5 ms·
It's great to read a counter argument to the prevailing wisdom, with data to back it up. I've often thought that the argument that "if you can't find at least o
by Todd 16y ago
It's great to read a counter argument to the prevailing wisdom, with data to back it up. I've often thought that the argument that "if you can't find at least one person to join you, then your idea (or you) must not be that great" was a little disingenuous. That statement makes sense in certain contexts, such as when someone has just graduated from university and is living rent free in their parent's basement (it is assumed that their potential co-founders are in a similar situation). It makes less sense when a person is working 9-5 and has a mortgage. It turns out that individuals who are willing to burn the midnight oil for months or years after getting off work because they are passionate about an idea are quite rare. The likelihood of finding a similar individual to partner with within their network of friends, and who will contribute at a commensurate level, is diminishingly small. Perpetuating the above idea does this group a disservice. Instead of rooting for them we are, in essence, saying, “there’s something wrong with you or your idea” per se if you’re a single founder.
- david927 16y agoAlso, how easy a company is to pitch (and therefore find another to join you) is absolutely irrelevant to how good the idea is. If there's a relation, it's most likely inverse -- unless you mean by "good idea", "able to get further funding." (Pets.com was easy to pitch, Google not so much.) I'm a sole founder. I progress for the same reason I breathe; there's no "not breathing." And because I'm a sole founder, nothing can stop me. No co-founder issues, no arguing. The worst I face is that I can be slowed down. Nothing can stop me.
- loganfrederick 16y agoI see your point, but I would disagree that Google wasn't an easy pitch. Example: "We're the best search engine. If we're better than everyone else and easier to use, more people will use us. We'll use those eyeballs to make money."
- david927 16y agoAh, but there were many search engines touting themselves as better. Better won't cut it. Google was so much better that people were willing to switch from Yahoo and the others, and that's an empty pitch. You would have to back that up, and to back it up means already having achieved your goal. Of the two, in my opinion, pets.com had the better pitch.
- petercooper 16y agoThere are also many ideas that are flights of fancy or long shots that a single person can be "dead set" on but unable to seriously convince anyone else about until it's, well, working. Dyson and his cyclone vacuum cleaner comes to mind.
- bluethunder 16y agoCouldnt agree more. Also I think 'convincing' anyone to do a startup is amazingly dangerous. Even in the situations that it can be done, it should not be. You cannot, or rather should not convince anyone on doing a startup. This is one aspect where PG has gone really wrong on his essays, which are otherwise brilliant. As you rightly put it it harms startups more than help. A related point is that I have never seen equal co-founders in a startup which have succeeded. There is almost always an anchor/leadership which takes a last call.