One of the major dilemmas facing would-be entrepreneurs (at least judging by this thread at Hacker News) is whether or not to seek a co-founder once you have a viable idea.
Opinions differ pretty strongly about this. Paul Graham has espoused the feeling that startups with more than one founder are more likely to succeed. He goes on to suggest that two or three founders is the optimal amount. Many people seem to think that he is the king of all things startup, and so these same people think that his way is the only way.
Which leads to posts like this one. A bright guy is hesitant to start working on what is probably a good idea, all because he lacks a co-founder! This is the danger of relying too heavily on one theory of startups. This guy should probably just go ahead and start his idea, rather than look for a complete stranger to entrust half his company to.
On the other hand, there are also people like this. After reading that long-ass rant, I'd be disinclined to work with him as well. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of himself, and seems convinced of the brilliance of his idea to the point where he is unlikely to accept any criticism.
So what is the answer? You and your co-founder don't want to end up like Mr. White and Mr. Pink up there, at each other's throats with .45s. But if you go it alone, it is definitely harder.
As I posted in the thread, I think there is a middle ground. One should neither seek out a co-founder actively or ignore all potential co-founders. Just look amongst the people you have known for a few years or more, and decide if any of them share similar goals. If not, expand your horizons and look to meet some like-minded people -- not for co-founders, but to meet new friends. Among these, you may find a co-founder or you may not. Just continue to expand your network of friends, all the while working on your idea.
Just my two cents. Slow news day, and I actually had my coffee well in advance of posting today, so this is a much calmer entry.
RSS Feed