Comments on: The Co-Founder Myth: Why You Might Not Need One, Especially in NYC http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/ Building a community of entrepreneurs Thu, 17 May 2012 16:47:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Avishai http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-245 Avishai Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:06:00 +0000 http://foundersblock.com/?p=461#comment-245 Great article and in-depth analysis. Although it kind of sucks to have to do everything yourself, I am in favor of just starting anyway, even if you haven't met a good cofounder yet.  Great article and in-depth analysis. Although it kind of sucks to have to do everything yourself, I am in favor of just starting anyway, even if you haven’t met a good cofounder yet. 

]]> By: Bernard Moon http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-61 Bernard Moon Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:19:18 +0000 http://foundersblock.com/?p=461#comment-61 I believe you're seeding a destructive message here for startups and new entrepreneurs. Sort like teaching a minor league baseball player the wrong hitting stance as he's trying to make it to the bigs. Not's just about saving equity or making things easier in not looking for a co-founder, but trying to increase your chances of success.<br><br>There are various studies that have tracked the probability of success of technology startups over the past decades, such as MIT's Edward Roberts. The success rate exponentially jumps from one person to two people, and then continues to increase to three and four people. It's been a while since I read these studies, but I believe it flatlines after 4 founders. How many tech titans do you know that were started by one person? Even mid-sized tech company started by one person?<br><br>There is a reason why the recent trend of tech incubators prefer teams of at least two people and why prominent long-time VCs, such as John Doerr, focused on the "team". Some random links related to this:<br><br>John Doerr's Startup Manual<br><a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/07/082doerr.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/07/082doerr...</a><br><br>Why to Not Not Start a Startup<br><a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html</a><br><br>Ron Conway and Paul Graham startup success data<br><a href="http://www.tobeanentrepreneur.com/blog/ron-conway-and-paul-graham-startup-success-data/" rel="nofollow">http://www.tobeanentrepreneur.com/blog/ron-conw...</a> I believe you're seeding a destructive message here for startups and new entrepreneurs. Sort like teaching a minor league baseball player the wrong hitting stance as he's trying to make it to the bigs. Not's just about saving equity or making things easier in not looking for a co-founder, but trying to increase your chances of success.

There are various studies that have tracked the probability of success of technology startups over the past decades, such as MIT's Edward Roberts. The success rate exponentially jumps from one person to two people, and then continues to increase to three and four people. It's been a while since I read these studies, but I believe it flatlines after 4 founders. How many tech titans do you know that were started by one person? Even mid-sized tech company started by one person?

There is a reason why the recent trend of tech incubators prefer teams of at least two people and why prominent long-time VCs, such as John Doerr, focused on the “team”. Some random links related to this:

John Doerr's Startup Manual
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/07/082doerr...

Why to Not Not Start a Startup
http://www.paulgraham.com/notnot.html

Ron Conway and Paul Graham startup success data
http://www.tobeanentrepreneur.com/blog/ron-conw...

]]> By: Sam Jackson http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-54 Sam Jackson Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:20:51 +0000 http://foundersblock.com/?p=461#comment-54 Awesome analysis and figures here - and a great site too, it looks like. (Discovered via HN).<br><br>I am not starting a company (at the moment), but coming from my experiences dealing with school / home on the East Coast, and then summers out West, I can definitely see the difference and the difficulties that arise in trying to find technical talent. This said, I love my hometown (Boston) and would want to be there, instead of Silicon Valley. I think I would have some valuable business reasons for that, as well, above and beyond mere preference.<br><br>Those factors aside - as someone who is business-oriented but is passionate about technology, and can speak fluently (or passably) on all manner of technical subjects, I think that I could get fairly far without needing someone on board from the start for technical reasons. It would definitely depend on what the project was, obviously. The next Google will probably call for more skill than my basic front-end fluency and ability to write super basic Python apps, no matter how much launching and iterating I do. I would love to have technical who shared my passions and with whom I could work to build something up. That's why I make lots of friends with engineers while I have these summer internships out in San Francisco : )<br><br>Ultimately, people should try to follow their dreams and passions, and if they don't have a cofounder from the start wit the technical focus to make that happen, they should try to forge ahead! Awesome analysis and figures here – and a great site too, it looks like. (Discovered via HN).

I am not starting a company (at the moment), but coming from my experiences dealing with school / home on the East Coast, and then summers out West, I can definitely see the difference and the difficulties that arise in trying to find technical talent. This said, I love my hometown (Boston) and would want to be there, instead of Silicon Valley. I think I would have some valuable business reasons for that, as well, above and beyond mere preference.

Those factors aside – as someone who is business-oriented but is passionate about technology, and can speak fluently (or passably) on all manner of technical subjects, I think that I could get fairly far without needing someone on board from the start for technical reasons. It would definitely depend on what the project was, obviously. The next Google will probably call for more skill than my basic front-end fluency and ability to write super basic Python apps, no matter how much launching and iterating I do. I would love to have technical who shared my passions and with whom I could work to build something up. That's why I make lots of friends with engineers while I have these summer internships out in San Francisco : )

Ultimately, people should try to follow their dreams and passions, and if they don't have a cofounder from the start wit the technical focus to make that happen, they should try to forge ahead!

