I don't think the article proves the point it claims to make (you don't need a founder), or disproves the message from YC: having a co-founder increases the lik

I don't think the article proves the point it claims to make (you don't need a founder), or disproves the message from YC: having a co-founder increases the likelihood that your startup will survive. First of all, most startups fail when they are least funded, before they ever get past friends and family money. When you have close to zero money, mountains of work, and no traction or social proof, there's only one way to convince someone to do the important stuff that you can't do yourself, and that's by giving them a lot of equity. Founders: People satisfied with paper and an idea. (If you're already wealthy, sure, you can hire all the help you need. But that's not most people or most startups.) The advice YC gives to co-found a startup with someone you can depend on addresses several early-stage startup problems: 1) Most people have severe limits to what they can do. Those limits come in terms of time and talent. Maybe they can code but they can't handle logistics or paperwork. Maybe they can sell an idea to investors and customers, but they can't build software. Startups require much more than one person can give. 2) Early-stage startups should be in a very active conversation with the world about what to build. The startup needs to be taking in a lot of information, reflecting on it deeply, and acting on it intelligently. With the right co-founder, you gather more information, think about it in ways you wouldn't have alone, and execute better and faster with the extra mind and hands. To wrap this up, a brief list: * Jobs and Wozniak * Allen and Gates * Page and Brin * Hewlett and Packard * Noyce and Moore * Chesky, Gebbia and Blecharczyk * Camp and Kalanick