[giffc]

Your critique is totally fair. I agree that every situation is unique -- tried to say that in conclusion -- but I did want to take a strong stand especially for newer entrepreneurs trying to figure out their path. I've seen these pieces saying you don't need a co-founder, and haven't seen much recently saying, "wait a minute, hold up there."

I also tried to clarify twice that I'm talking about companies with a strong software component, where team is so essential. At the end of the day, everyone has to carve their own path, no arguments, but there are general points that can increase the odds in your favor and that's merely the warning I tried to give.

[sthomps]

You are exactly right Giff. I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing your post in general, it's just the whole discussion in general. I just finishing reading 3 posts this week on NY vs SF and then solo vs co. So this happened to be the post that I commented on :D.

I believe that if you happen to find a co-founder that truly works well with you, amazing things can happen. That is definitely the highest percentage way to go. I am a newer entrepreneur so I get what you are saying. But with very little connections and no real experience, it is much better to start as a solo guy (like you mentioned) and then hopefully find someone along the way.

Although, I still see no reason why those people can't be employees. It all depends on the type of leader that you are. Regardless, good post (and I love your list of lawyers, that's how I found mine, so I appreciate it).

[Shorel]

Your strong stand made me feel better about going solo.

I mean, almost everybody agreed about 'you need a co-founder' until last week, and I was convinced about it. Your reactionary post made it look like the argument had weakness and needed to be defended.

I think that in my case, it's just a matter of 'it should happen in a natural way': let's work, if I need a co-founder, it should appear on the way, if I don't, it will not appear.