]]> By: giffc http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-52 giffc Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:10:04 +0000 http://foundersblock.com/?p=461#comment-52 Well it works both ways - a technical genius benefits by being paired up with someone who can design products and drive customer development. I know some people get their start by outsourcing a prototype, but initial ideas are usually wrong and you need a team that can work together to iterate to success. The odds are very against that with outsourcing. <br><br>Co-founder does not have to mean equal split, but it does mean a strong sense of ownership and a partner mentality where everyone leverages each other's strengths in the fight to beat the odds. 100% ownership of nothing is nothing. Well it works both ways – a technical genius benefits by being paired up with someone who can design products and drive customer development. I know some people get their start by outsourcing a prototype, but initial ideas are usually wrong and you need a team that can work together to iterate to success. The odds are very against that with outsourcing.

Co-founder does not have to mean equal split, but it does mean a strong sense of ownership and a partner mentality where everyone leverages each other's strengths in the fight to beat the odds. 100% ownership of nothing is nothing.

]]> By: mayava http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-51 mayava Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:56:51 +0000 http://foundersblock.com/?p=461#comment-51 Totally agreed. In the post, I state that businesses that can leverage existing platforms (i.e. consumer-facing web-based startups like SheFinds) probably shouldn't give up equity for a technical co-founder. Obviously, if you're trying to solve a tough engineering problem or build a platform, you will need technical talent. However, you might not necessarily need this guy right away. It may be possible to get a quick prototype built, either by hiring developers or hacking it together yourself, in order to gain some traction to attract talent. After all, the harder the engineering problem, the rarer the technical co-founder who can competently build it with you. Totally agreed. In the post, I state that businesses that can leverage existing platforms (i.e. consumer-facing web-based startups like SheFinds) probably shouldn't give up equity for a technical co-founder. Obviously, if you're trying to solve a tough engineering problem or build a platform, you will need technical talent. However, you might not necessarily need this guy right away. It may be possible to get a quick prototype built, either by hiring developers or hacking it together yourself, in order to gain some traction to attract talent. After all, the harder the engineering problem, the rarer the technical co-founder who can competently build it with you.

]]> By: giffc http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-50 giffc Thu, 05 Aug 2010 04:10:17 +0000 http://foundersblock.com/?p=461#comment-50 I'm really down on this whole single founder meme, especially for tech heavy startups (of which SheFinds, while cool, is not). Entrepreneurship is really hard, and your odds are significantly better if you can share the workload with someone else, if you have someone trusted to deliberate and debate with, and if you have two people that can support each other during tough times.<br><br> Yes it is better to start by yourself than sit around waiting, and yes it is better to go solo than work with someone you dont fully trust, but it would lead people down a bad path to glorify single-founder startups. I'm really down on this whole single founder meme, especially for tech heavy startups (of which SheFinds, while cool, is not). Entrepreneurship is really hard, and your odds are significantly better if you can share the workload with someone else, if you have someone trusted to deliberate and debate with, and if you have two people that can support each other during tough times.

Yes it is better to start by yourself than sit around waiting, and yes it is better to go solo than work with someone you dont fully trust, but it would lead people down a bad path to glorify single-founder startups.

]]> By: mayava http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-48 mayava Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:39:17 +0000 http://foundersblock.com/?p=461#comment-48 Thanks for your perspective, Paul. Most of the comments I've been getting from investors has been more in favor of technical single founders, perhaps because NYC is exploding with businesspeople with ideas and no one to build their technology. Seems to me that if a startup is consumer-facing and existing platforms exist, a seller would be an excellent single founder. If a startup is trying to build disruptive infrastructure and/or solve an engineering problem, that's where a technical co-founder is an absolute must. Thanks for your perspective, Paul. Most of the comments I've been getting from investors has been more in favor of technical single founders, perhaps because NYC is exploding with businesspeople with ideas and no one to build their technology. Seems to me that if a startup is consumer-facing and existing platforms exist, a seller would be an excellent single founder. If a startup is trying to build disruptive infrastructure and/or solve an engineering problem, that's where a technical co-founder is an absolute must.

]]> By: Paul Heath http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-47 Paul Heath Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:28:42 +0000 http://foundersblock.com/?p=461#comment-47 I was the CTO in my own startup of 5 years, but I do believe the single founder is possible if they are the business person (seller). The caveat being to find a really good tech partner to work with, and that business relationship is setup to align interests - hence avoiding the meltdown.<br><br>As long as the seller is getting paying customers, any issues that do arise are more easily washed away. Getting funding in this scenario will most likely be based on a working product and paying customers, otherwise the founder will need to bootstrap: <a href="http://blog.submitmy.info/2010/03/web-startup-bootstrap-1/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.submitmy.info/2010/03/web-startup-b...</a> I was the CTO in my own startup of 5 years, but I do believe the single founder is possible if they are the business person (seller). The caveat being to find a really good tech partner to work with, and that business relationship is setup to align interests – hence avoiding the meltdown.

As long as the seller is getting paying customers, any issues that do arise are more easily washed away. Getting funding in this scenario will most likely be based on a working product and paying customers, otherwise the founder will need to bootstrap: http://blog.submitmy.info/2010/03/web-startup-b...

]]> By: ME http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-46 ME Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:48:27 +0000 http://foundersblock.com/?p=461#comment-46 Investors push for multiple founders so they can divide & conquer more easily. Period. Investors push for multiple founders so they can divide & conquer more easily. Period.

]]>