I've been a solo developer for many years now. It's definitely a skill that takes time to develop. Almost as much as trying to work with others. The main difference is that other people are much more of an unknown variable.<p>That first additional worker is a major first hurdle. Putting it off until later can make it even more daunting. Solo-dev means that certain verticals become very easy, e.g. the technicals. But a successful business has 2-3 really important parts that are more "horizontal" like good communication or business skills. Having multiple people really increases the easy of filling in that gap.<p>In fact, I am really curious how other solo-devs solve these problems. From what I've seen, they basically don't and get by because the competition is sparse or they get lucky and they get help from not another founder, but someone that is heavily invested and acts as a strong advisor.<p>There's also the option of just doing everything yourself by learning to be good at multiple things and taking much longer. Which is pretty high risk in that it's very sink or swim since those additional skills are unlikely to ever be useful outside of the startup the founder is working on. It's what I opted for, and we'll so how that works out.
I always like to poke fun at the “How to deal with being the smartest person in the room/industry/world”-style blog posts that make for common front-page schlock here, but this is a fascinating and relatively rare sub-species of “You <i>ARE</i> the smartest person in the room/industry/world. Anyone that suggests otherwise is ‘considered harmful’”<p>I love that the extension of this is “making friends considered harmful”, “trusting others considered harmful”, “forming professional relationships considered harmful (unless they’re subservient to your supreme vision, intellect and command)”<p>This reads like a very angry breakup letter.
A lot of talk here about the flaws in the study. I gotta say, founding a startup is not a numbers game, if you see it that way you've already lost. It's about the founder(s): their vision, their judgement, their force-of-will, and most of all, what they do every day. The pros and cons of solo vs group founding are well analyzed, but for your startup, the one trying to build something from nothing, the data tells you nothing, it's just the noise of averages which is utterly irrelevant to your specific situation as a founder. The only thing that matter is what you are doing each day in your vertical. Are you making progress? Do you have traction? <i>Is it working?</i><p>I'm not saying solo vs group isn't significant. It is. But you have to make a call and run with it. Reading more articles about it won't help. Everyone's situation is different. Successful entrepreneurs are above all resourceful. Don't get caught playing house.
The study this relies on has big limitations that should be noted.<p>- It is based on Kickstarter data only, which tend to be specific business models.<p>- The metric of success is a self-reported "still alive" status, not valuation or other size criteria. Results can be equally explained as "solo founders are less likely to officially close failed businesses than teams".
This is a not often talked about topic that I'd like more data on, or simply more case studies. IIRC, Y Combinator takes the stance that they'd highly prefer two founders over a solo founder.<p>Maybe this is exclusively a networking or proximity problem but considering the tech circles I run in <i>internationally</i>, there just isn't an abundant amount of people I want to do business with as partners. And frankly, yes, it is because most people are woefully underqualified.<p>There are undoubtedly people on HN that you and I run into on a regular reading basis who have more knowledge in a random technical space than most people on the planet. There just aren't a ton of us the further you go in.<p>Let's not get carried away here, one person working in ANY space in the world for a short amount of time making the right decisions can very quickly become a top 1% knowledge carrier in a field with low intellectual barriers to entry. When you hear people you think are bragging about being a top person in their field, the reality is more like there are only 10,000 participants in 7 billion people on the planet, and 20% of those 10,000 are actively working on their problem.<p>I've considered cofounders twice, maybe three times, in my life. As far as my experience takes me, they're not frequent occurrences. You <i>will</i> have an expiration on how many life experiences will allow you the affordances to meet these types of people organically.<p>Otherwise, you need to find a cofounder through a Y Combinator-like space. And frankly, I don't see the value in that other than the immediate logarithmic fall-off of early labor split between two members with skin in the game.<p>So the probability space is already working against you. I'm certain there is an obvious flaw with my thinking like, having to cofounders with specialties across two spaces is undervalued, but even then you just are not going to run into enough people in your life who you're going to say, yes I want to do business with this person for 10-20+ years. Warren Buffetts and Charlie Mungers or otherwise good friends, true partners in business, are not popping up left and right. You can't pick one up at your corner store Circle K.<p>Edit: There are other cofounders besides technical ones, but the same truths hold across disciplines as well.
