Is having cofounder at early stage really that important?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2841

by prashantdesale • 19 years ago

7 18 19 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

danielha2• 19 years ago

Well what's an early stage? A co-founder would need to be existent at the founding, right? Otherwise he wouldn't be a co-founder but rather an addition to your team. But it's altogether possible to develop ideas on your own before locating a partner. If you plan on having a co-founder, I say it's best to have him involved from the beginning.

JMiao• 19 years ago

Prashant -- where are you located? I got the feeling from some of your postings that you might be around the Northern California region.

prashantdesale3• 19 years ago

Yes I am in Silicon Valley.

robertgaal• 19 years ago

If you've got this feeling that says: "why do I need somebody else? I can build/do everything myself", then I know what you're talking about. But if you only look at the fact that there are only 24 hours in one day, and that everybody can make an honoust mistake easily spotted by another person, it's a neccasity :)

jwecker• 19 years ago

You need someone to bounce ideas off of and help you refine your product well before the company is started. And then when it comes time to get into company mode, you definitely need someone to help bear the load and continue to develop the service and product. It usually ends up being that same person. No matter how brilliant you think your idea is, I guarantee that if you spend a few days hashing it out with someone you consider your peer, it will end up being 10 times the product. So here's my answer a slightly different question than the one posed- at no time does it make sense to be alone developing a business.

boris• 19 years ago

I think you should know by now not to listen to what others think and just go for it if you believe you can do it alone and have enough determination. Be prepared to be a developer, web designer, marketer, salesperson, etc., all at the same time. If nothing else you will at least have fun!

PindaxDotCom• 19 years ago

If you have a large skill set and can wear all the "hats" that need wearing then you can forgo a cofounder. If you can't wear all the hats then you want to partner with someone who can fill the hats you can't wear! (Did I take the hat analogy too far? ... lol)

nostrademons• 19 years ago

There's one other problem with single founders that I don't think gets enough press:

When you're a single founder, it's very easy to think in terms of "You against the world", with other people being mere tools in your quest for global domination. Because, well, a single-founder startup really is you against the world. ;-) Unfortunately, that attitude can carry over into dealings with employees, investors, etc. No employee is going to give his best effort when he thinks he's just a tool for some entrepeneur's quest for world domination.

When you have cofounders, there's much more of a shared sense of working towards a goal. If your smart, that'll carry over to employees too: they'll feel like they're working for the company and customers and not just for you. That kind of culture is very difficult to generate after the fact. You can start with it and lose it, but you can't start without it and hope to gain it.

It's interesting that one of the more successful single founders - Bob Metcalfe of 3Com - said that the secret of his success was "giving away his company". It's that kind of attitude that you need.

danielha2• 19 years ago

One of the most compelling reasons to have a co-founder is the support and shared perseverance. You could be an absolute whiz programmer but that means nothing if you collapse under the pressure.

When your company is in some trouble or you're facing an uphill battle, at least you know someone else is in the craziness with you.

"Our product won't scale, our user base growth is stagnant, and we're running out of money. We're in some mess." You'll eventually come to a situation such as this.

A good co-founder would respond, "Yes we are. Let's get working."

prashantdesale3• 19 years ago

I agree with the fact that "having confounder really helps in a great deal". But lets say if one can not find a good confounder, then does it make sense to just get someone for the sake of having confounder. Honestly I struggled a lot to find confounder because most of my friends are busy with their comfortable life now. Hence I decided to do it by myself.

I am founding company called Onista, which is a Social Marketplace. http://www.onista.com I am developing everything by myself and I am on pretty good path to release Onista for public use in Summer time-frame.

Sorry if I was not clear, but what I meant by "Early Stage" was "Stage at which company releases 1.0 product for public use".

And yes I am in Silicon Valley.

Do I have all the required skills? Off course Not, but yes there is one strongest point I have is that I have a lot of determination and persistence. I am willing to learn whatever it takes to get things done. Hope I will find a confounder or partner once I release Onista for public use. At least I will have something to show.

Am I doing the right thing? Or is there any way I can change strategy?

domp• 19 years ago

I have found that having a cofounder makes the process a little more easier. I tend to become more motivated when I feel that someone else is also dedicated to the cause. I think it is essential for killing bad ideas and thinking more creatively too. We come up with better ideas together than we do on our own. I know I have bad ideas sometimes but without that input from someone also involved in the company I find that the feedback I get isn't as beneficial.

aseemb• 19 years ago

I understand most of these points completely. The problem I am having is finding the RIGHT cofounder. I have run with my idea for about 18 months now, and I am now just starting to get serious about it from a business stand point. Now I am frantically looking for cofounders to join me but everybody seems like they are missing a key component. A lot of people are "stoked" about the idea and thought of starting their own company and are great to bounce ideas off of, but when it comes down to it they just dont do the work. I dont want to settle just to find a cofounder quickly, but I also feel like investors wont take me as seriously unless I have a founding team.

What do you think?

juwo2• 19 years ago

see here

juwo2• 19 years ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=2615

jonmc12• 19 years ago

I've started a few ventures, 2 solo, 1 w/ partner, 2 w/ partners. For me, its just a matter of knowing my strengths, knowing the goal, and then being resourceful.

Having a partner is one solution to a missing set of needs - but it also comes with a lot of baggage in many cases. Getting meaninful perspectives can come from anywhere if you have a good network and leverage it. Massive workloads can be solved with leadership skills, effecient use of capital and human resource management.

First time around sure wish I had a partner - I was crazy to be on my own. Now, I feel like a partner has to be a very strong fit to be best alternative.

ced• 19 years ago

About half the points raised here revolve around moral/intellectual support. Has anyone tried, as a single founder, to work in tandem with another single founder? (i.e.: two startups, one roof)

mynameishere• 19 years ago

Another question: Let's say you've already spent considerable time (12-24 months, say) developing a product and then find somebody to partner with. What is the breakdown in company ownership? Certainly not 50/50 or even 60/40, I would think.

prashantdesale3• 19 years ago

So when I was reading Book "The Perfect Store" by Adam Cohen, I found out that similar was the Situation for Ebay. John Stokes joined later than Pierre Omidyar, so they decided with different equity levels. I guess it was 28/72. Not sure..

Is having cofounder at early stage really that important?

Related Stories