The poster bases his logic on statistics, saying that many companies were started by a single person--which may indeed be the most popular combination, as it seems that whenever a BusinessWeek slideshow is posted here listing the top 10 hottest startups, half are about companies with single founders. This makes sense--the founder created a project to solve a problem, not to make money; then, it took off--in contrast to gathering three people and "forcing" them to create something that can be sold to a VC three months to two years later.
Now, pg is probably right that most of the people he has ever met had a co-founder (he should know). The problem is, even according to the list above, FIVE of every SIX people on that list will tell you they have a co-founder. 5.00 out of every 6.11 to be exact. That does not mean those companies are more successful. I think that reasoning is flawed. Not only is this misleading numerically, but on top of that, it's probably misleading socially since the single founder is always programming while teams with multiple founders are much more likely to make outside contact with investors like pg, being that there is more of them.
Also, if two or three people believe in the idea versus one, that does not mean the first team has a better chance to make a better product.
However, if you are going to move to the Silicon Valley as a single founder, and expect to get a co-founder or employee later, I'm guessing it will be nearly impossible to get anyone on short notice, if at all. Therefore, if you're going to start with money, you may as well bring a committed team with you. I wouldn't be surprised if it's probably easier to get money in Silicon Valley than to find people to join you once you've already moved there. This is why, although YCombinator is probably better in Silicon Valley than any other place, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most applicants are from outside the region. Any stats on this, pg?
The poster bases his logic on statistics, saying that many companies were started by a single person--which may indeed be the most popular combination, as it seems that whenever a BusinessWeek slideshow is posted here listing the top 10 hottest startups, half are about companies with single founders. This makes sense--the founder created a project to solve a problem, not to make money; then, it took off--in contrast to gathering three people and "forcing" them to create something that can be sold to a VC three months to two years later.
Now, pg is probably right that most of the people he has ever met had a co-founder (he should know). The problem is, even according to the list above, FIVE of every SIX people on that list will tell you they have a co-founder. 5.00 out of every 6.11 to be exact. That does not mean those companies are more successful. I think that reasoning is flawed. Not only is this misleading numerically, but on top of that, it's probably misleading socially since the single founder is always programming while teams with multiple founders are much more likely to make outside contact with investors like pg, being that there is more of them.
Also, if two or three people believe in the idea versus one, that does not mean the first team has a better chance to make a better product.
However, if you are going to move to the Silicon Valley as a single founder, and expect to get a co-founder or employee later, I'm guessing it will be nearly impossible to get anyone on short notice, if at all. Therefore, if you're going to start with money, you may as well bring a committed team with you. I wouldn't be surprised if it's probably easier to get money in Silicon Valley than to find people to join you once you've already moved there. This is why, although YCombinator is probably better in Silicon Valley than any other place, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most applicants are from outside the region. Any stats on this, pg?