As a single founder I can confirm that I have a massive amount of freedom, agility, and efficiency. Minimized need to spend time communicating or convincing or debating. My think-do loop and action latency are minimized. I'm allowed to act on and leverage any and all insights I may have. Minimized bureaucracy and paperwork. Minimized chance that somebody else can fuck me over or let me down. Is it perfect? No. You lose some things but I think what you gain is much more important at the earliest stages of a business, especially when small or prerevenue.
Talking with others is good. Drawing on other's talents is good, but ideally it's done in a tactical way where you're still in control and can make the ultimate yes/no decisons to go forward, and retain ability to pivot. And yes, single founder prob most feasible when you have biz skills and tech skills (enough). If not, co-founders look more attractive.
The entrepreneurs I talked to who were successful in a single founder role were either building low-tech consumer-facing web businesses, or had awesome tech skills and were able to bring on supplementary help at lower equity divisions to be treated like co-founders, but without the hefty equity split. After all, these extra team members were brought on after the companies typically got a bit of buzz and traction, so they had reduced risk.
Talking with others is good. Drawing on other's talents is good, but ideally it's done in a tactical way where you're still in control and can make the ultimate yes/no decisons to go forward, and retain ability to pivot. And yes, single founder prob most feasible when you have biz skills and tech skills (enough). If not, co-founders look more attractive.