4 ms·

Perhaps I should rephrase this. The odds of getting onto the NYT as an author is the probably the same as creating the next billion dollar company. And I think

Perhaps I should rephrase this. The odds of getting onto the NYT as an author is the probably the same as creating the next billion dollar company. And I think the ease of technology has gone down so much that the amount of effort it takes in writing a book is almost the same as writing a basic web app. So, if productivity gain has improved so dramatically, perhaps we should question our decades old assumptions. It's easy to bring up example like Steve Jobs and Wozniak. But creating a web app nowadays is considerably easier than building the first PC. Even marketing is easier now. So, why is it that we still hold the same belief about starting companies?

aclimatt 14y ago
> And I think the ease of technology has gone down so much that the amount of effort it takes in writing a book is almost the same as writing a basic web app. That I agree with. Well, I agree as much as I can, because I haven't written a book, but I have written a few web apps (and have started a company). Let's say for the sake of discussion they're reasonably similar, even if perhaps they aren't. Yes, creating technology is a lot easier than it used to be. Marketing is probably easier as well. But I don't believe whatsoever that building a web app is the same as building a billion dollar business. There are a few examples of business which got lucky, fine, but having started a startup myself, I can say (in line with many others, pg included) that running a company is so much different -- and so much more difficult -- than just hacking up a web app. Steering a company to massive success requires so many difficult decisions and skills that often have nothing to do with your core competencies (unless you're one of those mythical creatures who can 'do it all'), that you need the support of at least one other person who is either A) better at it than you are, or B) can work together with you to figure out how. Those mythical creatures are the 11% in the pie chart, but the other 89% of us need more manpower behind the wheel. Whipping up a Rails app in a weekend is not the same as running a company.
- liquimoon 14y ago
  The hardest part of starting up is at the beginning. I think once you raise lots of money and have reached product market fit, whether you have a cofounder is not all that important. Yet, the solo founder discrimination starts at the beginning stage. Sure, there is data to back it up. But the sample size is small to begin with given how reluctant they are at funding solo founders. I think the biggest reason is probably once past YC, VC and other investors don't fund solo founders. It's really hard to break the conventional wisdom that all the large companies are started by a team. What I am trying to point out is that this conventional wisdom is deeply rooted in a time when the cost of starting up is very high. So, the real question is if you can build a prototype, gain traction and make revenue, why is it still frown upon that you are a solo founder.
  - aclimatt 14y ago
    > So, the real question is if you can build a prototype, gain traction and make revenue, why is it still frown upon that you are a solo founder. I believe the reason is because the odds of you taking this product and turning it into a company are less in your favor than if you had others to consult in your business practices. It's less about "startup cost" and more about having two or more heads in the problem space. There's a reason that critical applications often have multiple people running the show -- it's too easy to make a mistake and it usually requires more than one head to get right. It's not impossible, just hard. So from an investor's perspective, think of it this way: You're approached by 10 companies. (Or in YC's case, hundreds.) Many of them have a "prototype, traction, and revenue". They all look reasonably appealing. So which do you choose? The ones with multiple very smart founders? Or the ones with a single smart founder? Which of those will be more successful? Which will be able to more effectively hunker down around the whiteboard and come up with some new brilliant ideas when the times get tough? OK, how about a harder one: You have one company with a bunch of smart founders but only a concept, and you have another company with one founder but a "prototype, traction, and revenue". Now which do you choose? This gets more difficult, but I'd argue the former choice will have a better chance at success, given equal capability of the founders. The former has validation in the form of N people believing in their company, and the latter has real customer validation. But the former has better /potential/ in terms of coming up with something valuable, whereas the latter has more potential to fail at scaling their business. This of course depends on a lot of factors though, and maybe the latter's prowess in building a prototype, gaining traction, and making revenue is convincing enough that they can make it through the long haul. Case in point though is that for a VC, it's a numbers game. And with all else being equal, if you can invest in 4 smart people instead of 1, your odds of return are higher. Also, to your first point, after you're making real revenue and/or have funding, nobody cares about how many "co-founders" you have. This is true. They care instead about how many people are on your team. Ends up really just being a semantic distinction based on your company stage :P.
Alex3917 14y ago
"The odds of getting onto the NYT as an author is the probably the same as creating the next billion dollar company." It's actually fairly straightforward if you know how to game the list. You need to put in a ton of time though and still get a bit lucky, so for most authors it's not really worth trying. (And of course most books weren't written to be best sellers, nor could they be because they're on esoteric topics or written to solve some obscure emotional need of the author.)

