital cohabitation, they would have just chosen a few cohorts, and directly asked what their attitudes toward pre-marital cohabitation were, and then controlled for that factor.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

At the same time I would say, don't dismiss the benefits of having a cofounder. It's easier to explore new territory as a team then it is alone. Just the psychological boost that comes with camaraderie is well worth it.

omouse 11y ago

A cofounder just makes some things easier; you have someone that's available 24/7 to talk about ideas and implementation. When it's just you it feels a little easier to give up unfortunately.

bengali3 11y ago
agreed, someone to bounce ideas off of and someone who encourages you to continue when you're down. The closest things i've found for solo-support: a) micropreneur academy ($50/mo-in 2009- but all solo software folks) b) mastermind groups Other Suggestions?

rcarrigan87 11y ago

Too many people who are new to entrepreneurship only see startups as their entry point. Part of this is media coverage, everyone is talking about funding mega rounds and the VC fueled entrepreneur world. I think many entrepreneurs are less interested in building Billion dollar companies and are more seeking freedom from suppressive corporate jobs. But when the only narrative you see is mega startups it starts to seem like that's the only worthwhile path to entrepreneurship. Small business sounds like your Mom's flower shop - lame. So you have to find a co-founder and raise VC and pick a huge market, and work on your pitch deck, etc. etc. Reality is having a couple million a year business can really lead to a fantastic lifestyle if done properly.

jchendy 11y ago
Do you know of any resources to learn about tech lifestyle businesses?
- MCRed 11y ago
  All of the "Startup" resources, like The Lean Startup, etc that aren't busy glorifying VCs or the SV model, are useful for these businesses. The only difference between a "lifestyle" business and the "Silicon Valley" model is whether you are in control over your own destiny and focused on building a business, or whether you're selling out to people who want to increase your risk and their possible profits, with the expectation that you'll get a nice bonus in your acquihire. In a way, YC and VCs have ruined startups, by making people think this SV model -- which is great for Facebook, google and yelp, but terrible for the billion other startups is the One True Way.
  - rcarrigan87 11y ago
    There is truly a place for VCs and yes some businesses definitely need that kind of funding. But right now it seems VC is so available things are getting funded that will never be able to hit that 10x mark. So businesses that could have been great bootstrap businesses will grow too fast with too high a burn rate and flame out at a series A or B crunch. Meanwhile, if the business could have taken it slower they could have built something really valuable for themselves.

aesthetics1 11y ago

I believe John is writing for an audience that PG is not addressing. He is taking his lifestyle business approach and saying that it should apply to businesses that are seeking funding and trying to ultimately have an exit, or become a shiny unicorn. This just isn't the right advice for YC style companies.

dceddia 11y ago
I think there's a lot of overlap in the two audiences though. Someone who doesn't want a corporate job might say "I should start a startup." Maybe in their head they're thinking a one-man shop, but then they google about startups and read PG's essays about these larger efforts involving fundraising and such, and get deterred from their original (quite do-able) plan. This article is saying to those people: "Nevermind what you hear, go back to thinking you can do it on your own, because you can. I'm here as proof." You're right though, for the people who are squarely in the YC/fundraising camp, this article is not speaking to them.
- aesthetics1 11y ago
  Fair enough! I think there is a lot of information out there, and it can certainly be overwhelming.

crocal 11y ago

Having just gone through bad experience with co founders, I should be on the same page as John. But I am not. It is essential to have co founders even with all this accelerating software available, just because of the fatigue. It's a lot of work to achieve quality and willingness to pay in software, no matter what. My mistake was to try to make it all by myself with only non-tech partners. If I had had just one strong cofounder as involved as I were I think things would have turned out very differently. Be humble!

graeme 11y ago

As others have noted, this is addressing a different type of business than PG was talking about. The author is talking about bootstrapped businesses. There are many niches where a well run business can earn revenue of $100,000-$500,000 per year, and be ably run by a single person. These niches do require upkeep, but they are not so likely to be invaded by major competitors or large companies. The returns are too small. However, the returns are excellent for a single founder. It is also true that it's easier to scale such a business than it used to be. So there is probably more bootstrapping potential than before, especially as more people move online and there are therefore more niches to fill. But this approach also rules out many types of businesses, and with rare exceptions it rules out larger revenue streams. These are among the trade offs.