At the end of the day, I don't think there's a right choice here. Either way we choose to go, with or without a cofounder, starting a startup is just damn hard, and either path has a ton of potential pitfalls, so the best we can do is just pick the path that better suits our life situation/preferences.<p>FWIW, the actual recommendations in the article are a lot more nuanced than the rather inflammatory title. I for one appreciated it, if nothing more than as something to counter the prevailing propaganda in the valley around how having a cofounder always increases your chances to succeed, even though cofounder conflict consistently ranks as one of the top startup killers. I especially concur with the conjecture that "cofounder dating" (and services that facilitate and encourage it) likely leads overwhelmingly to bad outcomes for the vast majority of cases, and people might have better chances to succeed as a solo founder than to resort to founding with someone they've been on just a handful of "dates" with.
I wonder if it should be "advice" considered harmful in general. There is SOOOOOO much business advice, and taking it all seriously can paint you in to a corner of paralysis.
Based on my prior experiences, I am thoroughly convinced of wanting to be a solo founder going forward. I know the statistics of VCs and whatnot are conducive to co-founder startups but I just don't care. It's liberating to work by oneself.
The first and most difficult person to convince that your crazy idea/company is going to be worth a billion is your first cofounder.<p>"The research is based on a survey of creators for thousands of Kickstarter projects between 2009 and May 2015." Article is using kickstarter data, which was questionable in the beginning but now as kickstarter has greyed out would be even more questionable. What about using actual VC-backed company data? If you look there, solo founders are not only the (extremely large) exception, but they also have lower valuations and success rates.<p>Founding a company is extremely difficult and there is a huge amount of stuff to take care of. If you cannot find someone(s) you can delegate a portion of that work to, you will suffer. It's a signal for investors because it's a huge buy-in to become a co-founder, and solo founders burn out <i>all the time</i>.<p>Using kickstarter to share advice on VC isn't just misleading, it's downright harmful.
This post does not expose the fact that all of the companies analyzed in this study were crowdfunded.<p>It seems like they didn't look at the current most successful companies founding history.<p><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107898" rel="nofollow">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107898</a>
> <i>This is unilaterally severable by either of us for no compensation, after which we’d both be free to go our own way and do whatever we want, related or not to this idea.</i><p>Would that make it too easy to force out a co-founder, with nothing? Just make it so unpleasant, in a game of chicken, that they leave?<p>Or to abandon a co-founder at the initial company, while taking know-how, customer/partner relationships, etc., and starting a new company doing the same thing that the initial company would do, but with a clean slate on sharing equity (co-founders and past investors)?<p>I'd guess an evil investor might like this agreement, so long as they'll be benefiting from the evil (e.g., cutting out a co-founder's share of equity). But what about investors who don't want the risk of losing to evil (e.g., know-how and relationships built with their money, leaving to found competitor in which they have no equity)?
A very well written article. The title is a bit clickbaity especially since the article doesn't drive hard towards that conclusion, but all the better for the article. As a serial entrepreneur I can say his tactical advice is rooted in experience.
Having co-founded an extremely tiny company that went nowhere, but during the operation of which I got to taste what it means to be in a very stressful environment with another person, I think if I were to start another venture, I'd also go solo and lean on a business coach, therapist or some sort of circle of likeminded people.<p>On the face of it, it seems like a good route — a neutral third party is able offer (professional) support, punch holes into your thinking, reflect back, ask great questions etc, without sacrificing your freedom and equity. Curious if solo-founder folks have tried the business coach approach and how does it compare?
Unless you went to grade school together, have been working together closely for a decade, or everyone is <i>very</i> professional, there’s no point. If you’re getting a co-founder for any reason other than the need and want to add this person as a co-founder, you’re in for a world of hurt.<p>These stories aren’t mine to tell so I won’t recount them in detail.. But, my god, you know how some people lose a friend group after a breakup? Imagine losing seven years of work and your standing in an industry because of a person you brought into your company four months before launch. Imagine not even wanting to bring them in in the first place.<p>Nope.<p>Build a company and hire good people.
