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

Stop Looking for a Cofounder

dontscale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#121

Post by thebaer »

brightball wrote: post #41

He's not wrong, but a lot of what he says is very dependent on self-discipline. Having a partner, in addition to all of the other perks, also gives you a point of accountability the forces prioritization and a real plan. It is entirely possible to start a business by yourself. People do it successfully every single day but there are a whole lot of complicated factors from financial, legal, technical and psychological…

You're absolutely right about the value of a support system. But different people need it to varying degrees.

I think the bigger point is that when widely-respected entrepreneurs like PG automatically rule out those people who "successfully start a business by themselves every day," it can intensify the psychological blocks that prevent many aspiring entrepreneurs from starting in the first place. That means a net loss for everyone.

I've read a lot around this debate, especially on HN. And as someone a month in to their first solo venture, this idea of needing someone to keep you moving and cheer you up has been poisonous to me. I had my first moment the other night, laying in bed, when I realized I hadn't written a whole lot of code that day. I started feeling bad. "Maybe I'm not cut out for this," I thought. Or "this isn't for someone like me."

Luckily, I woke up in the morning and realized I know better. I love what I'm building without anyone telling me to love it. I code without someone telling me to code in the first place. This isn't everyone. But as mentioned in the article, the open source community is just one group of people that can build things without being externally "disciplined."

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#122

Post by eli »

jchendy wrote: post #48
rcarrigan87 wrote: post #22

Too many people who are new to entrepreneurship only see startups as their entry point. Part of this is media coverage, everyone is talking about funding mega rounds and the VC fueled entrepreneur world. I think many entrepreneurs are less interested in building Billion dollar companies and are more seeking freedom from suppressive corporate jobs. But when the only narrative you see is mega startups it starts to seem…

Do you know of any resources to learn about tech lifestyle businesses?

There's a huge spectrum of options between go-huge-or-die-trying mega VC rounds and a lifestyle business that supports maybe one person.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#123

Post by dopeboy »

SneakerXZ wrote: post #108
eldude wrote: post #75

Please don't stop looking for a cofounder. It's true that all it additionally takes to be a solo-founder is self-discipline, but as a human being you are psychologically and emotionally unequipped to deal with this. Let me explain... On History, there's a self-filmed TV show about 10 survivalist dropped off separately on Vancouver Island competing for $0.5M to be the last standing. The show is fantastic, not for the…

This also heavily depends on your personality. My guess would be the survivalist were extroverts and it was also the main reason why they went into this show. But most programmers are introverts and lone wolfs and they don't necessarily need others to share their experience with.

I respectfully disagree. Being introverted != no need to share their experiences. Every human craves to share their experience with someone and be validated (see social media). Some do it more than others and through other means.

Also, at some point that lone wolf programmer is going to need to stop building and start selling. Overcoming 100 compiler errors is much easier and faster than getting 100 nos and 1 yes. Try going through a brutal sales cycle like that and tell me whether that introvert would last without someone to ride the roller coaster with.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#124

Post by graeme »

eloff wrote: post #92
graeme wrote: post #28

As others have noted, this is addressing a different type of business than PG was talking about. The author is talking about bootstrapped businesses. There are many niches where a well run business can earn revenue of $100,000-$500,000 per year, and be ably run by a single person. These niches do require upkeep, but they are not so likely to be invaded by major competitors or large companies. The returns are too smal…

A bootstrapped business does not have to be exclusive with larger revenue streams. Guy Kawasaki says that he's seen many more businesses die because they tried growing too fast (e.g. using VC money to scale the company) than because they grew too slow. Joel Spolsky is famously a critic of the SV VC-based model as well. He put his money where his mouth is with Stack Exchange, which only recently raised VC money. He sa…

Oh, to be clear I meant a solo bootstrapped business. I think that's what the original article was talking about.

Certainly a bootstrapped business with employees can grow quite large.

(You can go higher solo too of course, it's just not common)

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#125

Post by free2rhyme214 »

Having cofounders or not is a matter of personal preference. Statistically teams in 2 or 3 do better than teams of 1.

Look at the most successful tech IPO's and funding rounds. Sure there's Amazon & Flexport etc. but those are exceptions.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#126

Post by czbond »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #82
rcarrigan87 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is truly a place for VCs and yes some businesses definitely need that kind of funding. But right now it seems VC is so available things are getting funded that will never be able to hit that 10x mark. So businesses that could have been great bootstrap businesses will grow too fast with too high a burn rate and flame out at a series A or B crunch. Meanwhile, if the business could have taken it slower they could…

> So businesses that could have been great bootstrap businesses will grow too fast with too high a burn rate and flame out at a series A or B crunch. Smart, patient entrepreneurs can take advantage of this. Let angel and VC-backed companies validate markets, and pursue the markets they vacate after the broader crunch occurs.

You sir, are a smart man. And the only other person I've ever heard to suggest that besides myself (not tooting horn, just honest that no-one thinks that way).

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#128

Post by yeukhon »

rcarrigan87 wrote: post #22

Too many people who are new to entrepreneurship only see startups as their entry point. Part of this is media coverage, everyone is talking about funding mega rounds and the VC fueled entrepreneur world. I think many entrepreneurs are less interested in building Billion dollar companies and are more seeking freedom from suppressive corporate jobs. But when the only narrative you see is mega startups it starts to seem…

> I think many entrepreneurs are less interested in building Billion dollar companies and are more seeking freedom from suppressive corporate jobs. > Reality is having a couple million a year business can really lead to a fantastic lifestyle if done properly.

Well, I wouldn't reject to build the next Google and enjoy a fortune and the influence I have on technology and on the world. I think when you are down for building your own business, many people will always look for growth and expansion.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#129

Post by TravisJamison »

jsingleton wrote: post #74
jchendy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know of any resources to learn about tech lifestyle businesses?

The http://www.startupsfortherestofus.com podcast is quite good. Rob also has a blog: http://www.softwarebyrob.com

I'll add to that http://www.microconf.com hosted by Rob and Mike.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#130

Post by general_failure »

free2rhyme214 wrote: post #125

Having cofounders or not is a matter of personal preference. Statistically teams in 2 or 3 do better than teams of 1. Look at the most successful tech IPO's and funding rounds. Sure there's Amazon & Flexport etc. but those are exceptions.

You are right if the measure of success is IPO or money. My understanding is the OP has a much broader view.of success.
Post reply on HN