You can certainly start a business without a cofounder. What's hard to do, empirically, is to start one that gets really big. There are a handful of counterexamples, like Amazon, but Treehouse is not one of them yet.<p>We have a lot more data about what happens in startups than any individual founder does. What interest would we have in mischaracterizing it?
As I think Ryan would be the first to agree, he may have built Treehouse on his own but his early businesses have all been very much built with the support and partnership of his wife Gill.<p>Ryan has also been a master of bootstrapping businesses upon business. He built Carsonified on the foundation of simple workshops he ran, he built ThinkVitamin on the foundation of Carsonified and he built Treehouse on the combination of both of them.<p>I say that not as a critic but as an admirer. I think he's done a first class job of building his reputation, wealth, influence and expertise through all of these.<p>However I think it's somewhat disingenuous for Ryan to state that because he has done Treehouse on his own, "so too can you". It's what the people want to hear and it will bring the enthusiasm of the bulk of HN readers who are going it alone.<p>However the risk for most startups is not that they will exit for millions and the CEO will only own a paltry 20% of the company rather than 70%. It's that they will die. It has taken me many years to realise it but the presence of a true co-founder dramatically reduces this likelihood.<p>It feels odd writing this all these years later because I knew Ryan at the very start of my career and almost the start of his. I then was a single-founder, he was working with Gill. I feel like we've passed each other going the opposite direction.<p>I gave only a small fraction of equity to my first co-founder and paid a high price for that. I have now come full circle and realise the importance of a good co-founder and of an even split between you.<p>Ryan is right in that he can do it without a co-founder. However if you fit that mold you probably already know that and are running a business quite possibly as the sole influencer already. If you don't then I think there is good reason for the astonishing faith of the valley in the co-founder. There is a degree of group-thought, sure but there are a lot of very, very sound reasons not to go it alone.
"What’s wrong with having one founder? To start with, it’s a vote of no confidence. It probably means the founder couldn’t talk any of his friends into starting the company with him. That’s pretty alarming, because his friends are the ones who know him best."<p>Wow, pg is so wrong. Whenever I get an idea I want to execute it myself. Bringing in friends is not something I even consider.
"I believe Paul and David are stressing the importance of co-founders because they’re talking about young founders with no previous business experience."<p>"I funded the business with cash from my previous business"<p>Ryan has thoroughly convinced me that if you've run some successful businesses in the past, it's probably better to go it alone your new one.<p>However, I don't think he convinced me that PG was wrong (and I'm not sure he was trying to), just that PG's advice doesn't necessarily apply to serially successful entrepreneurs. All of PG's cautions about the dangers of going it alone still seem completely valid. However, it's not like there aren't dangers to having a co-founder (the marriage analogy, though a little cliche, is cliche because it rings true).<p>I suppose, as with all things, the thing to do is take stock of your own particular situation and weigh the risks. But if you don't have direct experience overcoming at least some of challenges PG refers to, a co-founder still seems like the more sensible route.
I just applied to TechStars Cloud in San Antonio for <a href="http://commando.io" rel="nofollow">http://commando.io</a> and was denied as a single founder. I knew it was a long shot, but had to apply just for the amazing opportunity that is TechStars and the mentors and experience.<p>Being a single founder is bloody hard. Mostly though it is lonely. Nobody to talk with, nobody to bounce ideas around and debate features or implementation with. Should we use MongoDB or Riak? Being a single founder you make all the decisions. Also investors believe if you can't convince anybody else to join your company, than its probably a bad idea. I don't necessarily believe this, since I am myself a single founder.<p>So, why is finding a co-founder hard. I moved up to San Francisco over a year ago, left my pool of friends, and drove up in my car with everything I owned. Finding people in San Francisco that are either not already doing their own startup, or already working at a badass company is extremely difficult. Even more, there is the catch-22, I don't have any capital to pay you, but I have equity. Again, not a really convincing proposition for a rockstar developer or designer.<p>Startups are hard, the hardest thing you will probably ever do. So being a single founder is just not mentally healthy and as productive as having co-founders.