Could it be that many “solo” founded businesses never make it out of the garage stage, never incorporate, don’t pass go and their data is not being tracked?<p>Or perhaps, the meme exists to mitigate risk for VCs. Just in case the founder they invested a billion dollars into gets hit by a bus. (A non zero chance)<p>I agree that team conflict harms many companies, and is often cited as a common reason for startups failing.<p>However, I like to say starting a business is like raising a child, the child benefits from have two parents compared to one, But a village is even better.
I absolutely despise these "considered harmful" posts. They make an argument from authority which ironically most authors don't even have. If the first "considered harmful" paper was written by Dijkstra on an underlying consensus in the software development community that he was verbalising, now everyone with a controversial thought is slapping this clickbait poop in the title. Even worse, it devalues the ideas in the article, like the ideas themselves weren't good enough to begin with.
Success is all about network(ing). No matter how good your product is if you don't have network of people to approach and sell, you won't succeed. More people join together - bigger the network, more potential customers. It's harder due internal structure and struggles, sure.
It's ok to be solo founder, it has it's perks. If that is what makes you happy, go for it. But to consider co-founding harmful is simply wrong, it's not what we see in practice for the last couple of decades.
Being co-founders is 'just' like marriage. Some marriages work, others don't. But when it works, it is really great. And just like in marriages, the ones that actually work, are statistically speaking a rare thing. And when they don't work, they can get ugly in variety of ways.<p>Whether it's a marriage, or being a co-founder, understanding that you're in it for a long term, keeping a cool head, managing expectations, talking, apologising, and never humiliating the other goes a long way.
Startup Compass did longiutdinal data (NOT Kickstarter biased data) and showed that 2 is the optimal number for a cofounding team to succeed, followed by 3, 1, and 4.
This didn't mention the expected value of the outcome by co-founder status, which to me would be the most important consideration and likely supports having one.
It's really difficult to be a solo founder. There's a lot of mental health stuff with starting a startup that someone might not realize outright.<p>Flo is very different from most founders, imo. He's a silicon valley veteran and knows what he's doing... he's not a "typical" founder in the sense of being new to the industry and building something big before learning the ways of silicon valley. I mention this to say, for him specifically, founding his company this way was the best way to be successful. Kyle Vogt from Cruise (and JTV / Twitch) also comes to mind as another SV veteran who started solo but added a close friend (Daniel Kan) later on.<p>Flo's advice is pretty on point I'd argue. I was a solo founder who added 3 other cofounders (in terms of equity) later in our journey. We had worked together for multiple years by that point, and they were <i>CRUCIAL</i> to the business succeeding. If any of them left, our company simply wouldn't have worked at all.<p>We didn't succeed in building a successful long term business, but our tech and team joined meta in 2018.<p>I have never once regretted them as cofounders.<p>Originally I had a part-time "cofounder" who really siphoned off equity, but did little else in the grand scheme of the product. He was useful in moving the company forward, turning it from a science project into a real company, but I didn't know him and mostly was just looking for a cofounder because it was the thing to do.<p>I got into YC after firing him, and didn't add my "new cofounders" till 2 years after YC.<p>There is no one solution. Trustworthy cofounders who feel like people you would go to war with are great. Mercenaries are terrible.
Fwiw I don’t think my company would still be around today if I had started it alone instead of with my co-founder.<p>You gotta be lucky to get along, and we get along disgustingly well. We hardly knew each other when we started and now it feels like we’ve been besties since primary school or something. That’s pure luck, like so many things.<p>But the way we’ve carried each other through hard times is, to me, irreplaceable.
At the end of the day, there are people who succeeded solo and then there are those who succeeded with a cofounder(s).<p>Guess theres no one “only” way to do it. Suppose you gotta do what feels right for you, experiment, iterate and find something that makes you happy to do what you do.<p>If I am not happy doing something solo whats the use going solo and If I am not happy co-founding whats the use of doing it with a team?
The study this relies on has big limitations that should be noted.<p>- It is based on Kickstarter data only, which tend to be specific business models.
