5 ms·

When will you startups learn? Single founder companies can't succeed. badness=true

by ericb 18y ago

balsamiq 18y ago
Hi there. I don't intend to stay a one-person-company for long, but right now I can't afford to hire anyone and I don't want to get external funding. Care to elavorate on why I won't be able to succeed?
- ph0rque 18y ago
  I think he was being sarcastic...?
  - balsamiq 18y ago
    Oh, oops. Why is sarcasm the hardest thing to convey via email/IM/simple text? Hey maybe a one-person startup could takle _that_ problem! :)
    - ericb 18y ago
      The author of this site, Paul Graham (pg), is an essayist who listed single founders as number one on his startup mistakes list. It's not an opinion I share, so yes, sarcasm intended. :-) Agreed 100% about sarcasm being hard to see in text. While an extra person can be an advantage, I think he overestimates the advantages and underestimates the disadvantages. Nice work on the site and app! Congrats! http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html
      - SwellJoe 18y ago
        It's merely a difference of approach. Balsamiq seems to be a very nice business...but it's not a startup according to pg's definition. The goal does not seem to be "get acquired or have an IPO". Building a lifestyle business as a solo founder is entirely feasible...if a little exhausting after a while (I ran a solo founder business for seven years before starting my current business).
        ericb 18y ago
        I guess, to me, maybe that's a part of the issue. I define a third route for a startup. Make money. So I have trouble with that lesser definition. I'd have called 37 Signals a startup (still might, when does being a startup end--I don't know how to draw the line). I worked at a software company which has 5 buildings it owns outright, employs thousands of people, and has 300 million+ in annual revenue. In the 70's it was started by one person. I'd have called it a "startup" at the time. It is still private. The difference perhaps revolves around "startup appropriate for Y Combinator" vs "startup."
        SwellJoe 18y ago
        The difference perhaps revolves around "startup appropriate for Y Combinator" vs "startup." Actually, it would be "startup appropriate for any investor". If there is no exit planned, then it's not something an investor wants to be involved in. It's purely semantics, which is why I specifically said, "according to pg's definition". Your definition may be different...but if you're talking about pg's rules of thumb for "startups", you have to accept his definition of "startup" for the purpose of context.
        ericb 18y ago
        It's a good point, and those may be his definitions, but I don't see the rules mentioned in the essay in particular. There are all sorts of investment that don't fit the Silicon Valley VC short-term mold, so appropriate for "any investor" might be over-stating things, even for startups. Investing in cash-cow businesses is not a bad strategy--I wish I could have invested in the private company I mentioned above in the 70's. Jeff Bezos thought 37 signals was interesting enough to invest in. Warren Buffett seems to like cash cow businesses as well.
        icey 18y ago
        Successful entrepreneurs are the ones who break the rules.
        eru 18y ago
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
      I thought they solved that problem when they invented the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.
webwright 18y ago
Troll. YC funds single founders all the time. There were several in our batch.
- ericb 18y ago
  I didn't say anything about who YC funds. Trolling is a stretch--this is number one on pg's list of "startup mistakes" and sarcasm != trolling. http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html
niqolas 18y ago
It depends on your definition of success... I believe you can be very successful as an individual, but this will be limited by your capacity. One person can go only so far (not that this is by any means insignificant e.g. PlentyOfFish apparently serves millions of uniques and earns US$10,000 per day with a staff of one). "Singles" will inevitably hit a glass ceiling where they will need more resources if they want to break through. The secret to continuing your initial success is ensuring that these additional resources can leverage off your initial good work AND add value of their own in excess of the complexity added/strain they place on you and your new "organisation". Far easier said than done.
agentbleu 18y ago
;) I ran a startup for 7 years, was very successful, but as a single founder, I understand fully the problems and concerns of PG et al. My biz (electronic products design/manufacturing/distribution) was very demanding, maybe / (shouldbe) a software company will be less so. In which case the rules change? Im hoping....

