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

Yes You Need a Co-Founder

giffconstable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Yes You Need a Co-Founder

#11

Post by giffc »

sthomps wrote: post #4

oh my god, give me a break. Everyone has their own opinion on what works for them. Single, co, tri, quad, what does it matter? Sure if you have the perfect people working together in unison then it will be easier. It comes down to YOU, as you allude to. And just because you can't do it alone doesn't mean that you have to lump everyone in together. This is like the NYC vs SF debate, we are like schoolchildren. "My way…

Your critique is totally fair. I agree that every situation is unique -- tried to say that in conclusion -- but I did want to take a strong stand especially for newer entrepreneurs trying to figure out their path. I've seen these pieces saying you don't need a co-founder, and haven't seen much recently saying, "wait a minute, hold up there."

I also tried to clarify twice that I'm talking about companies with a strong software component, where team is so essential. At the end of the day, everyone has to carve their own path, no arguments, but there are general points that can increase the odds in your favor and that's merely the warning I tried to give.

Re: Yes You Need a Co-Founder

#12

Post by giffc »

fmora wrote: post #10
sthomps wrote: post #4

oh my god, give me a break. Everyone has their own opinion on what works for them. Single, co, tri, quad, what does it matter? Sure if you have the perfect people working together in unison then it will be easier. It comes down to YOU, as you allude to. And just because you can't do it alone doesn't mean that you have to lump everyone in together. This is like the NYC vs SF debate, we are like schoolchildren. "My way…

Finding a co-founder is probably harder than finding a life time soul-mate. Unless the union between you and your co-founder feels 100% natural don't even try it. I say that it is better to be alone than to be in bad company. In this case you might as well start the journey alone, if you happen to find a great co-founder along the way great, if not, continue the journey alone. To advise somebody to not start a compan…

Well I disagree that it is harder than finding a soul-mate, but I do agree it is tricky, and I do agree that you shouldn't partner up with someone you are not feeling great about. I actually wrote that you shouldn't wait to start your business, so we're in agreement fmora, but there are good reasons why you should continue to seek a complementary partner and not be overly stingy in order to bring them on board. Obviously have vesting schedules and protect yourself in case it doesn't work out.

Re: Yes You Need a Co-Founder

#14

Post by dasil003 »

pvg wrote: post #8

These become a lot more fun to read (after the 5th one or so) by replacing the debated term with something else. Let's say, 'pants', for instance - Yes, You Need Pants Don’t think about pants in terms of equity. [...]the ideal number of pants is two or three. I feel incredibly lucky to have my brilliant pants[...] Revel in the intensity of your pants team. Oh and if the author happens to be reading, it's 'for all int…

All the more so if you are in the UK

Re: Yes You Need a Co-Founder

#15

Post by startuprules »

...Because you're weak

Because you can't stand the pain.

Because you would like to end up with 10% of the company after working 14 hour days.

Because you need someone to complain to after every setback.

Because you don't have the money or patience.

Because you don't know how to hire the right employees.

Because you're not an entrepreneur.

Re: Yes You Need a Co-Founder

#16

Post by Shorel »

giffc wrote: post #11
sthomps wrote: post #4

oh my god, give me a break. Everyone has their own opinion on what works for them. Single, co, tri, quad, what does it matter? Sure if you have the perfect people working together in unison then it will be easier. It comes down to YOU, as you allude to. And just because you can't do it alone doesn't mean that you have to lump everyone in together. This is like the NYC vs SF debate, we are like schoolchildren. "My way…

Your critique is totally fair. I agree that every situation is unique -- tried to say that in conclusion -- but I did want to take a strong stand especially for newer entrepreneurs trying to figure out their path. I've seen these pieces saying you don't need a co-founder, and haven't seen much recently saying, "wait a minute, hold up there." I also tried to clarify twice that I'm talking about companies with a strong…

Your strong stand made me feel better about going solo.

I mean, almost everybody agreed about 'you need a co-founder' until last week, and I was convinced about it. Your reactionary post made it look like the argument had weakness and needed to be defended.

I think that in my case, it's just a matter of 'it should happen in a natural way': let's work, if I need a co-founder, it should appear on the way, if I don't, it will not appear.

Re: Yes You Need a Co-Founder

#17

Post by sthomps »

giffc wrote: post #11
sthomps wrote: post #4

oh my god, give me a break. Everyone has their own opinion on what works for them. Single, co, tri, quad, what does it matter? Sure if you have the perfect people working together in unison then it will be easier. It comes down to YOU, as you allude to. And just because you can't do it alone doesn't mean that you have to lump everyone in together. This is like the NYC vs SF debate, we are like schoolchildren. "My way…

Your critique is totally fair. I agree that every situation is unique -- tried to say that in conclusion -- but I did want to take a strong stand especially for newer entrepreneurs trying to figure out their path. I've seen these pieces saying you don't need a co-founder, and haven't seen much recently saying, "wait a minute, hold up there." I also tried to clarify twice that I'm talking about companies with a strong…

You are exactly right Giff. I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing your post in general, it's just the whole discussion in general. I just finishing reading 3 posts this week on NY vs SF and then solo vs co. So this happened to be the post that I commented on :D.

I believe that if you happen to find a co-founder that truly works well with you, amazing things can happen. That is definitely the highest percentage way to go. I am a newer entrepreneur so I get what you are saying. But with very little connections and no real experience, it is much better to start as a solo guy (like you mentioned) and then hopefully find someone along the way.

Although, I still see no reason why those people can't be employees. It all depends on the type of leader that you are. Regardless, good post (and I love your list of lawyers, that's how I found mine, so I appreciate it).

Re: Yes You Need a Co-Founder

#18

Post by niico »

zemanel wrote: post #13

i've given up on finding co-founders ....

then stop looking for one and start building, eventually you will get to meet people that would be interested in your work.

This could be actually better in terms of equity. Since you already started the work you could ask for 50+% ;)

Re: Yes You Need a Co-Founder

#19

Post by zemanel »

niico wrote: post #18
zemanel wrote: post #13

i've given up on finding co-founders ....

then stop looking for one and start building, eventually you will get to meet people that would be interested in your work. This could be actually better in terms of equity. Since you already started the work you could ask for 50+% ;)

that's the spirit lad, wish i had 10 man like you
Post reply on HN