MSPW != field of dreams.
What YC actually says is that MSPW is more important than monetization.
I was visiting Crystal Towers yesterday and, well, YC really needs to just buy that whole complex.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/socialmoth/405509951
(Rtm started it.)
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?
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."
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.
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
I'm not sure he understands the YCs' insight that startups with lots of happy users almost always succeed financially, one way or the other - the only things that kills them are founder fights, and major blunders, etc.
The key thing to understand is that if problem A is 100 times harder than problem B, and problem A is critical to success, then you should spend a lot of time worrying about problem A. In this case, problem A is building something that people will want to use. If you fail at that, then none of the other problems matter, because you have failed.
I cracked up reading this (after having seen a repeat of it) & also because pg's post really does puts the 'gifted' quote from the original post into perspective. You've got to have the 'determination' to build the best damn product (performance) you can.
We're not business people (most of us); we're just trying to create cool things and subsequently be freed from the shackles of the nine-to-five life. The great thing about Internet entrepreneurship is that it's relatively easy to get off the ground, and subsequently we can create products that are solutions and not immediately worry about the business model. It doesn't hurt to keep it in mind, but we don't have to let it weigh us down. I mean, search wasn't the best business to begin with.
I completely get the fact that projects are not a bad thing. Most of the best businesses actually started out as projects.
It makes total sense for me that startups should pursue building something people want (and make that the focus). However, a subset of these are projects that seek to build something people want AND that they will pay for. I'd further argue that within this particular subset of ideas, the optimal choice might be to build something people will pay for from the get go. In these cases, it would be sub-optimal to simply strive to build something people want.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that in some situations, trying to find the problem that people want solved AND will pay for ends up putting the startup on the right idea wheresa if they simply tried to build something people want, they may wind up in the wrong place.
Not all software is best served by creating something that will be subsidized by another activity (like advertising). I think it's jumping too quickly to that assumption that I think has the chance of being misguided. Sometimes the right answer is building something that people will part with money for and you have to start with that end in mind to really get there.
The people who are spending time following YC companies are the ones who are more likely to give the site a shot- They're also often people who CARE about UI, Ease of use, and the other features that teams often Need reminding about.
Having 10 e-mails in the morning yelling that the new change makes things tougher, or that the background color causes eye-bleeding helps to avoid a Myspace-like situation.
Having the "Right" first users is crucial, and YC helps bring them (As does Reddit, if you're up to making it there, but that's a tough crowd at times.)
Changing industries requires a lot of industry clout, which I think YC gives its budding companies, freeing them to concentrate on designing good products that create value. If the product is really good and creates real value, the industry will reshape itself somehow to reward the entrepreneurs.
I think at least it's a valuable exercise to imagine that you're not going to have a free version of your product. Imagine that you're actually selling it to a real customer. Would you be embarrassed to say it costs money? How would support work differently? How about uptime? Who would actually pay?
I'm not sure that's necessary in all cases, but it does seem to raise a lot of interesting questions useful for self-examination.
