[nartz]

You're not required to have a co-founder. No need to be angry about this, but be objective: two or three smart people can accomplish more than one smart person.

You can work hard and maybe bootstrap your way to an MVP of a product, but sooner or later the amount of work in the startup will become too much. When it does, you are going to need to build a team around you to handle the load.

The fact that you are so adamant about not wanting a co-founder is detrimental in that it signals that you are missing the point about how a company is mostly about building a good team that can execute, and second, about focusing that team on an interesting idea.

[aliakhtar]

> The fact that you are so adamant about not wanting a co-founder is detrimental in that it signals that you are missing the point about how a company is mostly about building a good team that can execute

I disagree. Having a team of employees is quite different from giving up 50% of your equity.

Its been said by YC partners themselves that co-founder disputes are a major reason why startups fail. A co-founder just means a lot of additional risk.

May be if you both have some crucial skills that you bring to the table, it'd be worth taking on a co-founder. But if you can build the product on your own, I just don't see any good reason to give up 50% equity + take on the risk of disputes arising.

[Frondo]

Simply put: being able to build the product is less than half of building a business.

If you can make the product, market it, keep your customers happy, continue to improve it as competitors spring up, build partnerships, and take care of the day-to-day of running a business, all on your own, then great.

You could probably also make a fortune selling the device that's giving you an extra 100 hours in a week.

[aliakhtar]

When it gets to that point, you can take on employees.