I'd love to see someone (ryancarson or pg?) write a complementary article about "what if you <i>have to</i> do it alone?"<p>In other words, sometimes, it's not your choice to be a solo co-founder. Many people have compared finding a co-founder to finding a spouse. In both life decisions, I don't think anyone seriously advocates for "sucking it up, and going with the least bad option."<p>Sometimes, you're poorly geographically positioned, or in a "strange" market, or later in life (friends are already "matched up" or in secure jobs), etc<p>For myriad reasons, you could sincerely try to recruit a co-founder and come up short.<p>The question then becomes ... do you make the best of it and go for it anyway?<p>Or, is the lack of a co-founder a signal (to yourself and others) that your idea / plan is unworthy?<p>I hope the answer is the former because that is what I am doing. Someone remind me to write this article when I figure it out.
Mark Suster agrees that you don't need the 'typical' co-founder split. Here's his take: <a href="http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/05/09/the-co-founder-mythology/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/05/09/the-co-founder...</a>
Ryan has built businesses before Treehouse - ThinkVitamin and Carsonified for example. He knows the people, has the connections, the talent pool to pick from.<p>PG's YC (using YC since that's the case being used) are tend to be populated with fresh/younger people, who probably never ran a business prior to YC.<p>Not really fair to try and compare the two and draw conclusions that will blanket the other side of the argument.<p>Are you going to succeed right out of college as a single founder with your very first business? Probably not.<p>Would you succeed if you had decade of experience under your belt, built previous successful businesses, know the industry, know the players, and etc? Most likely.
Somewhat off topic but I'd like to ask about this:<p>> We’ve grown from three people to 54, and $0 revenue to $3.4m+, all in just two years.<p>I'm completely naive about these things and I'm not involved in business, but isn't this very risky? That equals to only 63k/head revenue. I guess this is banking on future growth but is this a standard pattern for a growing startup?
I think that many founders won't be in the same position as you as having come from a successful business and be well known and respected in the industry.<p>I think either way is cool, I'm happy to share 50% with my co-founder because money isn't my primary goal and he's a fun and clever guy to work with which makes the journey even more enjoyable
The point I find to ring the truest with me is that of a single life goal. If your startup is the love of your life, your ultimate passion and purpose on Earth, it gets very hard to find someone to share in on that passion. And taking someone on board for half equity because they see it as an exit opportunity doesn't feel right.
If it hadn't been for my co-founder, I would be insane at best, and at worst, divorced and nearly dead. We keep each other going, pick up each other's slack when we're having a bad day/week/month, and keep each other energized throughout the day.<p>I'm sure you can do it alone, but I wouldn't want to.
I am curious, Ryan says:
> This is also why I don’t ever want to take Treehouse public. I hate the idea of having to answer to outside investors who don’t have day-to-day knowledge of the challenges and opportunities we face. They also don’t share the insane passion that I have for the business.<p>But Treehouse has raised $5M. How did that work? What outcome are those investors looking for?<p>If you didn't want to go public, then what did you sell the investors on? Seems to me that you are weakening your hand - because any potential acquirer knows that your options are limited because you don't want to go public.<p>What's the point of publicly disclosing something like that?<p>Given that VC investing is a hits driven business, I can't see any rational investor being satisfied with you not swinging for a large outcome for them.<p>Given that you own 70% of your company, if we make the simplistic assumption that you sold 30% for $5M - which would give you a $16M post-money valuation...you would have to sell to Google or some other deep pocket for almost $40M just for them to double their money. Assuming this doesn't happen for 5 years, those returns look paltry.<p>What is the end game for them?<p>P.S. If you never told them that you didn't want to swing for the fences, then this must be a sucky way for them to find out.
It's misleading to point out how startups worked in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs era. Then, it really took a team to build anything.<p>The technology has improved drastically. 10 years ago, it requires millions of funding to start a web business. Today, a team of talented developers can build an impressive app in a weekend.<p>Even marketing has become easier. With App Store, it's now possible to have apps distributed to millions of users over night.<p>Yet, our assumption about startups stayed the same disregarding the change of context.<p>Sure, even Steve Jobs had a cofounder. But then what would be the equivalent of building a PC in today’s age? And have that distributed to millions of users in that age?<p>Take into account now it takes a beginner Rails developer 15 minutes to build a blogging app. If the cost of running a startup is going down as technology matures, then it really shouldn’t take a team to build a startup. It should take one guy with a vision, a few freelancers and/or interns.<p>Solo founders are being discriminated against for all the bullshit reasons. Time has changed, technology has matured. It’s time to end it!
