4 ms·

Yes and it's going mainstream. Starting a company is so cheap and fast now that it doesn't even take a team of 2 or 3 anymore. A single person can do it. There

Yes and it's going mainstream. Starting a company is so cheap and fast now that it doesn't even take a team of 2 or 3 anymore. A single person can do it. There are so many benefits to solo-founding, it's not even funny. Without co-founders, there's no delay in getting started. There's no drama. The development cycle is fast and the code can be remarkably clean. Personally, I make changes to my production code all the time because the whole thing is in my head and I know what effect my changes will have. (And if I screw something up, I know how to fix it in minutes, not hours.) With a team, that's simply not possible. Investors are going to wake up to this reality soon and accelerators will trip over each other to claim to be the "accelerator of solo founders". Corollary to this, MBAs and other non-tech types are screwed in the years to come. Engineers won't need them anymore. 1. Make a product. 2. Get some baseline traction. 3. Join an accelerator or raise a seed round, if you need it. 4. Hire the founding team. 5. Profit.

jacquesm 12y ago
One small problem: co-founders make you stronger. You are your own single point of failure. For many customers that makes you a no-go zone.
- semperfaux 12y ago
  "Co-founders make you stronger" is a questionable generalization. Cofounders add a lot of things, both positive and negative, and as long as you and (each of) your cofounder(s) have vital skills/resources that are unique in the group, you now have multiple "single points of failure." Yes, cofounders can contribute bandwidth, skills, connections, and all sorts of other positive things. They can also contribute friction, disagreement, and various other negative things. It's not a cut and dry benefit.
  - getsat 12y ago
    Reminds me of remote working. Some people claim it's bad, some people claim it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. There's pros and cons to each. People build successful companies with both methodologies.
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  Co-founders make you stronger, co-founders make you weaker. There are plenty of examples of both. There are examples for every narrative. There are no absolutes in startup success.
- trevelyan 12y ago
  As a solo-founder, I've never run into a customer that cared how many people were involved in my company. Once you get to the point that things look professional, most just assume you aren't running the company out of your apartment. Maybe this matters more for sales-intensive B2B startups though.
  - hueving 12y ago
    If you are selling anything mission critical like infrastructure, being a one-man shop with nobody to provide support when you get a bad bout of diarrhea is a no go.
    - trevelyan 12y ago
      But honestly... is it? In my experience, if you have a good brand image and a track record, people just assume you have contingency plans, lots of funding and/or a second programmer on staff.
- api 12y ago
  Cofounders with good relationship > sole founder >> cofounders with poor relationship or other issues.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Yes, absolutely.
    - api 12y ago
      In retrospect the second comparison is more like >>>>>>!!!!!!! Founder conflicts are death.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Not always, been there, done that. But they can definitely rob you of momentum when you need it most.
getsat 12y ago
Along these lines, are there any accelerators/funds willing to fund a solo founder? If not, this seems like a good opportunity for a company which can quantify the risk of solo founders.

jacquesm 12y ago

One small problem: co-founders make you stronger. You are your own single point of failure. For many customers that makes you a no-go zone.

semperfaux 12y ago
"Co-founders make you stronger" is a questionable generalization. Cofounders add a lot of things, both positive and negative, and as long as you and (each of) your cofounder(s) have vital skills/resources that are unique in the group, you now have multiple "single points of failure." Yes, cofounders can contribute bandwidth, skills, connections, and all sorts of other positive things. They can also contribute friction, disagreement, and various other negative things. It's not a cut and dry benefit.
- getsat 12y ago
  Reminds me of remote working. Some people claim it's bad, some people claim it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. There's pros and cons to each. People build successful companies with both methodologies.
onewaystreet 12y ago
Co-founders make you stronger, co-founders make you weaker. There are plenty of examples of both. There are examples for every narrative. There are no absolutes in startup success.
trevelyan 12y ago
As a solo-founder, I've never run into a customer that cared how many people were involved in my company. Once you get to the point that things look professional, most just assume you aren't running the company out of your apartment. Maybe this matters more for sales-intensive B2B startups though.
- hueving 12y ago
  If you are selling anything mission critical like infrastructure, being a one-man shop with nobody to provide support when you get a bad bout of diarrhea is a no go.
  - trevelyan 12y ago
    But honestly... is it? In my experience, if you have a good brand image and a track record, people just assume you have contingency plans, lots of funding and/or a second programmer on staff.
api 12y ago
Cofounders with good relationship > sole founder >> cofounders with poor relationship or other issues.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Yes, absolutely.
  - api 12y ago
    In retrospect the second comparison is more like >>>>>>!!!!!!! Founder conflicts are death.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Not always, been there, done that. But they can definitely rob you of momentum when you need it most.

getsat 12y ago

Along these lines, are there any accelerators/funds willing to fund a solo founder? If not, this seems like a good opportunity for a company which can quantify the risk of solo founders.