eloff 11y ago
A bootstrapped business does not have to be exclusive with larger revenue streams. Guy Kawasaki says that he's seen many more businesses die because they tried growing too fast (e.g. using VC money to scale the company) than because they grew too slow. Joel Spolsky is famously a critic of the SV VC-based model as well. He put his money where his mouth is with Stack Exchange, which only recently raised VC money. He says the obvious, that if take things as far as you can without VC money, then you get better terms when/if you finally do take it. There are a bunch of companies, especially those with strong network effects like social companies, that face a very real risk of growing too slow. There are others, especially hardware companies, where the startup costs are high. So the bootstrapped model is definitely not for everyone! I think it's best to stay small and agile until you've found a strong product-market-fit that can the company can be scaled up into. You may or may not need VC money during that stage. When your biggest problem is you lack the resources to scale up as fast as your real product demand, then you should be looking for VC money (or a alternative financing like a loan.) Before then it may well do you more harm than good.
- graeme 11y ago
  Oh, to be clear I meant a solo bootstrapped business. I think that's what the original article was talking about. Certainly a bootstrapped business with employees can grow quite large. (You can go higher solo too of course, it's just not common)

jlarocco 11y ago

I've always thought people desperately looking for cofounders on HN, or asking how to find them, are kind of goofy and lame. Has there ever been an even moderately successful company cofounded by strangers who met while slumming the internet for cofounders? It seems to me that PG almost certainly didn't mean people were better off starting companies with random strangers than they would be starting off alone. Looking at the big successful companies that were started with multiple founders, it was almost always a group of friends, or co-workers, or acquaintances from school with similar interests, or something like that. There's more to being "cofounders" than just meeting randomly and deciding to start a company together.

bengali3 11y ago
how did you and your cofounder meet?
- rachellaw 11y ago
  not the OP, but I met mine in grad school. We were working on different projects in a similar area. We really only decided to become cofounders after a year of graduating, because finishing one thesis and immediately hopping to another seemed like the fastest way to a burnout.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  If I were starting a company, I would do it by myself or possibly with some friends. I'm very weary of the VC based startup bubble and don't have much interest in starting a company.
chjohasbrouck 11y ago
I've been that person, and that's exactly how I felt while I was doing it. I don't try anymore, the hours were for nothing and it's a complete waste of time. A cofounder needs a very strong skillset, a life circumstance that permits them to drop everything for a startup without dire consequences, a level of enthusiasm and drive that to other people seems almost delusional, and your opportunity needs to out-compete all their other opportunities for more than a year. That's an incredibly rare person. There are probably more successful pop stars than there are people who fit that profile. PG says if you're solo, you should look for a cofounder. When he gave that advice, it was because he observed that the majority of successful startups had multiple cofounders. But I don't think he bothered to consider the fact that approximately zero of those confounders met each other by going on a "cofounder search."

brightball 11y ago

He's not wrong, but a lot of what he says is very dependent on self-discipline. Having a partner, in addition to all of the other perks, also gives you a point of accountability the forces prioritization and a real plan. It is entirely possible to start a business by yourself. People do it successfully every single day but there are a whole lot of complicated factors from financial, legal, technical and psychological at play just to get started. Having a support system around you can insulate you from a lot of the complications that come from going it on your own, but that support system is usually based on goodwill not vested interest. Even people who "go it on their own" but happen to be married when they do so very clearly have a partner in the business.

MCRed 11y ago
Founding a startup with my spouse was very useful in a lot of ways, but unfortunately, despite enthusiasm my spouse lacked sufficient skills and experience, so unless your spouse has also been working at startups for a decade, it's not always ideal-- but you can count on loyalty there. Truth is, give me a cofounder who has been working for startups for 10 years and what you say makes sense. But co-founding with someone whose first experience at a startup is founding one and it doesn't make sense. And it's not like more resources are bad, it's a question of their cost.
- brightball 11y ago
  That's true. It's not always going to be the same from an advice standpoint but at worst you will have the accountability factor from somebody who's equally vested.
dontscale 11y ago
This is really insightful. The psychological factor you mention bears the most weight in terms of getting started. So, people should change the way they think about starting. Building an app by yourself isn't cap intensive like building a railroad. The beauty is: you're not even going to waste time if you give up since you gain wisdom that carries over onto future projects. +1 for the knowledge worker. Open source developers work in peace and reap those rewards because they don't self-impose the same psychological barriers.

jasonswett 11y ago

When I discovered that there was a third path between job and startup, a whole new world opened up for me. http://www.jasonswett.net/the-whos-who-of-the-micro-isv-world/ http://www.jasonswett.net/the-whos-who-of-the-micro-isv-worl...