- The metric of success is a self-reported "still alive" status, not valuation or other size criteria. Results can be equally explained as "solo founders are less likely to officially close failed businesses than teams".
Anyone have experience with cofounder agreements which pre-negotiate a buyout price (via some kind of algorithm) such that either cofounder can buy the other out without question later on? To avoid drawn out and painful separation negotiations later on for even simple cases such as one side losing interest.
Ideas are a dime a dozen, but workmanship costs real time and money. No sane investor will touch a company that lacks the resources to complete their project. The number one warning sign a company is doomed, is when the senior technical staff jump ship.<p>Also, many successful co-founders end up hating each other by the end of a project, and often end up in epic legal battles. Getting your contracts clearly settled early does help prevent tax shenanigans that can hit a small firm hard. Example: if an ex-employee claims dependent contractor status on a return, than a business could be on the hook for a $70k government tax/pension bill.<p>Founders syndrome is an ugly disease, that quickly rots a firm back into a $90k glass-ceiling business. ;)
Having a co-founder is a simple way to show you have an idea other people may actually buy into. Credibility is crucial and people like quick assurances. It's like having a degree from an Ivy League school.
I was interviewed for YC and not accepted for the reason that I didn’t have a cofounder. The rejection email said that otherwise it was very close. I was obviously a little disappointed to be rejected, but (1) I’d had experience of co-founders before - they create as many problems as they solve, and (2) after some reflection after the YC rejection, I ended up bootstrapping the business and I’ve been able to create something free of the stresses of investors and more aligned to my own personal objectives.
Being a solo founder means you start out owning 100% of the company, instead of 50%, or 33% if you have 3 co-founders.<p>At my company, this means on average employees receive double the average equity given by other startups because there's more of it available to be shared.<p>As a solo founder, once you get past the initial hurdles of building the MVP, etc, and enter scale/growth mode, I highly recommend finding and hiring a COO. A good CEO/COO relationship is essentially the same as a founder/founder relationship.
> "All IP belongs to the company we’ll form. This is unilaterally severable by either of us for no compensation, after which we’d both be free to go our own way and do whatever we want, related or not to this idea.”<p>Please don't do this - it's way too simplified. Who gets the company assets and liabilities when you split? You can't just split a 50/50 company; each asset and liability has to be given to one or the other, including the company itself.
Myths perpetuated by VCs:
-You need a cofounder
-You need investors
-You need a board<p>Just build a great product and focus on your customers and it will self fund and you will have zero non essential people.
This really only works if you're initially profitable. If you're growth hacking and need to lean on VC money to get to some critical inflection point of profitability, you'll never get there because VCs heavily favor duos. It makes sense, too. They don't want to leave their investment in the hands of one individual, a single point of failure.
So we are going to have a discussion of 'Should you have a co-founder' without any analysis of different types of co-founder relationships, how to find the right partners, how it might be different for different industries, skills, personalitites, anything?<p>I am sorry, but the entire thread had the maturity of a 14 year old emo going 'society sucks man'
I remember meeting a business angel like late 90 early 2000. It was just a lunch for chit chatting no project involved. One of the key point of what he shared this day was: « i only invest in project where there is an explicit and mutually agreed exit strategy defined ».
This was the best indicator for him of the seriousness of the candidates.
This is one of the best pieces of startup thought out there recently. So I had to dig a little, and found out it's by the creator of Teamflow, which the last team I was a part of (in the UK) used and was amazing. Not surprised.
Co-founders bring psychological interrupt operated randomly regardless of activities. Having people to point fingers to around in stressful environment and condition, that's the best place to raising evils.
I have looked at getting a co-founder but decided to stay solo.
For me being solo is good, was never convinced about the benefits of having a partner.
I do work with others on aspects of my projects.
This is silly. Delivering quality requires focus. Focus requires departmentalization.<p>There is no value in the CEO spending time on finance, accounting or legal.
Actually, solo-founding is INCREDIBLY difficult and taxing. If anyone is looking to become a co-founder of whatboard.app with me... reach out. Looking for someone who has either raised money before, or who is deeply technical.