6 ms·

You missed the point of what pg said, in both spirit and semantics. Semantically, pg said that it's empirically difficult for one person to start a big company

by hooande 14y ago

You missed the point of what pg said, in both spirit and semantics. Semantically, pg said that it's empirically difficult for one person to start a big company on their own. This does not preclude the possibility of it happening. It's just rare. And his evidence is the fact that most large companies were started by multiple people. You may not like the implication, but his statement is factual. He was careful with his words and he's right. You also may have misinterpreted the spirit of what pg said. He didn't say that a cofounder was the only path to human happiness. He didn't say anything disparaging about single founders. He just said that most of the successful startups that he's seen have involve multiple people, without publicly taking an opinion for or against the issue. FWIW, pg's logic isn't entirely sound either. Saying "most of the successful startups I've seen have multiple founders" is no more valid than saying "Most of the corporate CEOs I've seen have been white males, therefore being a white male must be one of the criteria for success." It doesn't matter how many people are involved in the founding of a company. If it's the right idea at the right time with the right execution, things will be fine.

erichocean 14y ago
"started by multiple people" != multiple founders This, IMO, is the real problem with pg's "data". For example, I'm currently doing a startup. There are over ten people who are currently participating in one way or another. We even call them "founders", thus, when we grow large, pg would count us in the multiple founder column. But there's really only one founder, and that's me. I'm the only unreplaceable person in the company at this time, I worked for 10 years before I even got to the point of incorporating, and if I left to start something else, the company would immediately fold. I recruited every person, and could unilaterally let anyone go. It's my money and reputation on the line. I wrote the business plan, designed the product, and most importantly, identified the market and invented a way to reach it and fund the company during growth. In five years, yeah, I'll be able to move on without killing the company. But not now, not when it's still a startup. Dropbox was the same, and pg nevertheless counts it in the multi-founder column. Oh well, as I discussed in another comment, it's in YC's best interest to promote multi-founder companies even if it has zero effect on the outcome.
- infoseckid 14y ago
  "We even call them founders" .... "really only one founder, and that's me" - I think then you are really confusing the difference between "founding employees" and "company founder".
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

by hooande 14y ago

erichocean 14y ago

"started by multiple people" != multiple founders This, IMO, is the real problem with pg's "data". For example, I'm currently doing a startup. There are over ten people who are currently participating in one way or another. We even call them "founders", thus, when we grow large, pg would count us in the multiple founder column. But there's really only one founder, and that's me. I'm the only unreplaceable person in the company at this time, I worked for 10 years before I even got to the point of incorporating, and if I left to start something else, the company would immediately fold. I recruited every person, and could unilaterally let anyone go. It's my money and reputation on the line. I wrote the business plan, designed the product, and most importantly, identified the market and invented a way to reach it and fund the company during growth. In five years, yeah, I'll be able to move on without killing the company. But not now, not when it's still a startup. Dropbox was the same, and pg nevertheless counts it in the multi-founder column. Oh well, as I discussed in another comment, it's in YC's best interest to promote multi-founder companies even if it has zero effect on the outcome.

infoseckid 14y ago
"We even call them founders" .... "really only one founder, and that's me" - I think then you are really confusing the difference between "founding employees" and "company founder".
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]