[deleted]
Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
31–40 of 172 posts
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#32I've cofounded 4 different startups. All were good ideas that bled cash or time and flopped, largely due to infighting or founder differences. One cofounder of one of the companies got really nasty about trying to leave with the rights to the company and we other two cofounders just let him have it. He sold the rights and it's now a successful venture-backed startup with soaring profits (two cofounders). Good for tha…
I have been self employed for 17 years as a 1-man consulting shop, and enjoy working alone.
I have just started a product activity (making things and selling them to end-users) and can do the work by myself (I design, and then the actual making is done by factories) -- but for the first time I miss someone to talk to, someone with which to explore business ideas and options.
Maybe a co-founder wouldn't help much because they would have a vested interest in the discussion, though.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. I remember a beautiful family vacation that went wrong because as a solo founder everything that happened got routed to me. If you decide to go solo, you will start hiring very soon just to make stuff happening before you run out of bandwidth. And you'll need really high quality hires... wich need a lot of bandwidth to acquire so plan accordingly (if you can ;-).
Shouldn't they be considered founders too?
I am the first “technical” hire of a startup. I think my contribution to both business capabilities and building the product is significant, maybe as much as a co-founder, but I would never call myself a founder. I founded an other company in the past that I kept running for 9 years, and I can tell the emotional and caring is very different regardless your impact and effort, even if it is 24/7. It is feel like being a stepfather. Maybe the best one, behaving and treated like a real one, but still…
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#34>We are often told that starting a startup on your own is madness.
That statement remains true. It's a trade-off.
As a solo founder, maintaining both motivation and momentum becomes far more difficult. The upshot is you at least have a singular, unified vision and (hopefully) less drama.
Of course, you're also stuck with all of the work.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#35The whole reason starting a startup is so stressful, and why you need co-founders, is because of the need for rocket growth to satisfy investors. Take out investors and you take out the need for ridiculous growth and the stress and the need for co-founders.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#36A cofounder is very helpful in pointing out your blind spots. Also the journey is just way more fun with a partner you like and respect.
Here's the key. I'm sole-founding my current startup, and I know I am having less fun than if I had a cofounder.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#37Success rate is what matters when you are weighing co-founding or investing, not just the number of successful companies.
It's as if the article discovered that fifty percent of those in American prisons are black, and came to the conclusion that there's no difference in crime and poverty beacause that's roughly half. That's meaningless. Base populations matter.
What percentage of new startups are single founder?
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#38what bugs me about the startup community is how things like raising 10M in funding or exiting by IPO are considered success. neither of those things have anything to do with building or running a successful business. they are not even desirable imo.
A lot of people aren't interested in running a successful business except as a means to their actual goal: being independently wealthy.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#39Co-founders or not, the underlining reasons are alike for people (entities) with different personalities (characteristics) working together.
Only one person in charge will always do, if he or she has a very strong personality and also has appropriate supporting subordinates.
Two person founding team will be great if their personalities are complementary, thus one plus one is bigger than two. There are many very successful enterprises in this group, such as Apple, HP, etc.
In initial phases of founding companies, projects, etc., always avoid groups of three strong personalities at all costs. Trinity is a very special case that will ensure endless internal fighting/competition, low efficiency and sustained tensions. However, trinity is good for long lasting (market) competition and ensuring all parties will not be easily wiped out. Example cases: a) US-Russia-China relations; b) President-Congress-Senate structure. c) Firefox-Chrome-Edge browsers;
For groups bigger than three, if the number of prominent members with strong personalities is less than four, see previous cases. Otherwise, avoid at all costs.
Re: Breaking a myth: Data shows you don’t actually need a co-founder
#40The whole reason starting a startup is so stressful, and why you need co-founders, is because of the need for rocket growth to satisfy investors. Take out investors and you take out the need for ridiculous growth and the stress and the need for co-founders.
True, but that's not really building a "startup" anymore. That's just starting a business.