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

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

#91

Post by greendestiny » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 8:50 PM UTC

BitGeek wrote: post #87

greendestiny wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen statistics on single founder vs multiple founder startups. I'm not sure if there are any, or the massive biases they would exhibit because most startups die without ever leaving a trace. Most of the companies you've worked for had multiple founders - to be get big enough to hire someone is a measure of success. I think history likes to write stories about single men of vision - especially in the establ…

actually, most of the companies I've worked for were started by an individual, and most of the successful ones were as well. But my point is that there has to be someone in charge. You can have "cofounders" so long as they know that the buck stops with you. (Or you can be a cofounder so long as you know the buck stops with someone.)

"almost all of them founded by more than one person"

You can see why I might get that impression...

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

#92

Post by pg » Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 10:04 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…

Leadership by consensus does not work, as anyone who has belonged to a high school club or organization knows.

Worked for us at Viaweb and Y Combinator. Works for most of the 58 startups we've funded.

And btw, you're misinterpreting my analogy about the plane, but I'm out of stock on "no, what I meant was" so I'll leave it as an exercise for readers who care to figure out how.

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

#93

Post by mattmaroon » Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 6:14 AM UTC

jsmcgd wrote: post #65

BitGeek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That must not be a very common saying because Google didn't return anything for it but this.

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

#94

Post by Shorel » Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 1:48 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 answer is obvious: you need to find your Wozniak to help you start your company.

Anything short of a Wozniak will not do it.

Anyone in disagreement can go and ask Jobs.

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

#95

Post by eusman » Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 2:57 PM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #93

jsmcgd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That must not be a very common saying because Google didn't return anything for it but this.

maybe Google likes me better: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+second+engine+f...

from http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/multi.html

Q: In an underpowered twin, what is the role of the second engine?

A: It doubles your chance of engine failure, and it will fly you to the scene of the accident.

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

#96

Post by pocketofposies » Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 5:47 PM UTC

BitGeek wrote: post #88

For instance, look at plentyoffish.com Not only did this guy not get a cofounder, he has never gotten any employees. He's making millions by himself, a total solo effort. In fact there area lot of examples out there of people doing this... many of them are of the professional blogging/seo/domainer variety. What people on here would deride as "lifestyle businesses" (Personally I don't think you get to deride someone's…

Great post and I completely agree.

I am of the opinion that the ability to quickly make a decision and get everyone behind it is often more important than the decision itself. A "wrong" decision can be corrected if there is a concerted focus while even a "right" decision won't work if founders are hashing out an internal pecking order rather than implementation of said decision.

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

#97

Post by mattmaroon » Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 7:15 PM UTC

eusman wrote: post #95

mattmaroon wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That must not be a very common saying because Google didn't return anything for it but this.

maybe Google likes me better: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+second+engine+f... from http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/multi.html Q: In an underpowered twin, what is the role of the second engine? A: It doubles your chance of engine failure, and it will fly you to the scene of the accident.

I put it in quotes when Googling. It's not quite a saying if it only exists broken up and in response to something else.

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

#98

Post by BitGeek » Tue, Nov 13, 2007, 4:17 AM UTC

pg wrote: post #92

BitGeek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Leadership by consensus does not work, as anyone who has belonged to a high school club or organization knows. Worked for us at Viaweb and Y Combinator. Works for most of the 58 startups we've funded. And btw, you're misinterpreting my analogy about the plane, but I'm out of stock on "no, what I meant was" so I'll leave it as an exercise for readers who care to figure out how.

Your plane analogy was responding to a strawman anyway... thus it was pretty asinine to begin with.

I'm sure concensus management has worked for you-- never said it didn't and haven't said its impossible. However, the problem is that you're saying people must have a co-founder, and that they must manage this way... and there's a big difference between having a cofounder you've known a long time and getting a cofounder because you foolishly followed the advice of a self styled guru.

If my response seems harsh, its because your tone is pretty strong. If you expressed your opinions in terms of preferences it would be one thing-- but you lay them down and defend them like they are religious law, and do not respond to the fact that this religious law does not work in all situations... which brings us back to the plane analogy-- its great for trying to make me look stupid, but its piss-poor (actually irrelevant) for arguing against what I was actually saying.