It’s just that you need to figure out how do you get the 0.09 part!
Chan presents an interesting analysis of few successful startups [Goog, M$, Digg, eBay etc..] and the final outcome of his ‘useless stats’ [as he calls it] is that two heads are better than one!
Actually, its not 2. But 2.09!! 🙂
On a serious note, Paul Graham [of YCombinator] strongly believes that single founder is most likely, a doom in waiting.
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.
But even if the founder’s friends were all wrong and the company is a good bet, he’s still at a disadvantage. Starting a startup is too hard for one person.
Even if you could do all the work yourself, you need colleagues to brainstorm with, to talk you out of stupid decisions, and to cheer you up when things go wrong.
The last one might be the most important. The low points in a startup are so low that few could bear them alone.
When you have multiple founders, esprit de corps binds them together in a way that seems to violate conservation laws. Each thinks “I can’t let my friends down.” This is one of the most powerful forces in human nature, and it’s missing when there’s just one founder.
Hmmm…Mike presents a different picture altogether. An interesting read.
All said and done, be it a single founder or 5 of them – there are other criterias too that makes/breaks a startup. I, for sure wouldn’t want to please VCs just by teaming up with people who don’t share the same passion/enthu. I would rather go solo.
What do you guys think?