Since dropbox's valuation might be bigger than that of all the other YC companies (including airbnb) combined, it serves as blazing evidence that you don't need a cofounder. Possibly the truth is that singlefounder companies have more struggles but are capable of bigger wins (which is what investors should want).<p>Kinda how many succesful dyslexics (like Ari Emmanuel) credit dyslexia for their success.<p>The fact is that many of the extraordinary people YC looks for are often written off by YC's own bias against single founders. That's silly, but in the end it hurts YC more than the founder, because of all the other Dropboxes they miss out on. So forgive them for knowing not what they do.<p>An investor usually has only one chance to pass or invest, whereas the entrepreneur has many chances to succeed. Single founder or not, if you are tenacious you will keep having chances for as long as you are willing to fight. Many more chances than any one investor does.
A big factor if you are trying to succeed while doing it alone is can you hire a great team to complement your skills. This usually costs more money in the beginning stages in salaries than having a co-founder. It means the founder must have some money behind them and usually means they must have succeeded in business before.
I don't think anyone has ever said that you can't. Just that it's harder and success is less likely. Yes, certainly co-founder add additional risks to the equation and do indeed reduce the magnitude of success, should you find it. But as others have said, the more important # to optimize is your <i>chance</i> of success.<p>I'd love to see data to the contrary versus an (admittedly inspiring) anecdote... All of the data that I've ever heard about (from PG and other sources) seems to support that ideas that people who find a co-founder have a better shot.
Everyone commenting on this thread should read Founder's Dilemma to at least give some statistical information about success rates of founding teams.<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating-Foundation-Entrepreneurship/dp/0691149135" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating-Foundat...</a><p>Regardless of one's opinion of solo vs team, statistically it is easier with co-founders. That doesn't mean it can't be done solo, but you have better odds. And YC makes investments so why wouldn't you play the odds?
What makes some start-ups succeed where others fail is so poorly understood that superstitions start to creep in -- such as this one: that a co-founder is needed. It's widely believed and utter nonsense. Worse, it leads people to find co-founders artificially and to accept a co-founder when they would be much better served going it alone.<p>When you add a co-founder, you <i>might</i> have increased your chances of success but you <i>certainly</i> have increased your chances of failure.
I think I speak for most young, yet-to-be-successful, founders when I say: I'd rather keep 15-30% of something that has a 5% chance of success than 70-100% of something that has a .01% chance of success.<p>I thoroughly believe doing it alone (even if you're REALLY good) is a .01% chance, and doing it with complementary talents that have skin, heart, reputation in the game brings that up a ton.<p>That being said, congrats on being in the 0.01% of that equation.
Yes you can.<p>Best part is focus, clarity, and instant decision making. If you feel you have a great idea, just go for it. Don't waste time convincing others.
Startups are a function of the morale of the founder(s). When it becomes zero, the startup dies. And there will be hopeless times when it'll almost approach zero. Empirically, having a co-founder can be a huge boost during those times which in turn means you're increasing your odds of success by playing longer. You can definitely do it alone (kudos), it's all about increasing your odds.
I went through YC as a solo, first-time founder and I would not recommend it to anyone. Despite working the hardest I have ever worked in my life, I barely made it through Demo Day, and my Demo Day presentation was not exactly riveting. Furthermore, after Demo Day, you still have to continue building the business.<p>Solo, first-time founders will undoubtedly lack the emotional support systems necessary to give them even a baseline sense of sanity and the mental clarity to persevere. They are far more likely to make stupid and irrational decisions. It was not until I found a cofounder, long after YC, that our company began to behave even remotely like a normal company.<p>Having a cofounder to share the load with has unforeseen compounding value that one does not have the awareness of to offset in their first company. Maybe in a second or third company you can pull it off by planning around the repercussions of being a solo founder. Unfortunately, without previous experience, you will have no idea how to do that.
He didn't start a business as a single founder. He had his wife, and I don't mean as moral support, I mean as a defacto founder. To quote his wife Gillian's own blog... " I left publishing to start a business with my husband. We sold that company and we now run an online training company called Treehouse"
Fascinating discussion, one of the nice things about multiple founders is you get to hear people who don't agree with you. I've found a huge number of people 'self edit' around the boss, even when you tell them not to. So when you're doing something stupid you really need to hear that from someone else because if it was obvious it was stupid to you, well you wouldn't be doing it.<p>That is something that always impresses me about teams with a solid level of trust, they can talk about anything. They trust that everyone wants the same thing, success for the endeavor and nobody worries that someone is trying to make them look bad in front of someone else or to the team.
