A lot has been written about the "merits" and "demerits" of single founder startups.<p>Many of the arguments against it are perfectly legitimate. The common theme is that it is more risky.<p>My question is:<p>If against the odds, the single founder can
1) implement a working, post-beta product and
2) gains some market traction (i.e. can demonstrate some actual dollar sales, even if they are just a handful)<p>At this point,the company and its business model have been derisked to a large degree.<p>Should we still discriminate against that startup in comparison to 3 founders with no product (or an alpha stage product) and no sales?
<i>Are single startups that bad?</i>
Not necessarily.<p>Single founder startups are inherently riskier than startups with multiple founders. That isn't to say that risks can't be overcome though - there are plenty of of single founder startups doing very well.<p>Odds are though, if you can't find a cofounder who believes in you and your idea, you are going to have a tough time finding customers to do the same.<p>The comparison of 3 founders with no product to a single founder with a successful product sounds a lot like comparing Tiger Woods to a team of golfers. Sure the team has some advantages, but winning is what counts and I'd put my money on Tiger in that case.
I would have a hard time imagining your chances of success would be even close to equal as having two founders. From what Zack and I have found when working on our site, we have peaks and valleys of output. Both of us have other responsibilities (meaning we are not funded and have other income we have to bring in), and life just happens: when I am in a lull, usually Zack is pushing stuff out and vice-versa. Very occasionally we both lull at the same time and user interaction suffers, traffic drops and we get a swift kick in the ass to get moving again :)<p>Not to be saying it can't be done, but, be prepared to do nothing but the startup (get some funding, live off savings etc).
Good comments all round.<p>Consider this scenario:<p>Against all odds, a working, stable product has been built, the business has modest traction but yet to really hit the ball out of the park, the business needs external funding.<p>How does the single founder overcome the "one founder is too risky" stigma?
I would say if you want to go it alone, do so. Just plan on funding it some way other than venture capital. If you can get venture capital, great! But I don't see why that should be a central concern. If it is a concern for you, then do a comparison of the type of business that VC works for and the type (model) of business you are trying to create. See how closely they line up. If they don't line up at all, then it's a moot point anyway and you are free to do as you please because they don't want you anyway.