Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Don't Need A Co-Founder

publicbeta.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder

#11

Post by illumen »

Major_Grooves wrote: post #6

A very familiar scenario for me. As a solo non-technical founder I've so far build my startup using funding via Seedrs (crowd equity funding in the UK) and contractors in the UK and Russia. I got some decent VC interest, but they all say they will only invest if I have a technical co-founder. Hence, I go off spending 50% of my time looking for a co-founder. It's like deciding that within 2 months you need to find you…

Why not go with the contractor? You already have a decent working relationship.

Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder

#12

Post by kaa2102 »

ccozan wrote: post #3

So, the takeaway from the article is: don't co-found with someone technical, hire/outsource them. Well, I could say: good luck! You either get some half-assed solution or something ( if you oursource ) you don't even asked for, because they didn't understand your business requirements ( because of the language, distance, culture, etc). Don't fall for this. Really, get yourself a technical co-founder. Amaze him. You c…

A lot of people seem to be sold on the group of founders theory of start ups. Jeff Bezos hired programmers to develop Amazon. I would argue that start ups are not about exceptions or rules - it's about getting your product in the customers hands by any means necessary.

Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder

#13

Post by ccozan »

adii wrote: post #5
ccozan wrote: post #3

So, the takeaway from the article is: don't co-found with someone technical, hire/outsource them. Well, I could say: good luck! You either get some half-assed solution or something ( if you oursource ) you don't even asked for, because they didn't understand your business requirements ( because of the language, distance, culture, etc). Don't fall for this. Really, get yourself a technical co-founder. Amaze him. You c…

I've done both and I can definitely attest that outsourcing the technical bits of your new startup is beyond tricky. It is however not impossible. The point here is that taking a technical co-founder onboard isn't your only option; it's totally possible for you to get to V1 (by outsourcing technical tasks), generate initial revenue and hiring a developer (with some equity) instead (as an example).

Of course. There is also the third solution. With the vast amount of internet resources (think stackoverflow, etc) it possible for a founder to get to a alpha version 100% on his own. It is cheaper and sometimes more effective, because of missing managing overhead and lack of communication errors.

But in the end, yes, you have to deal with the dillema: hire or take someone on board, share the responsability and the earnings.

Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder

#14

Post by logicallee »

This writer misses one of the most important issue, which would be under his heading "Validation". Validation isn't (just) internal! It's not that you (necessarily) need convincing your 'idea' is any good.

Validation is external. The fact that two people are both working on something makes 'something' 1000x more real than if some guy is working on it.

There's always going to be information asymmetry between internal and external: the fact is, if there are two people on the inside, that is one of the strongest signals (to people on the outside, who have limited exposure to the low-level progress) that there is something there.

If it's just some guy saying, "Hey I've been building x for the past y" that is a very weak signal.

I might even go as far as saying, "The only time you can afford not to have a cofounder is when you can make it all the way to completed product + substantial revenue without having to convince anyone of anything about the future of your business."

Anyone includes but is not limited to: employees, partners, your parents, your spouse, and, of course - Investors!

If you never need to convince anyone of the future of your project, until it's incorporated, profitable, making payroll - then you might do it alone. But for 99% of us, this does not apply, and a cofounder is one of the best signals around for sharing internal state of validation.

Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder

#15

Post by IsaacL »

My opinion is that it really depends on the individual, especially their motivation and focus. Some people are cut out to be solo founders, most aren't. When I tried working on projects alone, I tended to get distracted easily. Partnering with a finisher has helped me get things done.

Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder

#16

Post by bachback »

[deleted] wrote: post #10
bachback wrote: post #7

Solo founders are rare for a reason. If you just hire people to do a job, why would the most talented people work for you? Doesn't make much sense in most cases if the founder has not already a lot of capital. I would say increasing the odds of success is much more valuable than getting a higher payout in the success case (expected value = chance * payout). On the other hand, it is hard to find the people who have ve…

[deleted]

I don't think so. It really depends on the leverage that the sole founder has. If he can bootstrap and has very high Return on Equity, he doesn't need capital. I think the point is really that there is very little reason not to give early employees a good chunk of capital, because it is requirement to work hard. The author of the article bootstrapped a business, but that's not necessarily the same as a high growth startup.

Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder

#17

Post by samsonasu »

I've been objectively successful as a single founder over the past few years, so its definitely possible. I've hired, fired, pivoted, and made more money than I made mistakes but I always felt the lack of a cofounder has been holding me back.

There is only so much emotional weight I can offload onto my amazing wife, and although some of the people I've worked with (contractors, clients) have made amazing contributions - technical, business, ideas, and emotional - at the end of the day I can't shake the fact that I'm alone. I bear all the responsibly for my mistakes and all the rewards of my successes, and even though I've been lucky to have more of the latter the emotional toll of the rollercoaster has been tremendous. When your wife or parent tells you you're doing great or that everything will be OK it helps, but the impact is diminished because of course they are going to support you.

My most successful (although not my most profitable) projects have been collaborations with other talented people both technical and nontechnical, and while the author is certainly correct that a cofounder isn't necessary, I would think long and hard doing anything alone.

Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder

#18

Post by bachback »

logicallee wrote: post #14

This writer misses one of the most important issue, which would be under his heading "Validation". Validation isn't (just) internal! It's not that you (necessarily) need convincing your 'idea' is any good. Validation is external. The fact that two people are both working on something makes 'something' 1000x more real than if some guy is working on it. There's always going to be information asymmetry between internal…

good point! If it's just one person it is much more likely that he/she is not realistic.

Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder

#19

Post by ccozan »

kaa2102 wrote: post #12
ccozan wrote: post #3

So, the takeaway from the article is: don't co-found with someone technical, hire/outsource them. Well, I could say: good luck! You either get some half-assed solution or something ( if you oursource ) you don't even asked for, because they didn't understand your business requirements ( because of the language, distance, culture, etc). Don't fall for this. Really, get yourself a technical co-founder. Amaze him. You c…

A lot of people seem to be sold on the group of founders theory of start ups. Jeff Bezos hired programmers to develop Amazon. I would argue that start ups are not about exceptions or rules - it's about getting your product in the customers hands by any means necessary.

I agree, but this only works if you are damn experienced and really know both worlds: business and technical. Read Bezos' biography ( on wikipedia ) and you will know what I mean.

Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder

#20

Post by [deleted] »

bachback wrote: post #18
logicallee wrote: post #14

This writer misses one of the most important issue, which would be under his heading "Validation". Validation isn't (just) internal! It's not that you (necessarily) need convincing your 'idea' is any good. Validation is external. The fact that two people are both working on something makes 'something' 1000x more real than if some guy is working on it. There's always going to be information asymmetry between internal…

good point! If it's just one person it is much more likely that he/she is not realistic.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN