This is an "outside" versus "inside" question. From the outside, a team with 2 or 3 is going to be a stronger team than just a person. But this is just a wide generalization, made by folks trying to find patterns. Startups happen in Silicon Valley, by teams of young 20-somethings with more dreams than brains. Most fail, and some change the world.
But there are a lot of guys making money trading collectible buttons on E-bay or some such. And although some folks don't call these a startup, in my mind any business you can scale to a large degree from nothing is a startup. And since we don't have to have the overhead, many former small business ideas are actually startups. In your unique case, being a sole founder might work better.
I tend to think that in the 20-30 age range, you need a cofounder. The team needs breadth of experience and long hours. The coolest startups have the biggest impact, so you have a lot of work to do! Plus 3 people working together are about ten times as effective as one person.
Somewhere between 30 and 40 it probably starts making more sense to go it alone. You know the ropes (hopefully), you're more likely to be playing a safer game, you're going to leverage. Also, oddly enough, under 17 or so is probably single-cofounder territory also.
I can't get past the enormous opportunities colleges offer to get to know closely a group of people over several years. These relationships can be invaluable with startups.
But I think that the conventional wisdom that startups have some certain shape or fit comes a lot more from the social nature of the startup community. VCs and the other hangers-on are always trying to make generalizations, always looking for boxes to put people in. How many single-founder startups are out there, bootstrapping, running under the radar, doing very well? Probably ten for every hotshot team that gets funded.
That's just a guess, and my opinion, and my opinion doesn't matter. If the sole-founder movement is true, it'll happen with or without us encouraging or acknowledging it. And if it's not true, no amount of pontificating and blustering will make it so.
But there are a lot of guys making money trading collectible buttons on E-bay or some such. And although some folks don't call these a startup, in my mind any business you can scale to a large degree from nothing is a startup. And since we don't have to have the overhead, many former small business ideas are actually startups. In your unique case, being a sole founder might work better.
I tend to think that in the 20-30 age range, you need a cofounder. The team needs breadth of experience and long hours. The coolest startups have the biggest impact, so you have a lot of work to do! Plus 3 people working together are about ten times as effective as one person.
Somewhere between 30 and 40 it probably starts making more sense to go it alone. You know the ropes (hopefully), you're more likely to be playing a safer game, you're going to leverage. Also, oddly enough, under 17 or so is probably single-cofounder territory also.
I can't get past the enormous opportunities colleges offer to get to know closely a group of people over several years. These relationships can be invaluable with startups.
But I think that the conventional wisdom that startups have some certain shape or fit comes a lot more from the social nature of the startup community. VCs and the other hangers-on are always trying to make generalizations, always looking for boxes to put people in. How many single-founder startups are out there, bootstrapping, running under the radar, doing very well? Probably ten for every hotshot team that gets funded.
That's just a guess, and my opinion, and my opinion doesn't matter. If the sole-founder movement is true, it'll happen with or without us encouraging or acknowledging it. And if it's not true, no amount of pontificating and blustering will make it so.
But I'd bet on it.