Share0
Tweet0
Share0
Share0
Tweet0
Share0

Is it possible to start a company alone?

I’ve been working on startups for a few years, and have co-founded one of my own about two years ago with two guys I really respect. However, over the past couple of months, our different visions on a few topics started drifting us apart, and I think its time for me to leave.

I have a couple of work offers from other startups, but I have a few ideas in mind I’d like to explore and turn into a new startup of my own. However, I can think of no person to start it with, and at least at the beginning, I might like to give it a try on my own. Do you think this is a good idea? Or should I look for a co-founder from the start?

  • I’m actually doing the same thing right now; starting a company on my own. Mainly because I don’t want to give away equity so easily to someone that I feel like will not contribute as much as I will.

    It can be done, but you better have engineering skills yourself or else it will be incredibly hard for you to pull off. If you’re a creative type + have engineering skills, then I say go for it. But, if you lack engineering skills then you should team up with someone who does.

    For instance, someone like Bill Gates would have no issues being a solo founder, since he could program himself, but someone like Steve Jobs would suck at it since he was a visionary type and lacked technical talent; Wozniak had to build the apple computer for him.

    Reply

  • The need for a founding team is a myth that is perpetuated in the valley mostly by VCs. It makes sense for VCs to push the importance of a team since it reduces their risk if you turn out to be crazy or get hit by a bus.

    However in most businesses and I would even say software businesses, the founder is solo and when businesses pick up he/she merely hires employees to pick up the slack.

    Reply

    • It’s not even so much that they’re doing it to reduce their risk if a founder is crazy or hit by a bus as you say. VCs insist on co-founders because it’s an early way for them to gain control of a company. If if you have two founders, then each of them has 50% of the company before an investment. However, after the first round of funding they’re each down to around 35% once you take the investors shares and the option pool into account.

      So, now, neither founder by himself can make decisions regarding the trajectory of the company since neither founder has majority control, whereas if it was a solo founder then after the first round of funding he would own around 70% of the shares, which would make him by far the majority share holder and he would be able to make decisions that the VC might not like.

      Reply

      • That’s not how things get done. Nobody splits with their cofounder for their investors benefit. Never happens. They’ll SCREW their cofounder for their own benefit, happens all the time. But the power dynamics of a growing company lie firmly in the hands of the people driving the boat.

        Reply

        • You didn’t understand my comment. My point wasn’t that people just get a co-founder so that their investor benefits. Rather, investors prefer to invest in companies that have two or more founders because they can then guarantee that no one is the majority shareholder after the first round of funding.

          Like you said, they can use one founder against another, which they wouldn’t be able to do if it was a solo founder since he’d have majority voting shares, whereas if there’s two or more founders and they’ve been through at least one funding round, then neither founder by himself or herself can make major decisions without getting the other shareholders permission, like for instance selling off the company too early, which is something that a lot of investors hate but many founders prefer since it gives them a quick exit without suffering too much dilution.

          Reply

  • Well, I also think that it can be done alone and I am actually a lot in favor of your reasoning. But then again I would think very hard about it. Things may be more complicated working in a team but you get done a lot more than just trying alone. The difference can be unimaginable huge.

    I would say it is rather a matter or leadership. If you are a smart guy but leading people is not your thing then go for it alone. If you think you can handle a few people, by all means go with a team. Even if the aims of members change, which I think is completely normal and needs to be taken into account, something good may come out of it. A team may not lead you where you wanted to go initially but in the end you may get at least somewhere where you would not have gotten alone.

    Reply

  • The reality is that anyone that you would bring on you could likely hire for contract work. They don’t need to be a Founder. Also in this model, depending on the type of company, you’re likely at the advantage if you’re NOT the technical person. CEOs have more market value than CTOs and it’s much easier to contract tech than CEO elements.

    Reply

  • Only time you need a cofounder is if you lack a skill needed to push your product to market and you don’t have the money to contract it out . exchange you give equity. Like with investments if you don’t need the money don’t take it.

    Reply

  • I have been at it on my own for almost two years. It’s been very challenging. If partnership, or team, were to present itself I would strongly consider it. That hasn’t been the case, though, so I press on alone (for now).

    My career has been 50/50 split between technology (first half) and business related roles (second half). So, I had a foundation to start from, and the confidence to give it a shot. Unfortunately, my knowledge of programming languages, platforms, and architectures was outdated and so I’ve learned much from scratch. The learning curve hasn’t been impossible to overcome, but it has been very, very time consuming and deeply frustrating.

    Entrepreneurship is a team sport, not only for productivity reasons but also for social and psychological reasons. I like to compare this to marathon training. You can train on your own, but it’s hell of a lot better to do so with a team. Just cause you can do it on your own doesn’t mean YOU SHOULD.

    If you have the mind and the money to do it on your own, go for it. Be prepared for the moments where you look down after climbing for several weeks and question the insanity of what it is that you’re going after. Picture yourself free climbing, where going up is your only option, and you’ll get through it.

    Have faith that these challenges, as great as they are, can be overcome. They WILL be overcome.

    If you possess these traits, I’d say that you are eligible for solopreneuring: Resilience. Determination. Resourcefulness.

    You’ll also have to be an endless source of your own motivation.

    Reply

  • I would say go the solo route, but recon to hire someone with complimentary skills to help as soon as finances allow.

    Reply

  • Why do people always thing you need to be technical to have a start up?!?!? If your idea works feel free to go alone I have and still am. screw the VC’s and funding you don’t always need it!

    Reply

    • You don’t need to be, but it makes it a lot harder since you’ll likely be building something that requires technical knowledge, like an app or website. You either have to hire someone to do it, which takes money and is not guaranteed that you’ll find the right person, or you learn how to do it yourself which can take a lot of time; usually two years to get good at it.

      Reply

    • To consider an analogous case, I’ve seen a couple “food startups” recently, and the sad thing is, they don’t have chefs or kitchen staff or anything like that and it’s transparent to me–so presumably to any investor as well–that they’re just a couple people with a cheeky brand logo on a fishing expedition for dollars. To me, that says “all hat no cattle” and “no skin in the game” but my interests and perspective don’t necessarily line up with investors’.

      Reply

  • As least have a good adviser to keep you honest re: goals, milestones, resources, overall strategy etc.

    Close enough to be frank and trusted, but distanced enough from your idea and enthusiasm.

    Reply

  • If you can sell, you can do it alone. Your sales can drive the dollars to hire or contract as you need. You can entice others later as the companies grows for smaller % of equity.

    Reply

  • I just enrolled in computer programmer course. I am better than decent on both creative and technical side although I m still learning.I want to start a iOS game/app company .Can u answer how to start a company.I want it like clients can also come up with idea and I will develop the app and also my own personal app.I desperately need help. If anyone can help then plz contact me pnpancholi6629.pnp@gmail.com

    Reply

  • … [Trackback]

    […] Here you can find 7477 additional Information on that Topic: startupsanonymous.com/question/is-it-possible-to-start-a-company-alone/ […]

    Reply

  • … [Trackback]

    […] Here you will find 58340 additional Info on that Topic: startupsanonymous.com/question/is-it-possible-to-start-a-company-alone/ […]

    Reply
    • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

    You may also like

    >