[volida]

"Teams vs. Individuals: YC leans strongly towards selecting startups that two or more founders. I'm a strong advocate of this myself as I believe that having two or more founders in an early-stage startup significantly improves the chances of success. By explicitly stating this requirement, YC forces early-stage entrepreneurs to find co-founders. This is a good thing as if there's a problem with finding a co-founder, that's an early signal of a problem (either with the founder or the idea or both), and everyone's better off knowing that sooner rather than later."

I am trying to understand why he is trying to discourage single founders in contrast with YC that is not doing that. If someone is determined to commit to his ideas, then not founding a co-founder will not discourage him. And its better than leaving your ideas completely.

We know it's hard more than anyone who hasn't experienced it. I just don't understand the absolute attack towards single founder from his side. He should know that if someone decided to take the single founder route he is absolute aware of the effects of the choice.

And if it's hard to be single founder, its better than finding someone who you are not aware of his real character and passions.

I dont like it that in order to differentiate themselves or not, from the fear of copying themseleves (some "journalists") and from saying the exact word of someone, they use some point of reference to later exagerate it. And I am reffering to the phrase "explicitly..." who is contrary to what YC sais i think..

I don't really like the writer's attitude attacking his readers -- am I the only one here?

[dshah]

As the writer, I'll take full responsibility. Apologies if my attitude seems overly harsh (not intended to be).

Also, here's a direct quote from Paul Graham:

"This is one reason Y Combinator has a rule against investing in startups with only one founder. Practically every successful company has at least two. And because startup founders work under great pressure, it's critical they be friends."

[staunch]

"I don't really like the writer's attitude attacking his readers -- am I the only one here?"

Surely you're being a bit sensitive because this topic hits so close to home. Try not being so defensive, sometimes the last thing you want to hear is just what you need.

You may be discouraged, but I don't think he's trying to do that. He just happens to agree with almost everyone I've heard from on this issue. Feel free to prove yourself as an exception, no one has said it's impossible.

Maybe collecting a list of single-founder companies would be inspirational for you? Here's some off the top of my head: Brad Fitzpatrick/LiveJournal, Markus Frind/PlentyOfFish, Mark Fletcher/ONElist.

[volida]

I was honest responding to an honest attack.

I can't believe he wasn't aware and expecting single founders would read the article. I accept opinions. I don't accept misrepresentations of opinions.

I prefer sounding hard than being silent.

circa 2007 "The ideal company would have two or three founders. We'll consider those with four or five. We're very reluctant to accept one-person companies, though we have accepted a couple." http://ycombinator.com/s2007.html

[dshah]

I must be missing it. To help me understand the error in my ways, can you:

a) identify specifically the part where I attacked?

b) cite where my position on the issue tried to be a statement of fact that was wrong.

Truth is: I do believe (as do many others) that having more than one founder increases of success. PG has gone on record as saying he won't fund startups with just one founder. Neither of these is factually incorrect. I could be wrong to believe it, but the statement of fact that I believe it is true.

[volida]

a)the use of "explicitly": means absolutely--categorically

"there's a problem with finding a co-founder, that's an early signal of a problem (either with the founder or the idea or both),"

b) the fact that YC states they funded single founders is contrary to what you refer to

I never said that is not better to have more people.

[dshah]

Got it. Fair enough.