What are the downsides of being a single founder (ie. not having a co-founder)?

If you actually manage to do the work, the only downside is some investors have a story about how single founders can't hack it.

It's a prejudice. They've decided things already, a priori, without knowing your particular details.

Whether or not a lot of other people can or cannot accomplish something doesn't affect whether or not your or I can or cannot accomplish something.

Additionally, the notion that "not being able to talk your friends into starting the company with you" is a "vote of no confidence" is mistaken, for numerous reasons. For example, these days it's hard to find people to work with you at YOUR start-up because so many people are doing start-ups of their own! Furthermore, entrepreneurial spirit is a personality trait, and people have widely differing personalities. Look at all the awesome Linux hackers that write code 100 times more complex than anything most start-ups have to worry about, and yet who work at Red Hat or similar, instead of starting their own company with their fearsome hacking skills. And not all of us have friends that are into this stuff in the first place.

It just happened that PG's buddies were into hacking Lisp. Other people's social circles may revolve more around music, or gaming, or any number of other interests a person may have besides programming or start-ups. I know a lot of people in bands; if I didn't program, I'd probably be in one too.

Very few people will accept having no life as the price of attempting a start-up. The prospect of staring at a screen all day every day, living with hackers, and eating ramen for months is just not something that has wide appeal. That's not a vote of NO confidence; that's just called being reasonable and wanting a life.

I think most people couldn't go through with it even if success were guaranteed. They'd bail partway through. I think that's normal. To actually do it you have to be somewhat insane.

I used to race bicycles, and that involved a lot of training. Of course, you have to go out on your own a lot, but it was always easier with friends: when you agree to meet to go for a ride, it makes it easier for everyone to go, even if the weather sucks. Furthermore, having more people always made it a little bit more competitive. Sure, you could do repetitions up a hill or something on your own, but having your friend just a wheel length ahead of you, and trying to pass him makes you take out that much more energy (which is actually why racing was the best training).

Point being, that, as a guy working on my own, I recognize that there are advantages to having someone else around. It's got to be the right person, though, otherwise it's just a cargo-cult-cofounder put in place because someone said "you should have more than one person".

Since at the moment I do not have a person in place, I decided to forge ahead in any case, but I'm conscious of the downsides to that, so I keep my eyes open for potential candidates.

It's not just PG who says so. A lot of people say so, including Paul Hawken in the 80ies, in this book, which is quite a good read:

http://tinyurl.com/2dxnoc

But, like most of these other silly threads, I think the process should be like this:

Think about the fact/opinion. Think about how it applies to your situation (in this case, "can I get someone else?"). Deal with it and then move on. It's useless dwelling on it.

I like to think of you guys as my co-founders. Hope you don't mind.

What's my stake?

I am a single founder. Here at Y Startup I have found that the predominant opinion is that anyone over 30 is, or should be DEAD. In the real world I find that if your not under 30 (me 48), doing a startup with a co-founder is not likely. Young people are intimidated by your age (discrimination?), and most older people have responsibilities beyond themselves which prohibit taking serious risk.

If your like me and have made your bones, and bucks, the risk is non existant. Necessity being the mother of invention, I forge ahead alone, though I often wish I had a partner. I have heard the comments by VC that a single founder model usually fails. I think that is valid. In my circle, I don't know any other single founders, so subjectively speaking it seems that the VC guys are right.

I believe it takes a psychologically unique individual to go it alone. We are as a species evolved to work best in a tribe. Those who stand apart from the tribe and are successful are few and far between.

My list of downsides are:

You make every decision alone.

By definition there is no synergy in a singularity.

VC perception is against you. If your not self funded, your going to have a hard slog finding funds from this group. Keep in mind that poltically speaking, manipulating founders is part and parcel of the VC game. A game made more difficult in a single founder model.

During the early stage, pre employee, you have to be a bright and lucky person to make every right decision on your own. You will make more mistakes.

You better be disciplined. If not your going to fail alone.

The upside you ask?

Only one that I can think of and that is that at the end of the day, since the system is so stacked against you, if you make it, you own it. And that has tremendous rewards. For me it meant very very early exit from traditional work patterns. CHOICE, CHOICE, and more CHOICE about every aspect of what I do. No one interferes in any way when you pay your own way. But, the old saying that its lonely at the top, is no lie. If you can handle that, the rewards are worth it.