aclimatt 14y ago

> And I think the ease of technology has gone down so much that the amount of effort it takes in writing a book is almost the same as writing a basic web app. That I agree with. Well, I agree as much as I can, because I haven't written a book, but I have written a few web apps (and have started a company). Let's say for the sake of discussion they're reasonably similar, even if perhaps they aren't. Yes, creating technology is a lot easier than it used to be. Marketing is probably easier as well. But I don't believe whatsoever that building a web app is the same as building a billion dollar business. There are a few examples of business which got lucky, fine, but having started a startup myself, I can say (in line with many others, pg included) that running a company is so much different -- and so much more difficult -- than just hacking up a web app. Steering a company to massive success requires so many difficult decisions and skills that often have nothing to do with your core competencies (unless you're one of those mythical creatures who can 'do it all'), that you need the support of at least one other person who is either A) better at it than you are, or B) can work together with you to figure out how. Those mythical creatures are the 11% in the pie chart, but the other 89% of us need more manpower behind the wheel. Whipping up a Rails app in a weekend is not the same as running a company.

liquimoon 14y ago
The hardest part of starting up is at the beginning. I think once you raise lots of money and have reached product market fit, whether you have a cofounder is not all that important. Yet, the solo founder discrimination starts at the beginning stage. Sure, there is data to back it up. But the sample size is small to begin with given how reluctant they are at funding solo founders. I think the biggest reason is probably once past YC, VC and other investors don't fund solo founders. It's really hard to break the conventional wisdom that all the large companies are started by a team. What I am trying to point out is that this conventional wisdom is deeply rooted in a time when the cost of starting up is very high. So, the real question is if you can build a prototype, gain traction and make revenue, why is it still frown upon that you are a solo founder.
- aclimatt 14y ago
  > So, the real question is if you can build a prototype, gain traction and make revenue, why is it still frown upon that you are a solo founder. I believe the reason is because the odds of you taking this product and turning it into a company are less in your favor than if you had others to consult in your business practices. It's less about "startup cost" and more about having two or more heads in the problem space. There's a reason that critical applications often have multiple people running the show -- it's too easy to make a mistake and it usually requires more than one head to get right. It's not impossible, just hard. So from an investor's perspective, think of it this way: You're approached by 10 companies. (Or in YC's case, hundreds.) Many of them have a "prototype, traction, and revenue". They all look reasonably appealing. So which do you choose? The ones with multiple very smart founders? Or the ones with a single smart founder? Which of those will be more successful? Which will be able to more effectively hunker down around the whiteboard and come up with some new brilliant ideas when the times get tough? OK, how about a harder one: You have one company with a bunch of smart founders but only a concept, and you have another company with one founder but a "prototype, traction, and revenue". Now which do you choose? This gets more difficult, but I'd argue the former choice will have a better chance at success, given equal capability of the founders. The former has validation in the form of N people believing in their company, and the latter has real customer validation. But the former has better /potential/ in terms of coming up with something valuable, whereas the latter has more potential to fail at scaling their business. This of course depends on a lot of factors though, and maybe the latter's prowess in building a prototype, gaining traction, and making revenue is convincing enough that they can make it through the long haul. Case in point though is that for a VC, it's a numbers game. And with all else being equal, if you can invest in 4 smart people instead of 1, your odds of return are higher. Also, to your first point, after you're making real revenue and/or have funding, nobody cares about how many "co-founders" you have. This is true. They care instead about how many people are on your team. Ends up really just being a semantic distinction based on your company stage :P.

Alex3917 14y ago

"The odds of getting onto the NYT as an author is the probably the same as creating the next billion dollar company." It's actually fairly straightforward if you know how to game the list. You need to put in a ton of time though and still get a bit lucky, so for most authors it's not really worth trying. (And of course most books weren't written to be best sellers, nor could they be because they're on esoteric topics or written to solve some obscure emotional need of the author.)