6 ms·

pg has said (http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html) that "Not having a cofounder is a real problem" and that finding a co-

by credo 16y ago

pg has said (http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html) that "Not having a cofounder is a real problem" and that finding a co-founder should be the "first priority" for any single founder and that this is "more important than anything else". This is a fairly common meme in the startup world. Newslab looks like a great example of how that meme gets it wrong. Many other things are far more important than finding a co-founder In this case, it looks like one co-founder goes on a honeymoon and decides to drop out. Then the other co-founder decides that he doesn't have the passion to run it on his own. So the whole company collapses. I'm assuming that a more passionate person who didn't believe in the co-founder meme would have shown more perseverance.

axod 16y ago
I think getting to be profitable is more important than finding a co-founder. It does indeed sound like neither really believed in the idea passionately.
pg 16y ago
Actually this case isn't a counterexample. Paul wasn't someone Nathan recruited; more the opposite.
- chegra 16y ago
  What I have found in terms of co-founders is that people will join when you have traction. At least in my circle, people aren't risk takers and wouldn't stop their own personal project to work on someone else project. With so many people having problems finding co-founders, I would suggest they implement something and get some traction. After, find a co-founder who now you can offer less equity since they weren't there to share the initial risk then approach investors.
  - thaumaturgy 16y ago
    YES! Oh man, I want to thank you for saying that. I would love to find a co-founder. I've bootstrapped a successful business, it's going quite well, and I've been doing it for 2.5 years now. I've simply refused to give up at every step of the way -- even though I've often wanted to. And if I have my way, this business is going to get quite big. But, I'm not running the sort of thing that YC would be interested in, and my sporadic efforts locally to drum up support have accomplished little.
    - percept 16y ago
      Have you considered asking HN?
      - thaumaturgy 16y ago
        Yes, but I'm following the same pattern that everyone does when they start getting in their own way: there's a laundry list of stuff I want to get in order before I start shopping on sites like HN. However, skmurphy contacted me privately yesterday as a result of the comment, which was awesome. :-)
coryl 16y ago
Actually, doesn't that prove that having a co-founder is as important as pg argues? You need co-founders for moral support as much as anything. Having your co-founder leave puts you in a bleak situation; it kills morale. Not to mention there were probably external factors about their business and market that lead them to believe more and more that they picked the wrong idea or executed "poorly". Having more "passion" as a single founder doesn't really make you better off or more likely to succeed. IMO, its a buzzword, because everyone wants to be successful and will claim they have dieing "passion", but at the end of the day all that matters is results. What I think happened here: They picked the wrong market/idea or executed poorly. They weren't seeing results they wanted; they lost morale. Eventually one of them figured out it wasn't going to work out, didn't believe or have the patience to iterate their idea and decided to leave. The startup was finished. This is probably what happens to 99% of failed startups.
- _pius 16y ago
  Actually, doesn't that prove that having a co-founder is as important as pg argues? Not really. I don't think it proves or disproves it. You need co-founders for moral support as much as anything. Having your co-founder leave puts you in a bleak situation; it kills morale. Coming to rely on a co-founder and then having him or her leave you is certainly a morale killer. Single founders don't have that problem. What a single founder lacks in support, he or she has to make up in resilience if they're going to get very far ...

by credo 16y ago

axod 16y ago

I think getting to be profitable is more important than finding a co-founder. It does indeed sound like neither really believed in the idea passionately.

pg 16y ago

Actually this case isn't a counterexample. Paul wasn't someone Nathan recruited; more the opposite.

chegra 16y ago
What I have found in terms of co-founders is that people will join when you have traction. At least in my circle, people aren't risk takers and wouldn't stop their own personal project to work on someone else project. With so many people having problems finding co-founders, I would suggest they implement something and get some traction. After, find a co-founder who now you can offer less equity since they weren't there to share the initial risk then approach investors.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  YES! Oh man, I want to thank you for saying that. I would love to find a co-founder. I've bootstrapped a successful business, it's going quite well, and I've been doing it for 2.5 years now. I've simply refused to give up at every step of the way -- even though I've often wanted to. And if I have my way, this business is going to get quite big. But, I'm not running the sort of thing that YC would be interested in, and my sporadic efforts locally to drum up support have accomplished little.
  - percept 16y ago
    Have you considered asking HN?
    - thaumaturgy 16y ago
      Yes, but I'm following the same pattern that everyone does when they start getting in their own way: there's a laundry list of stuff I want to get in order before I start shopping on sites like HN. However, skmurphy contacted me privately yesterday as a result of the comment, which was awesome. :-)

coryl 16y ago

Actually, doesn't that prove that having a co-founder is as important as pg argues? You need co-founders for moral support as much as anything. Having your co-founder leave puts you in a bleak situation; it kills morale. Not to mention there were probably external factors about their business and market that lead them to believe more and more that they picked the wrong idea or executed "poorly". Having more "passion" as a single founder doesn't really make you better off or more likely to succeed. IMO, its a buzzword, because everyone wants to be successful and will claim they have dieing "passion", but at the end of the day all that matters is results. What I think happened here: They picked the wrong market/idea or executed poorly. They weren't seeing results they wanted; they lost morale. Eventually one of them figured out it wasn't going to work out, didn't believe or have the patience to iterate their idea and decided to leave. The startup was finished. This is probably what happens to 99% of failed startups.

_pius 16y ago
Actually, doesn't that prove that having a co-founder is as important as pg argues? Not really. I don't think it proves or disproves it. You need co-founders for moral support as much as anything. Having your co-founder leave puts you in a bleak situation; it kills morale. Coming to rely on a co-founder and then having him or her leave you is certainly a morale killer. Single founders don't have that problem. What a single founder lacks in support, he or she has to make up in resilience if they're going to get very far ...