- you get to deal with the stress on your own (or maybe you have a
supportive spouse)
- you can't have soundboard sessions with your co-founders
- you can't divide the labor
- you have to have a lot of expertise in a variety of fields
- if you get ill early on it will likely kill the company
- nobody will call you out when you're spouting nonsense
- likely a long long list of stuff following these
The upside (and it's a huge upside)
- you don't have to deal with your co-founders
That one single factor does not outweigh the other ones but it is much better to have no co-founders than to have the wrong co-founder. And you can't really know in advance if you have the right co-founder or not. You'll know when you are in your first very heavy weather but by then it is too late to easily switch.
That's why even if having co-founders is good plenty of people chose to go it alone, and end up hiring what would have been co-founders as early employees once they've established a certain level of success.
If having no co-founders was a guaranteed fail nobody would do it, but plenty of people get by just fine to prove that it is not a hard and fast law, but more of a statistical issue.
I started a business in college, by myself, and it had revenues of about 6 million by the time I hit 25. I'm now 30 and on my second business, which I also started and am now running by myself.
Why don't I elaborate on some upsides to your little list?
* You are the only one. That means if something goes wrong, you can't shift the blame. Not even subconsciously. It's always your fault. This guarantees problems get fixed and they get fixed fast.
* You are the only one. That means you don't have to get approval or dilute your ideas. It gets implemented. Now. If you're spouting bullshit, the market will filter and you will adjust, fast.
* You are the only one. You have to do everything. That means you understand every aspect of your business, because at some point, you did it. This helps you make effective decisions.
* You are the only one. etc etc etc
You get the idea. I can go on forever and you can go on forever listing wonderful things about co-founders. One way isn't better than another. They are different and the path you take depends on your goals.
If your goal is to build a business that grows into hundred-million+ entity so you can cash out or where you can garner a cult following (i.e. Steve Jobs/Bill Gates/Larry Ellison/etc), you need a co-founder. On the other hand, if you want a business where you can pour your unmitigated passion into, where it becomes a place that not only supports you, but where your ideas take form, a co-founder will just get in your way. To dumb it down, if the #1 goal on your list is money or status, bring somebody else on. You won't be able to compete by your lonesome. However, if the #1 goal on your list is the freedom to do things the way you want to do them ... the only way to accomplish that is to remove as many obstacles to that as possible. That means no co-founders, no investors, none of it. A structure where you don't have to check with anyone before you do something.
This, by the way, explains why most investors are completely against companies with no co-founders. It's not in their interest. The goals of the company do not align with their goals.
Good stuff. Dealing with your co-founders indeed expands into a long list all by itself, to make it explicit is better.
Freedom is indeed the #1 reason I had when I decided to be a 'single founder' (in fact, it wasn't a conscious decision at the time, I only realized it after the fact) and getting an investor on board was the last thing on my mind.
That's why even if having co-founders is good plenty of people chose to go it alone, and end up hiring what would have been co-founders as early employees once they've established a certain level of success.
If having no co-founders was a guaranteed fail nobody would do it, but plenty of people get by just fine to prove that it is not a hard and fast law, but more of a statistical issue.