swalsh 11y ago

If you're a programmer, and you're relatively young (like under 40) you probably don't have a lot of experience. Sure you have a lot of experience programming, and solving problems. But it's VERY unlikely that you know an industry, and it's unsolved or badly solved problems. To get to know these problems, I think you need some outsider experience. For example, i'm in the healthcare industry. I can name a whole bunch of problems here, but none of them are ripe for a new startup. That's because I really only find out about a problem from my little part of the world. The few times i've had glimpses beyond my world I certainly haven't had enough of a glimpse to really try and tackle it. So to me, that's important. Without a cofounder who really knows an industry, you're going to work on 1st world problems that a normal person might run into, that are solvable by a single person. To be honest, of the problems left in that space they're not really interesting businesses. Either they won't make too much money, or they solve a boring non-problem. As a technical person I want to find someone who has ran into good problems, and will know if a solution will work or not.

MCRed 11y ago
You're making a couple assumptions I disagree with. Even when I was under 40 I knew of more problems that needed to be solved than I could possibly address. Every job I've had has exposed me to industry problems that were big... and you can found a company in an industry, be a single founder and then hire people who have domain expertise. Domain expertise doesn't mean one has to be a cofounder. Also, consider does this domain expert have the background in startups that would be useful? Or were they being an employee in that domain? I can think of a half dozen purely technical problems that would improve a billion people's lives-- and I'm talking purely software here.

seizethecheese 11y ago

The post is saying that you don't need a cofounder for the subset of ventures that a very technical person can tackle alone. The types of ventures that YC funds are generally not plausible to tackle alone. There is no conflict between PG's ideas and this essay so long as you accept that there are ventures of differing scope, some need more than one founder and some don't, and YC generally invests in the latter.

MCRed 11y ago
No serious venture is plausible to tackle alone. But every venture that YC has funded could be done with a single founder. There are other people in companies and they're called employees. You can get to demo day with one founder and employees. How many YC companies have failed or split or reformed because the founders visions didn't align?

latishsehgal 11y ago

I have been trying to bootstrap a one man software shop for the last 2 years and recently released v2 of the software. How I usually explain it to my "work" friends is that the highs are higher and the lows are lower while trying to do everything yourself. I would have jumped at the opportunity of having a cofounder for that reason, but never found the right people interested.

MCRed 11y ago
You're making a good point- you never found the right person. Alas, PG's essay has come to be takend as "you must have a cofounder or you aren't serious" with little attention paid to finding the right person. The right person is damn hard to find. And when "not having a co founder means nobody believed in you" (the converse of what he actually said) then any co founder becomes the right cofounder. This is the problem with HN, and even YC to a lesser extent-it's become cargo cultism based on PGs essays, propagated by people who have little to no experience in Startups.
- latishsehgal 11y ago
  I am guessing his intentions were "You must have a cofounder to have better odds of surviving"?. I always use the marriage analogy for finding a cofounder. I love being married and would recommend it to other folks if they find the right person, but wouldn't recommend it just for the heck of it.

mindcrime 11y ago

See also: Micro-ISV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_ISV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_ISV http://www.amazon.com/Micro-ISV-Vision-Reality-Bob-Walsh/dp/1590596013 http://www.amazon.com/Micro-ISV-Vision-Reality-Bob-Walsh/dp/... http://ericsink.com/bos/Micro_ISV.html http://ericsink.com/bos/Micro_ISV.html Make sure to read this to get a different take though. http://www.singlefounder.com/the-day-the-microisv-movement-died/ http://www.singlefounder.com/the-day-the-microisv-movement-d...

paulsutter 11y ago

Even if you want to build a scalable/fundable startup, stop looking for a cofounder. It's needy and the wrong motivation. Start working on the project get help from the smartest people you know / can find. Get their help in any capacity you can. You're more likely to find a cofounder indirectly through on this path than in an overt "cofounder search". Plus you'll actually be making progress.

hkmurakami 11y ago
I was just about to write, "You don't look for cofounders. Cofounders happen white you're already on the journey." Well put.

