You Don't Need A Co-Founder
publicbeta.co
You Don't Need A Co-Founder
1–10 of 48 posts
Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder
#2[deleted]
Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder
#3So, the takeaway from the article is: don't co-found with someone technical, hire/outsource them.
Well, I could say: good luck! You either get some half-assed solution or something ( if you oursource ) you don't even asked for, because they didn't understand your business requirements ( because of the language, distance, culture, etc).
Don't fall for this. Really, get yourself a technical co-founder. Amaze him. You can call him in the middle of the night, telling your new idea. Next day, he will already had done dissecting it and have a technical spec ready. Or any other crazy stuff that you want and he will say simply "No". You have no idea how useful is a "No" in a start-up. And so on, and so on...you get the picture.
PS. I am using a neutral "he" here.
Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder
#4[deleted]
I agree. I think the biggest consideration with this should be the potential opportunity cost (equity, control and the risk of future fall-outs) of taking on co-founders.
And in a similar vein to how I feel about bootstrapping vs external funding, I think if you can be a solo founder until V1, you can leverage that traction in taking on co-founders. That way your hands isn't forced and you don't necessarily have to sacrifice large amounts of equity.
Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder
#5So, the takeaway from the article is: don't co-found with someone technical, hire/outsource them. Well, I could say: good luck! You either get some half-assed solution or something ( if you oursource ) you don't even asked for, because they didn't understand your business requirements ( because of the language, distance, culture, etc). Don't fall for this. Really, get yourself a technical co-founder. Amaze him. You c…
I've done both and I can definitely attest that outsourcing the technical bits of your new startup is beyond tricky. It is however not impossible. The point here is that taking a technical co-founder onboard isn't your only option; it's totally possible for you to get to V1 (by outsourcing technical tasks), generate initial revenue and hiring a developer (with some equity) instead (as an example).
Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder
#6A very familiar scenario for me. As a solo non-technical founder I've so far build my startup using funding via Seedrs (crowd equity funding in the UK) and contractors in the UK and Russia. I got some decent VC interest, but they all say they will only invest if I have a technical co-founder. Hence, I go off spending 50% of my time looking for a co-founder. It's like deciding that within 2 months you need to find your life-partner and get married - similar level of commitment and just as difficult to find - but probably more expensive if you break up!
So I now have someone who I think is good lined up, I just need to persuade him to finally decide to join me now. But then I think - is it right to get a co-founder and give away loads of equity, just to satisfy some VCs? He seems like a really good guy, and I think I would like to work with him, but do I really need a co-founder or is it just for the VCs? The development has worked very well with my contractor so far, managed by myself. Why not just raise some more non-VC money (via Seedrs again) and continue this way?
Dilemma.
Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder
#7Solo founders are rare for a reason. If you just hire people to do a job, why would the most talented people work for you? Doesn't make much sense in most cases if the founder has not already a lot of capital. I would say increasing the odds of success is much more valuable than getting a higher payout in the success case (expected value = chance * payout).
On the other hand, it is hard to find the people who have very similar goals.
Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder
#8Solo founders are rare for a reason. If you just hire people to do a job, why would the most talented people work for you? Doesn't make much sense in most cases if the founder has not already a lot of capital. I would say increasing the odds of success is much more valuable than getting a higher payout in the success case (expected value = chance * payout). On the other hand, it is hard to find the people who have ve…
Talented people are also attracted to working on something they're passionate about and having the freedom to execute on that passion. :)
And not all businesses needs to be set up purely as a vehicle to an exit. Many businesses can instead operate as "lifestyle businesses" and earn great revenues / profits for years to come.
Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder
#9So, the takeaway from the article is: don't co-found with someone technical, hire/outsource them. Well, I could say: good luck! You either get some half-assed solution or something ( if you oursource ) you don't even asked for, because they didn't understand your business requirements ( because of the language, distance, culture, etc). Don't fall for this. Really, get yourself a technical co-founder. Amaze him. You c…
Getting yourself a technical co-founder is really, really difficult. It takes up a lot of time that is not business-building.
I was very lucky that the contractor I am working with is one of the best developers I have ever worked with. He really feels like part of the company, and knows the product inside out. Of course the weakness is that if I can't afford to pay him any more, there's nothing I can do with the site if I need to fix something etc.
Re: You Don't Need A Co-Founder
#10Solo founders are rare for a reason. If you just hire people to do a job, why would the most talented people work for you? Doesn't make much sense in most cases if the founder has not already a lot of capital. I would say increasing the odds of success is much more valuable than getting a higher payout in the success case (expected value = chance * payout). On the other hand, it is hard to find the people who have ve…
[deleted]