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

Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 98 posts

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#21

Post by BrandonM »

I like the case you're making here, which mainly seems to be that if you're waiting around on a cofounder, you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Unless you already have a potential cofounder in mind, you may be opening yourself to other problems by trying to find one (delaying the project, working with someone who turns out to be not as good as hoped, etc.). So I have to agree that your advice to just start working anyways seems quite good.

That said, just tonight I was able to see what value a cofounder can have in a simple programming project for a class. I had an idea for a project, and he already had some ideas for how we could go about doing it (various machine vision algorithms). We then bounced various ideas off each other, came up with a good interface, argued a little bit about some small details, and came up with a good, shared-effort approach to tackle the problem at hand.

Having a "cofounder" in this case already has proven to have a few worthwhile benefits:

1. Shared knowledge leads to less time necessary in research

2. Ability to think out loud to someone besides yourself or a pet

3. Having to work with someone forces you to come up with decent interfaces for the pieces of code, leading to more modular, maintainable code than if you just jumped in single-handedly.

4. The work is shared (duh :-)

5. If I don't feel like working on the code the day before our planned meeting, that's too bad. I'm still going to have to do it or look like an ass the next day.

Maybe point number 5 is the biggest one. Inevitably, there will be stupid little stuff which is part of the project that you just don't want to do. Having someone to face at the end of the day may just be that little bit of extra motivation you need.

Of course, it's still possible to do much of this stuff on your own. Being able to leverage open source libraries helps with 1 and 4, so if you can handle 2 3 and 5 on your own, then you can probably do it without a cofounder.

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#22

Post by Mistone »

richi wrote: post #9

not having a cofounder can be used as an excuse for not starting anything at all. it's probably better to start and take action. that might be the best strategy to attract the right cofounder anyway.

this is very well said, the single biggest determent of a startups success is product/market fit, not team (i.e co-founder)

(see:The Only thing that Matters: http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/06/the-pmarca-gu-2.html).

If you've got a solid idea you need to push it forward, not having a perfect co-founder right away is a lame "go or no go" decider.

Pitch constantly, get out of your apartment, and scour your networks for co-founder prospects, sooner or later you going to cross paths with someone that believes in your vision and has skills/experience/connections that will add significant value to your business.

To me, its go forward and keep things moving - and be aware that this needs to be bigger than you and teammates help you achieve that.

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#23

Post by neilk »

pg wrote: post #18

The fact that most plane crashes are due to engine failure doesn't mean planes shouldn't have engines. All you have to do is look at the empirical evidence. Successful single-founder startups are so rare that they're famous on that account. I'm not saying that having a cofounder is so important that you should take someone lame, or someone you don't know well. Maybe if you can't find a cofounder you're just screwed;…

The OP is saying that there should be a single person who has final authority. Is this incompatible with having multiple founders?

I can imagine a Kirk-Spock sort of startup, where one person excels at making decisions and doing the legwork, and another at providing information and skills.

I suppose, in practice, few people can trust someone else to make all the decisions, especially if it's their future on the line. What's your experience been?

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#24

Post by amichail »

pg wrote: post #18

The fact that most plane crashes are due to engine failure doesn't mean planes shouldn't have engines. All you have to do is look at the empirical evidence. Successful single-founder startups are so rare that they're famous on that account. I'm not saying that having a cofounder is so important that you should take someone lame, or someone you don't know well. Maybe if you can't find a cofounder you're just screwed;…

What about for Facebook apps?

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#25

Post by pg »

neilk wrote: post #23
pg wrote: post #18

The fact that most plane crashes are due to engine failure doesn't mean planes shouldn't have engines. All you have to do is look at the empirical evidence. Successful single-founder startups are so rare that they're famous on that account. I'm not saying that having a cofounder is so important that you should take someone lame, or someone you don't know well. Maybe if you can't find a cofounder you're just screwed;…

The OP is saying that there should be a single person who has final authority. Is this incompatible with having multiple founders? I can imagine a Kirk-Spock sort of startup, where one person excels at making decisions and doing the legwork, and another at providing information and skills. I suppose, in practice, few people can trust someone else to make all the decisions, especially if it's their future on the line.…

When there are multiple founders, there's usually one who is a bit more driven than the others. Usually if you had to send an email to just one person at the company, you'd know instinctively who to send it to. But it's rare in a successful startup for anyone to have final authority. In a good startup, the founders generally seem to operate by consensus.

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#26

Post by omouse »

neilk wrote: post #23
pg wrote: post #18

The fact that most plane crashes are due to engine failure doesn't mean planes shouldn't have engines. All you have to do is look at the empirical evidence. Successful single-founder startups are so rare that they're famous on that account. I'm not saying that having a cofounder is so important that you should take someone lame, or someone you don't know well. Maybe if you can't find a cofounder you're just screwed;…

The OP is saying that there should be a single person who has final authority. Is this incompatible with having multiple founders? I can imagine a Kirk-Spock sort of startup, where one person excels at making decisions and doing the legwork, and another at providing information and skills. I suppose, in practice, few people can trust someone else to make all the decisions, especially if it's their future on the line.…

Is this incompatible with having multiple founders?

I should hope not. There has to be a unified vision of some sort. I'd like to point everyone in the direction of the Fred Brooks presentation from OOPSLA: http://www.oopsla.org/podcasts/Keynote_FrederickBrooks.mp3

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#27

Post by staunch »

senthil wrote: post #8

RailsFactory is a Ruby on Rails development shop based in Chennai, India. when you are a very small startup, and self funded, you just need to make 2-3 bad moves to go into bankruptcy and closure. Startups have its Eureka moments and frustrating times I consider myself more of a visionary than a implementer, I get into high energy mode in short bursts, but my partner keeps our company sane. I find my co-Founder a gre…

Why is this post is at -3? It may be a little rough (non-native English presumably) but it's totally on topic and not spammy.

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#28

Post by [deleted] »

chaostheory wrote: post #15

i think the title is misleading. "Sure, its better to have more than one person in the company... and feel free to call your second thru fourth employees 'co-founders' or give them 'founders stock'... whatever." it's alright to have co-founders as long as everyone agrees that at the end of the day one co-founder has the final say no matter what, though I don't think it's necessary to be disparaging and think of them…

[deleted]

Re: Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder!

#30

Post by staunch »

wyday wrote: post #19
myoung8 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this wasn't started by just one person, though. granted evan finished it by himself, proving the point below about co-founders leaving.

I think brett was suggesting rambling, angry, posts are better suited for a blog.

Something I disagree with. This site is part social news and part forum. This is a forum-style post. Fits right in.
Post reply on HN