eldude 11y ago

Please don't stop looking for a cofounder. It's true that all it additionally takes to be a solo-founder is self-discipline, but as a human being you are psychologically and emotionally unequipped to deal with this. Let me explain... On History, there's a self-filmed TV show about 10 survivalist dropped off separately on Vancouver Island competing for $0.5M to be the last standing. The show is fantastic, not for the impressive survival skills, but for the human psychology. The show is called "Alone," and I'm fairly certain they (re)named the show after filming. What you witness over the course of just weeks, is nearly every wilderness expert abruptly losing their will to go on because there is nobody to share it with. They openly acknowledge that they have what it takes to continue, and were originally okay with being away from their family indefinitely, but they all just completely lose their desire and interest in winning or continuing because they are so alone. In short, isolation doesn't just make it more difficult for you to achieve your goals, it rips the desire to achieve them from your psyche altogether! This is empirically shown and self evident in numerous aspects of society: solitary confinement being classified as torture, team dynamics, mentors, pair bonding, tribalism, etc... It's also why YC (mostly) doesn't accept solo-founders, as well as many other respected VCs. [1] http://www.history.com/shows/alone/about http://www.history.com/shows/alone/about

SneakerXZ 11y ago
This also heavily depends on your personality. My guess would be the survivalist were extroverts and it was also the main reason why they went into this show. But most programmers are introverts and lone wolfs and they don't necessarily need others to share their experience with.
- dopeboy 11y ago
  I respectfully disagree. Being introverted != no need to share their experiences. Every human craves to share their experience with someone and be validated (see social media). Some do it more than others and through other means. Also, at some point that lone wolf programmer is going to need to stop building and start selling. Overcoming 100 compiler errors is much easier and faster than getting 100 nos and 1 yes. Try going through a brutal sales cycle like that and tell me whether that introvert would last without someone to ride the roller coaster with.

hughguiney 11y ago

As someone who has been stressing over “needing a cofounder” lately, this is an encouraging and timely post. However, I dislike the phrasing here: > a 100% owner requires half the earning power of 50/50 partners–that gives him a huge advantage. …which assumes the founder is going to be a man.

hughguiney 11y ago
Downvoted already! Sexism in tech is alive and well I see.
dontscale 11y ago
Thank you Hugh. I thought about pronoun choice when I wrote that. I was deliberating between 'her' or 'him or her'. The problem I had with the former is I always notice when male writers do it--I can tell it's deliberate. The problem with the latter is it breaks rhythm a little, I think. In my mind, the sexes are equal so him == her. It's something I feel strongly about too especially having a daughter. But nonetheless I understand the implications of what I wrote. edit: Oh, and I upvoted you :-)
- sidawson 11y ago
  For future reference - gender neutral pronouns are super easy to use and don't detract from the reading flow at all. In this case: "...that gives them a huge advantage." (and "their" for his/her)
- hughguiney 11y ago
  While I appreciate your viewpoint, it is not obvious to the reader. I think it is more important to not alienate women any more than already happens in this industry, than it is to form a sentence that has a certain rhythm. I would also examine why male pronouns “sound right” while non-male ones “don’t”. And I agree with @sidawson that gender-neutral pronouns maintain the same rhythm besides. Edit: And thank you for the upvote. I am glad that you are open to constructive criticism even if the crabby status-quo-loving anonymous users aren’t.

unabst 11y ago

Building shareware and selling it has nothing to do with building a business, let alone co-founders. What the author here has done is comparable to a composer selling music or an author selling a book. He built an ebay tool, and ebay sells it for him. There are many indie game developers and app developers that are successful the same way (microsoft and apple take on the sales and marketing burden respectively). Finding a co-founder is inapplicable to his situation. The piece might as well be called "how to avoid building a business". If you want to build a business, shareware can be a good start, but avoiding getting help is no way to build something that eventually you want ticking without you. Building a business does not equate to simply making money. Any capable programmer can make money either through employment or on their own. This should never be confused with building a business. As for building a world class business, no matter how capable you are, if you still believe you can do it alone, you still haven't grasped the magnitude of what you're in for or the foundations you need to build. Businesses are made of people. A business builder is a job creator. If you have a team working like bees, you've built a business. If you have money growing on trees, it's just income.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

tgeery 11y ago

The whole time i could not stop thinking of this wozniak quote. Although... I guess he eventually had a cofounder. http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/01/18/woz-on-creativity-and-innovation/ http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/01/18/woz-on-creativity-an...

adidash 11y ago

Met the founder of a startup accelerator in Singapore and shared my idea. His first question - "will it be a billion dollar company?" I said no but has the potential to scale to a few million dollars and his reply was - "then its not a startup but just a lifestyle business."

danieltillett 11y ago

I am going on a rant, but can we stop using the term lifestyle business for non-VC startups? Almost anything would be better - I came up with the term founder focused as an alternative [1], but almost anything would be better than the term lifestyle. A serious business is a serious business no matter the funding source. 1. http://www.tillett.info/2014/11/24/lets-kill-the-term-lifestyle-business-for-founder-focused-start-ups/ http://www.tillett.info/2014/11/24/lets-kill-the-term-lifest...

w4 11y ago
Not disagreeing with you in the slightest, but how about just calling them all "businesses" and adding the qualifier "VC-funded" if they've taken funding? It makes more sense to qualify based on VC funding, rather than lack there of, since taking venture capital is the exception in business, not the norm. Terminology aside, Silicon Valley's argument that this is a what a real business looks like, not that, is ridiculous. They're all businesses. And if you really want to play that game, it's often the VC-funded startups that aren't "real" businesses (no profits, revenue, etc), not the derisively labeled "lifestyle" businesses.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I agree that having to preface the term business is stupid, but since this is the current terminology it is hard to get people to change back to just using business. Even the term startup is redundant as a startup is just a new business. The problem is if you don’t preface then someone else will do it for you. Letting the VC industry choose the preface is not ideal - I don’t run a lifestyle business, I run a serious and highly profitable technology business with the aim of maximising my returns as the founder. The fact that I don’t have outside investors is irrelevant to what my business does or the value it offers my customers.
  - w4 11y ago
    > Letting the VC industry choose the preface is not ideal This actually touches on an important point. The whole reason that, "No no, that's not a real business," gets bandied around is because it benefits VCs. If founders think that they need to take VC money to assuage their insecurities about being a "real" business, that doesn't help the founders. It helps the VCs' deal flow.

rebootthesystem 11y ago

With the right project, skills, dedication, some funding and a little luck it is quite possible for a single person to build a business that produces $100K to $200K per month free cash. I understand that SV culture of building for $100MM+ exits but that is utopia. All you have to do is run the stats against total business startups (and failures) per year to confirm this claim. As for single vs. multi-founder companies. I see SV from afar as an environment where young VC's incubate all manner of ideas by young inexperienced people. It's an educated shotgun approach. And it obviously works or it would have died off a long time ago. In that context I would say it is absolutely imperative to have more than one person on a team. Why? Because business is hard and most 20-somethings today have never done anything even remotely as hard in their lives. When business slaps you around and tests your limits and you are an inexperienced young person without a support system around you failure is almost guaranteed. Add co-founders to spread the stress, discuss, find solutions and feel like a team with a dose of guidance, money, advise and the benefits of the experience of good VC's and you can make interesting things happen. Again, in that context, yes, you need multiple founders. With more experienced entrepreneurs who've been tested in business I don't think the solo founder thing is a problem at all. We can manage the business just fine and we can hire good people to do what's needed. The benefit of experience is that problems are met with aplomb and a mental and business toolbox that turns mountains into hills. Money is a a thing separate from the single/multi founder issue. You can fail miserably with lots of money and a large team and you can succeed with little money and a guy coding at home (PlentyOfFish anyone?). What money can and does do is light a rocket under a good thing at the right point in time to make it go. Money is like the blood in the veins of a business. Without enough of it you are not going to go run a marathon and win.

free2rhyme214 11y ago

Having cofounders or not is a matter of personal preference. Statistically teams in 2 or 3 do better than teams of 1. Look at the most successful tech IPO's and funding rounds. Sure there's Amazon & Flexport etc. but those are exceptions.

general_failure 11y ago
You are right if the measure of success is IPO or money. My understanding is the OP has a much broader view.of success.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

cha-cho 11y ago

I feel that this line should be in bold: "It doesn’t really matter what your friends think of your ideas or you in regards to starting a business–the votes that count come in the form of paying customers."

jondubois 11y ago

I think if someone needs a cofounder to motivate them to keep going, then they probably aren't that passionate about the idea. Founders should have realistic expectations and give themselves a lot of time to find a market fit. I think the less funding/marketing/hype your startup has, the longer it will take to find market fit but once you do find it, it will be rock solid. If you can find people to use your product in spite of it being completely unknown, then that is the highest form of validation that a product can receive. If, on the other hand, people only use your product because 'every one else is using it' then that is a really weak form of validation.

tblomseth 11y ago

A recent tweet might indicate that PG is voicing a more nuanced opinion on the "utility" of co-founders these days: "In order of utility: Good cofounder, no cofounder, bad cofounder." https://twitter.com/paulg/status/615949374317723648 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/615949374317723648