I am a single founder who constantly wonders if I should be. I have founded 2 startups before and both imploded solely because of founder issues. One had 4 of us and I spent more than half my time playing referee. I will never go through that again. AFAIC, nothing is more important than being in business with the right people (except having plenty of customers, maybe.)

I am working hard and steady on my new venture, but I do not actively recruit potential co-founders. I freely share what I'm working on (hinting at opportunities for co-founders) and sit back to see what happens. Since I believe the single most important trait of a good co-founder is sheer determination, I hope someone will come to me insisting, "We should do this...," "I could do that...," "Let's try this...", etc. Sorry to say, this strategy hasn't worked too well, but I'd still rather be alone than be with someone who doesn't push as hard as I do.

I know about half a dozen excellent people who I'd love as co-founders, but all have mortgages, families, and other commitments. Our startup would always be a child to me, but only a step-child to them. So I don't push.

I understand pg's concern about single founder startups; they're a lot of work! There are many times I wish I had someone to share with or help me out. But under the circumstances, I'd rather plow along, always positioning myself to have a co-founder, but just as ready to launch alone if need be. I'm not afraid to do that and I don't think other single co-founders should be either.

OP's links were great and for a single co-founder, a little reassuring. Who is fauigerzigerk? I don't recognize him here.

OP's discussion about the "bozo" factor was just silly. Sure, if you're still in school, you should have no trouble finding suitable co-founders. But as you get a little older, there are many good reasons for being a single founder without being a bozo. Those of us who are should remain open to accepting the right co-founder, but in the meantime, just keep on working hard.

The problem (at least for me) is that you have to find someone that's smart, gets things done and have the determination required to do a startup. It seems that there are a lot of dreamers that like the idea of doing a startup, but when the rubber meets the road almost all people bail. Not that I blame them, most people have commitments that requires them to hold steady incomes, spend time with family, etc.

Finding a good co-founder is almost as hard as doing a startup. There are lots of people that will say yes when you ask them, but very very few that will actually get something meaningful done to move things forward in a serious way.

I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it. All it really proves is that group think is alive and well.

Two classic counter-examples:

1. I can come up with the most ridiculous idea in the world and still find someone who I could convince of anything.

2. I can come up with the best idea in the world and still not be able to convince anyone to join me, but be able to convince many people to buy it.

Have you ever tried to convince someone to join a truly ridiculous idea? You'd be surprised. People aren't that stupid. We are talking about someone joining as a co-founder. Therefore, that person has some basic notion of what a co-founder is, what a startup looks like, etc. We are not talking about finding a random person on the street who'll give you a quote "great idea".

For the best idea in the world, I also challenge you not to find anyone who believes in it.

Now, to be practical rather than extreme, my experience shows me that having co-founders brings a lot of value during the brainstorming phase. Although I like to think of myself as very smart - I could figure out everything on my own, right? Co-founders bring balance. Once in a while, I have a crazy idea that deserves to be killed. But I'm crazy enough that on my own, I might do it. With co-founders, you get very quick reality check.

The secret is to find co-founders who share your vision 90% of the time, and help keep you on the right track the 10% when you are wrong.

If you don't share the vision with your co-founders and can't even agree 50% of the time, then you are correct: it will be a waste of your time, arguing endlessly about trivial stuff.

I think close to 100% is ideal, as long as noone is being a yes-man.

For whatever it's worth, I don't think that it makes that much difference to success; but I do think it makes a difference in your chances of getting funded. I don't see those two things as necessarily related.

I'm sure they don't - I mean, who's ever accused VCs of groupthink?

Additionally, it may have something to do with having the ability work with others. If you're investing in a potential company, you want the company to grow, so presumably it's not going to be a one man show forever. In this case you want to make sure that your founder can work with at least one other person.

I personally think I fall into both the bozo and the "not being able to work with others" category. If I get to the point of having a prototype, then I've unbozofied myself, and perhaps could attract a cofounder. And if the cofounder works out, then maybe I have a shot at actually working with people and consequently running a company.

I think that's the right attitude. It's like a marriage. Dual income is a wonderful thing. Sharing costs, having a permanent partner to plan with, complementary skillsets, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean you should go grab a mail order bride catalog.

There are plenty of successful solo founders out there. There are also plenty of amputees who overcome that disadvantage and run marathons. 2 good founders are way more than 2 x 1 good founders. Having a good co-founder almost certainly increases your chance of success and magnitude of it. It's not just that you have 2x the work output. You have a duty to someone else all of a sudden-- quitting is less of an option (and quitting ALWAYS kills startups). You have a second set of brain cells to catch you being stupid-- and you will be stupid about some things. You have a cheerleader at the low points. You have someone else keeping their eyes peeled on your market for opportunities that you might miss. You have a whole new set of connections/relationships to leverage. There are some great studies showing that a group of average people outperforms solo smart people on complex problem solving tasks (here's one-- there are lots: http://is.gd/4O3kn )

I think you're wrong about the child/stepchild analogy, though-- or maybe it's just that I think you're wrong that your child has even been BORN yet. It's more like a house that you've started building, but all you really have is a couple of boards, a few sketches, and maybe a solid foundation.

Of course, maybe you are more in love with YOUR idea/vision/existing code than the idea of just building something great and being successful... Which I guess is fine. :-) But unless you already have a growth curve that goes up and to the right, I tihnk a good co-founder is way more of an asset than the thinking/coding you've done to date.

I find that my customers are very good at telling me what I should do to make Tarsnap better. :-)

For the product, absolutely.

I was referring to how to build the business, not the product. Sorry for the confusion.

An important thing to keep in mind is that you don't want a "cargo cult co founder", where you are trying to sign someone up "because you're supposed to have one".

Firstly, the absolute number of successes is not interesting: if there 1-founder startups outnumber 2-founder startups by a factor of 10, then 1-founder startups are suddenly a lot less likely to succeed.

Secondly, both lists list not just successful, but a very limited set of extremely successful startups. These lists tell you nothing about your chances of being the next Dropbox. It's an entirely different category of companies.