3 ms·
>In fact, single founders + early team, which the single founder recruited. You're redefining terms. A founder is a founder. For example, you may try to call W
by macspoofing 14y ago
>In fact, single founders + early team, which the single founder recruited.
You're redefining terms. A founder is a founder. For example, you may try to call Wozniak an 'early employee' of Apple Computers and Steve Jobs the founder, but then you'd be playing with words. Both of them are universally acknowledged as founders.
- erichocean 14y agoThe simple approach is to look at equity allotments. If a single individual has 90% of the equity, it doesn't matter if there are 50 other people also with equity present and working at the inception of the business. That business has, exactly, one founder along with 50 early stage employees with equity stakes. AFAIK Steve and Woz had equal equity in Apple, and both were present at the founding of Apple (along with a third guy, who sold his stake back after a week). So, both are founders -- no word play necessary. There's nothing wrong with being an early stage employee, and we don't need to artificially inflate their worth by acting like they are founders, when the actual ownership facts indicate otherwise.
- macspoofing 14y agoYou're still playing with words. You're redefining what a founder is by saying that unless you have x% equity state, you're not. You're a founder if you're 'given' (or you take) the title of a founder, usually, but not always, at the inception (incorporation) of company. Yes this is a bit of a grey area, however if an individual uses that title in dealing with the press, investors and business, how do you go and say he's not?
- clarky07 14y agoI don't think he's talking about Apple. He's talking about places like Dropbox, where it was a lot more like a single founder + team than multiple founders, but PG and YC don't consider Dropbox to be single founder.