On Business and Tech co-founders, you are correct. I commented on the article and said as much, since even the most cited example of Apple involved two technica

On Business and Tech co-founders, you are correct. I commented on the article and said as much, since even the most cited example of Apple involved two technical co-founders (one of whom just happen to nail the business part, but he relied on a solid technical foundation): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1606957 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1606957 For everything else, it is a misnomer to believe that a recipe exists for startup success. If you do not suffer from having to motivate yourself, have solid experience and a good network of friends/advisors/mentors, then being a sole co-founder is not a problem (pg says as much on the yc website iirc). It is simple, and your points are valid - the answer is that there are no real correct answers in entrepreneurship, only case studies and experience. Anybody purporting or claiming otherwise is misleading you (especially those with little experience to back it up, and what works for some cases might not work in others). Take in what you read and allow it to help you form your own opinion and experience, but nothing should be treated as either gospel or 'right'. There are tons of examples online of entrepreneurs who copied playbook moved from 37signals or another company and found them not to work in their instance (there was a recent case on HN of a company that dropped their free option to find that they increased revenue by a large multiple). Most business schools spend a lot of time with case studies, and the reason is not because they give you answers, but a base of information from which you can build your own experience. (Edit: just to add on the issue of co-founders, I would much rather have two solid and experienced advisors over a single mediocre co-founder).