Absolutely, DO NOT, get a co-founder! • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by rms » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 10:30 AM UTC

copenja wrote: post #60

BrandonM wrote: post #21

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 worki…

Getting along with a co-founder is nothing like getting along with a partner in a class project. I have friends that I worked great with in college. They all remain my dear friends, but... after years of hacking together, and literally hundreds of thousands of lines of code, sometimes you just don't see eye to eye.. I agree a co-founder is beneficial, but it is very different then just hacking a project out with a bu…

>Getting along with a co-founder is nothing like getting along with a partner in a class project.

The OP compares a good cofounder to a really good relationship... it is probably not a coincidence that "partner" applies both in the sexual/societal union sense and in the business sense.

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

#62

Post by Dauntless » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 11:10 AM UTC

BitGeek wrote: post #35

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 plane analogy doesn't work because dual engine planes are more reliable than single engine planes... unlike founding teams, engine can't decide that they want to go in different directions and engines are not insecure, ego driven, or prone to misunderstanding each other. Nor do engines have investors coming in sowing dissent between them. If you look at the empirical evidence, you will see that most successful co…

First, what dual engine and single engine planes have to do with PG's comparison? He was referring to the fact that if a component of a thing statically represents the number one problem (for example the car's engine breaking down), it doesn't mean you should remove that component (the engine).

Secondly, while I agree with you that if you planned everything by yourself and are willing to do it alone, you shouldn't just look for co-founder when you can start implementing by yourself with some employees. But I got to warn you that's pretty extreme and may get you looking like a 70 year old when you are 25 very fast, because of the exhaustion it causes to run a big venture by yourself.

I don't know statistics either and I would like to put [citation needed] everywhere I look on the internet but a two men team has more potential on the long run then an one man army because the two founders motivate each other, share problems and have a larger knowledge base to solve them, make it more fun and pleasing to work on a startup. I like your post because you raze awareness regarding the importance of having good cofounders. Anyway some people like to work alone one and they do it better that way, but I think most men might fall apart on such high pressure, especially if they don't have previous experience in making startups.

One more thing is that it's very hard to find good employees that are willing to work at a startup, even harder to pay them while you don't have any revenues in site.

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

#63

Post by davidw » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 11:22 AM UTC

sspencer wrote: post #11

I kind of wonder if there is a middle ground. There are two different posts on the front page right now: one deriding the idea of co-founders and one from someone desperately seeking a co-founder. My (worthless) advice is to let it happen naturally. Neither seek out a co-founder nor refuse co-founders who approach you. Just try to make friends with similar people who are interested in startups. Talk about ideas. It d…

This sounds like good advice to me. This YC requirement has led to something akin to "cargo cult cofounders" - getting someone else involved because it's "better that way". While I tend to think it is better to have one, it has to be the right person, not some random dude who you barely know. It's sort of a catch 22 in that it's got to be someone you've already known for a while when you start looking or discussing the idea of doing a company.

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

#64

Post by copenja » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 11:34 AM UTC

rms wrote: post #61

copenja wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting along with a co-founder is nothing like getting along with a partner in a class project. I have friends that I worked great with in college. They all remain my dear friends, but... after years of hacking together, and literally hundreds of thousands of lines of code, sometimes you just don't see eye to eye.. I agree a co-founder is beneficial, but it is very different then just hacking a project out with a bu…

>Getting along with a co-founder is nothing like getting along with a partner in a class project. The OP compares a good cofounder to a really good relationship... it is probably not a coincidence that "partner" applies both in the sexual/societal union sense and in the business sense.

Sorry I came off harsh.

I was not questioning whether a "really good relationship" was a good foundation for selecting a co-founder.

I was questioning whether a one night project signifies a "really good relationship".

It may or may not.

I think the OP had many great insights and I enjoyed reading his post.

Also, W3STS1D3 4 L1F3!!

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

#65

Post by jsmcgd » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 12:07 PM UTC

BitGeek wrote: post #35

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 plane analogy doesn't work because dual engine planes are more reliable than single engine planes... unlike founding teams, engine can't decide that they want to go in different directions and engines are not insecure, ego driven, or prone to misunderstanding each other. Nor do engines have investors coming in sowing dissent between them. If you look at the empirical evidence, you will see that most successful co…

Interestingly there is a saying amongst pilots that is: "The second engine flies you to the scene of the accident". I'm not sure if this works as a metaphor in this case.

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

#66

Post by robg » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 1:32 PM UTC

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 two opinions aren't mutually exclusive. I simply read you to say that co-founders are a trait of successful "startups". While here the opinion is that's a fine trait, but it isn't always necessary. To me, it's just an disagreement about necessary and sufficient conditions.

Paul, would you agree that a co-founder makes many things easier, but the right single founder can find that support structure through other means (e.g., spouse and a few core employees with significant stock)?

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

#67

Post by electric » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 1:41 PM UTC

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;…

"Successful single-founder startups are so rare that they're famous on that account."

Doesn't the same argument apply to successful_ startups founded by 20-somethings? I.e. they are famous because they are so rare.

_My definition of successful is taking the company public.

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

#68

Post by chaostheory » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 2:01 PM UTC

BitGeek wrote: post #41

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…

I think its kinda arrogant to say that founders are superior and thus its disparaging to call someone an employee. Employees should be highly valued. Inadvertantly you've highlighted another problem with having cofounders, especially in a startup- you have an intrinsic clique of inner circle people, the founders.

if you looked at my first reply you can see that I didn't disagree with your main idea(s) in the first post. I just didn't like the way you said it.

"I think its kinda arrogant to say that founders are superior..."

intentional or not given the semi-bitter tone of your main post, that's the impression that I thought you were trying to make

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

#69

Post by falsestprophet » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 3:02 PM UTC

staunch wrote: post #27

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.

I think the word visionary set against "not an implementor" may worry a lot of the people here. How many of you trust MBAs?

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

#70

Post by pg » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 3:21 PM UTC

electric wrote: post #67

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;…

"Successful single-founder startups are so rare that they're famous on that account." Doesn't the same argument apply to successful_ startups founded by 20-somethings? I.e. they are famous because they are so rare. _My definition of successful is taking the company public.

No. I would expect more successful (software) startups had 20-something founders than founders from any other decade.