Idea reach and the cofounder myth

Great article. Aside from the fact that being approached by someone "looking for a co-founder" is a turn-off (on par with being approached by someone looking for a spouse), it's also not a good sign of a successful entrepreneur. The successful entrepreneur archetype will be executing at all stages. If they believe that the lynchpin is an external person that will make it magically come together then they probably don't have the chops to make it through all the challenges that startups inevitably face. This is distinctly different from hiring an engineer, or meeting someone who shares passion and applicable skills for your idea.<p>As far as swinging for the fences goes, I believe that is a middle stage decision. When you have some traction, you are potentially faced with difficult choices about whether to "sell out" or not. If you are just starting out and you decide you are "going to be the next Google" that is just pie-in-the-sky dreaming, not swinging for the fences. If you want to be an Apple, Google or Amazon you will need to build it up over the course of decades through a series of successful pivots to scale up. Facebook is the most recent example, where the entire momentum of the site was imparted from the exclusivity of a truly tiny market (Harvard students), and then pivoting pivoting to progressively wider markets. For any of these companies the risks are incredible at each pivot, so swinging for the fences is more akin to building 5 startups in a row successfully. The only way you're going to get there is by building one regular small startup first and then repeatedly taking it to the next level from there. I don't think it's any different for YC startups other than that they start out with better connections, but that does not a business model make.

Interesting article - I agree with a lot of what you say.<p>&#62;&#62; YCombinator has made it a successful business model to take founders and virtually catapult them far away from their idea reach, and succeed anyway through a combination of exceptional founder selection and world-class mentoring<p>Actually, I think what Y Combinator is very good at is recruiting decent hackers. They're then encouraged to build prototypes very quickly within what you call their "idea reach" and talk to users to iterate &#38; improve. In fact, almost all the YC companies that spring to mind are very much within the "idea reach" of the founders. Both the "success stories" (Airbnb, Dropbox, Heroku) and the more recent ones - (Codecademy, Parse, Mongo HQ, Verbling etc etc) all fit this mold.<p>Non-technical founders are very occasionally accepted, but almost always required to find a technical co-founder to extend their idea reach to including something software-focussed.

&#62; YCombinator has made it a successful business model to take founders and virtually catapult them far away from their idea reach, and succeed anyway through a combination of exceptional founder selection and world-class mentoring.<p>There's a bit of a logical flaw there: either it's "catapulting them away from their reach", or, through "founder selection", picking people who have a far reach in the first place.

&#62;&#62;This is a brilliant idea, and after you explore it (using, for example, the lean methods which only evolved 10 years later, because you're a visionary), you decide that this is worth pursuing, it has a lot of market potential.<p>I do hope that was tongue in cheek... Those "lean methods" have been around forever; What's happened in the last 10 years is that they've been packaged and sold.

There really is no difference between successful entrepreneurs and unsuccessful ones except for the decision to do it. I find that most successful people have the trait is that they take action regardless of the fact that they have a co-founder or not. They naively move forward and as obstacles come in their way, find ways to solve them.<p>Most of the time what makes or breaks a startup is the tenacity to stick with it and plow through obstacles. Of course, one has to be practical in some cases (e.g., the iPhone example mentioned in the article). But I think in most cases, there is always a solution. As Brian Chesky says, "If you can imagine it, you can create it".

Great article, I think that one of the biggest barriers to people becoming entrepreneurs is the failure to grasp the fact that there is a vast spectrum in the skills (technical or otherwise) needed to get a business off the ground.<p>However, while I agree with your point that "I'm looking for the right cofounder" is really only an excuse covering up either a reluctance to jump in or an idea out of reach, there comes a point in any business (Maybe once you come up against an unforeseen technical problem, difficulty securing partnerships, ), when it becomes necessary to bring great people on board in at a co-founder level who complement your skills and make up for your shortcomings. The key here is having access to the right people, so that you don't have to "look" for the right people.<p>I think that in this case what determines your ability to recruit the best people comes from your "Network reach" which varies from person to person, but is something that must be cultivated as diligently as technical knowledge or business knowledge, by maintaing the right relationships, associating yourself with the right communities and groups, connecting people with each other, and carefully training yourself to recognize and maximize opportunity when it arises.

This is actually a fantastic article, I'm glad I stumbled upon it.<p>"If, however, you've got very limited savings, and failure will propel you back into a corporate environment and a job you hate, then it might be better to focus on achieving survival and comfort first. That's easier with an idea that's within your reach." pretty much describes my situation!<p>Daniel, do you have an article where you're recommending a path for a solo entrepreneur that might eventually lead him to attracting cofounders? Anything in the pipeline perhaps? I imagine it'd be along the lines of "work on what's within your reach, have both the idea and your own execution so far be attractive enough that someone will want to join forces with you".<p>Also, if your idea reach is for 1 person worth of work, why would you even need a cofounder?

I liked this article. A lot of what I see encouraged by incubators and investors is "swing for the fences" type startups where they try to expand your sights to aim for as broad and as lucrative a market as possible. These are a horrible idea for most first time founders, especially those attempting to escape the shackles of a corporate job. Founders that set their sights lower and have a crystal clear plan of how to achieve profitability are much more likely to succeed.