From you own point of view it is much better to be the only boss - share nothing, nothing special.<p>From the point of view of any investor, investing in a single-founder is a much higher risk. In case of any accident the second founder could be of some use, where in a single-hero case it would be a guaranteed lose.<p>Another issue is that smart investor would try everything in his power to engage all co-founders in a competition, a standard manipulation about position and respect. Very useful technique.<p>So, it seems possible to do things alone, and a lot of people do, but investing in a single-founder startup is too risky - there is a single point of failure.)
yes, you can do it alone and I had some success building up my hardware company. But at some point I decided to change and bring in co-founders and our momentum just build up x-times higher.<p>First hand experience tells me too, that starting up a company alone is not only really hard, but slower as well, which these days speed is more crucial than ever.<p>I have to agree on common wisdom and recommendation here that if you want to start a company and create something with impact try to partner up. Finding the right partners is another whole chapter by itself.
Although I am in agreement, I believe it best to re-emphasize the qualifiers for such an endeavor (totally IMO):<p>1) A single founder must have already had an exit;
2) A single founder must be able to speak to their own weaknesses and address how to balance those to potential investors;
3) A single founder must have domain experience.<p>Finally, although most people anticipate a single founder as a CEO with technical skills, I believe that a <i>better</i> single founder is a CTO with business skills.<p>But I guess we'll see where I end up... ;-)
From what I've learned, Don't find a co-founder because most internet reports say that a business needs two co-founders to be sucessful. (Despite statistically proven)<p>I would of have be much leaner/faster going solo and not worrying who number 2 was, and did the vast majority of work early on anyway of which those co-founders left. If you know the task you need a co-founder to do, find a co-founder... otherwise keep moving and find a co-founder/employee later...
The title of the article is plainly and simply wrong. The <i>you</i> is every prospective founder of a tech company. A fraction of this group of people can build a company to the point of testing their hypothesis. A fraction of this fraction can do that without a cofounder.<p>Besides that there are some good points in the article, it's fairly well written, and being a solo founder has put its author in a good position.
So, I created a FB group for solo founders:
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/groups/390441457703323/" rel="nofollow">http://www.facebook.com/groups/390441457703323/</a><p>It would be great to have a group where we can share experiences and motivate one another. Remember, just because you are a solo founder doesn't mean you have to work by yourself.<p>Would appreciate if you up vote tomorrow around 2pm EST. Thanks!
Glad it worked for you, Ryan. You makes some very valid points, especially in #3.<p>As I am learning daily, techpreneurship has so many facets from the core technical, to biz dev, sales and day to day activities. Can be overwhelming to go solo (assuming one has all the various abilities). Though I am not personally sold no the idea of having a co-founder, I think it helps to bring in folks to augment as needed.
I'd hate to have a cofounder. I'd really have to find someone with same amount of passion and who's on the exact same line. I don't like people messing with my vision, having too much control. Don't get me wrong, I listen and take in other people's advise and views, but I want the final say.<p>Also, I think a lot of people look for funding, while they don't even need it, but that's another issue..
It may just be down to logistics. In the past starting a company just required more time in the beginning phase (i.e. someone to build the hardware while someone else writes the code and someone else does bureaucracy). Nowadays, with the cloud, the outsourcing of all kinds of work, accounting and legal stuff, you can build a company literally in a day.
I think a co-founder would be great, but I'm afraid I'd have to totally re-arrange my life at this point in order to find one. It would be like dating. It would take up a long time where I wouldn't get as much work done, and I'd still end up hooking up with someone I wasn't anywhere near 100% sure of.
I think single founders have it hard because in order to succeed, you need both introvert and extrovert personalities present. Most people are either one or the other. You need one brain thats social and salesman-like. You need another brain thats analytical and details-oriented. Some people (such as myself) are terrified of the idea of going to a party to meet people and make connections. But I have no problem obsessing over a problem that needs solving. Other people love going to parties to meet new people, but would hate the idea of staying home all weekend to fix a technical problem. You really need both 'types' of people to have both types of tasks covered.
I'm sorry, but this just comes off as a guy ranting about how he defied Graham so that he would have more equity and no one to question his decisions. You know what that says to potential hires and the rest of us? "Huge red flag."