When will you startups learn? Single founder companies can't succeed. badness=true

by ericb 18y ago

When will you startups learn? Single founder companies can't succeed. badness=true

Hi there. I don't intend to stay a one-person-company for long, but right now I can't afford to hire anyone and I don't want to get external funding. Care to elavorate on why I won't be able to succeed?

ph0rque 18y ago
I think he was being sarcastic...?
- balsamiq 18y ago
  Oh, oops. Why is sarcasm the hardest thing to convey via email/IM/simple text? Hey maybe a one-person startup could takle _that_ problem! :)
  - ericb 18y ago
    The author of this site, Paul Graham (pg), is an essayist who listed single founders as number one on his startup mistakes list. It's not an opinion I share, so yes, sarcasm intended. :-) Agreed 100% about sarcasm being hard to see in text. While an extra person can be an advantage, I think he overestimates the advantages and underestimates the disadvantages. Nice work on the site and app! Congrats! http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html
    - SwellJoe 18y ago
      It's merely a difference of approach. Balsamiq seems to be a very nice business...but it's not a startup according to pg's definition. The goal does not seem to be "get acquired or have an IPO". Building a lifestyle business as a solo founder is entirely feasible...if a little exhausting after a while (I ran a solo founder business for seven years before starting my current business).
      - ericb 18y ago
        I guess, to me, maybe that's a part of the issue. I define a third route for a startup. Make money. So I have trouble with that lesser definition. I'd have called 37 Signals a startup (still might, when does being a startup end--I don't know how to draw the line). I worked at a software company which has 5 buildings it owns outright, employs thousands of people, and has 300 million+ in annual revenue. In the 70's it was started by one person. I'd have called it a "startup" at the time. It is still private. The difference perhaps revolves around "startup appropriate for Y Combinator" vs "startup."
        SwellJoe 18y ago
        The difference perhaps revolves around "startup appropriate for Y Combinator" vs "startup." Actually, it would be "startup appropriate for any investor". If there is no exit planned, then it's not something an investor wants to be involved in. It's purely semantics, which is why I specifically said, "according to pg's definition". Your definition may be different...but if you're talking about pg's rules of thumb for "startups", you have to accept his definition of "startup" for the purpose of context.
        ericb 18y ago
        It's a good point, and those may be his definitions, but I don't see the rules mentioned in the essay in particular. There are all sorts of investment that don't fit the Silicon Valley VC short-term mold, so appropriate for "any investor" might be over-stating things, even for startups. Investing in cash-cow businesses is not a bad strategy--I wish I could have invested in the private company I mentioned above in the 70's. Jeff Bezos thought 37 signals was interesting enough to invest in. Warren Buffett seems to like cash cow businesses as well.
        icey 18y ago
        Successful entrepreneurs are the ones who break the rules.
        eru 18y ago
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    I thought they solved that problem when they invented the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.

webwright 18y ago

Troll. YC funds single founders all the time. There were several in our batch.

ericb 18y ago
I didn't say anything about who YC funds. Trolling is a stretch--this is number one on pg's list of "startup mistakes" and sarcasm != trolling. http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html

niqolas 18y ago

It depends on your definition of success... I believe you can be very successful as an individual, but this will be limited by your capacity. One person can go only so far (not that this is by any means insignificant e.g. PlentyOfFish apparently serves millions of uniques and earns US$10,000 per day with a staff of one). "Singles" will inevitably hit a glass ceiling where they will need more resources if they want to break through. The secret to continuing your initial success is ensuring that these additional resources can leverage off your initial good work AND add value of their own in excess of the complexity added/strain they place on you and your new "organisation". Far easier said than done.

agentbleu 18y ago

;) I ran a startup for 7 years, was very successful, but as a single founder, I understand fully the problems and concerns of PG et al. My biz (electronic products design/manufacturing/distribution) was very demanding, maybe / (shouldbe) a software company will be less so. In which case the rules change? Im hoping....