If I were a single founder...
Yesterday, YC W12 applications officially opened up and a number of soon-to-be applicants started scrambling for co-founders. But while being a single founder is number one on PG's "18 Mistakes That Kill Startups", the truth is that going solo is better than finding a partner just to apply for YC.
First off, if you care more about looking good on an accelerator's application than about your actual startup, things aren't going to work out for you. I've seen others form teams around startup accelerators as if they were getting ready for a coding competition; that is, just for the heck of it and as if it were a game. And though such teams might win at a 48-hour web whackathon, when it comes to the endless endurance test that is a startup, they're the first to call it quits. Co-founders of a startup live their lives more-or-less married. That said, while being a single founder may put you at a disadvantage, eloping with the wrong partner will doom you from the start.
In contrast, the archetypal examples of partners found in Founders at Work show how important a real connection is. Levchin and Thiel met at a lecture and earned each others respect over puzzles before starting PayPal; Bhatia and Smith were colleagues with a common problem before creating Hotmail; and PG and Rtm met at school before succeeding with Viaweb. Clearly, there is a pattern that successful co-founders have more than a want ad's worth of history with each other.
Do you still think you should make haste on finding a co-founder? Here are some more reasons why you shouldn't.
1. A lone founder never wastes time
Having partnered on a few startups that never got off the ground, I know first-hand that partnerships often suffer from inequities of interest. When it comes down to it, you, your partners, or more commonly everyone involved will not be fully committed to the idea. Developers almost always have pet projects they wish they were working on; PR folks often end up seeing other startups; and those seeding capital almost always have other businesses that need their attention. Still worse, the desire to gain efficiency through specialization will land you no new skills or experience. Ultimately, when the house of cards comes down, you take away nothing.
On the other hand, going solo with your project means you won't need to focus strictly on what you're good at. You can give time to the hard stuff, and with it grow. Moreover, going solo is more flexible. Need to switch off to something more important? Ice your project and revive it later on.
2. Single founders fail faster
Anyone calling themselves a single founder must have an idea they think has potential. On the web, we like to release early and often, so that if failure happens, we can pivot in response to market needs. Unless you have a partner equally passionate about your idea and with whom communication will incur little overhead, the best and fastest way to prototype your idea will be by yourself. Breaking new ground is an inherently dirty job, and the more people involved, the more complaints made. With the wrong partner, development will suffer by becoming design by committee, delaying you from real user feedback.
A single founder can run laps around a poorly formed team, so if you're all alone, don't go searching for an anchor. Instead, pick up the most convenient programming language for bottom-up design and just build.
3. A solo career is never forever
If your startup shows promise, others will come and help you appreciate what you've made. Take the example of Woz and Jobs, who though they hung out as teens, finally ended up partnering when Jobs saw promise in Woz's home-brew computer. It's true that Woz wasn't thinking of his early work as a startup, but as PG has said, a startup at first must concentrate on building what people want and not about making money. Woz was definitely doing that, and as a first founder, you can too.
All this said, if I were a single founder (though thankfully I'm not), I'd stick to building, and let the co-founders just happen.