Allen and Woz both left early on. Allen was in a plane wreck and/or got cancer or some such? Woz was gone before Jobs was at Next, Pixar, or back at Apple. I'm sure Jobs had a mother, also, but as I wrote, and is clearly the case, Apple, that is, the currently successful company, was a one man show from Jobs. While Munger is a bright guy, my reading is as I wrote it: Berkshire is a Buffett show.
A cofounder is most critical a factor in the early stages of a business. Apple and Microsoft were already established companies to a larger degree when the cofounders left
Sure. Still, what I said is on target: Gates, Jobs, etc. did the big, huge growth just from their own brains. There's no good reason to believe that they could not have done all of the success, including the first days, essentially alone also.
Really, for the "early stages of a business", that is JUST what Jobs faced at Next, Pixar, and back at Apple. What he and Woz did for the Apple II was nearly irrelevant except it did leave Jobs with the cash from his sale of all his Apple stock except one shart. So, we're not talking the value of a cofounder but the value of a founder with cash!
And for Gates, as MS/DOS took off, Microsoft was just awash in cash. About then, Allen left. So, the real building of Microsoft was due to Gates and cash. It's not the least bit clear that Gates ever really needed Allen as a cofounder. Similarly for Jobs and Woz.
Early stages of a business in this context is way earlier than what you are referring to. We are talking the stage that YC gets involved: usually just the founders, working out of their apartment / garage. That is not, as you argue, the same situation that jobs faced at those other ventures.
I think you're missing the point here. How they parted does not matter much. What matters is that without the other they would have never made it to where they got.
Sure, Woz helped get Apple started. Then with that start, Jobs had cash that helped him at Next and Pixar and back at Apple where he worked for $1 a year. So, Jobs was really the 'founder' of the success at Next, Pixar, and the Apple we know today. Your point is just that the early success at Apple gave Jobs cash. With cash, Jobs was a wildly successful sole founder at Next, Pixar, and his return to Apple where the cash was relevant but not the early Apple or Woz.
The issue is, can a sole founder be successful? The evidence from Jobs at Next, Pixar, and Apple upon his return is, with cash, yes. So, just for the people involved, Jobs is a great example of a successful sole founder in his last three gigs.
You are bending over backwards to refuse to see this. Why don't you go on and say that the iPod was due to his mother while you are at it?
Again, yet again, so that even you might be able to get it, is Jobs, with some cash, was three times a successful sole founder. That's the issue: A sole founder, and three times he was. Even you can get that now.
You are just flatly refusing to pay any informed attention at all to history or to read what the heck I actually wrote.
Take Gates: When Allen was still around, Microsoft was a still a small company IBM was still laughing at. Then Allen left. Gates, it was JUST Gates, went on to build Windows 3, Office, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT, IE, Windows Server, SQL Server, Windows XP, and more. Gates grew his fortune from a few hundred million dollars to $50 billion or so. That growth was due to Gates. Period. And that was the significant growth that blew the doors off IBM, Sun, HP, Lotus, etc. Got it now?
For Jobs, you are really working to be brain-dead: What Woz and Jobs did with the Apple II, etc. is nearly irrelevant to what Jobs did at Next, Pixar, and after his return to Apple. Apple became for a while the most valuable company in the world due to what Jobs did, Jobs, JUST Jobs, with Woz watching from the nickel seats. Sculley? Amelio? They just helped show how bright Jobs was.
For your "would have never made it to where they got", we have no way to know that.
You are illustrating a huge point that I did make: People like to fight. Even over something really obvious, people like to fight. If you and I were cofounders, then no matter what I did and no matter what success the company was having, you'd be fighting me every way you could think of, fighting, fighting, fighting, for no good reason except you just want to be fighting. There's no way you could be effective.
Without Woz apple would have never happened, because he designed their first flagship product. What Woz did back then is highly relevant because it was the thing that eventually enabled Jobs to start Next and buy Pixar.
Jobs and Woz to me are the ideal example of the sum being much greater than either part.
Without Paul Allen Microsoft as we know it would not have existed because he named Microsoft Microsoft.
Your insulting tone and capitals do not make you right, they're reminiscent of people raising their voice and making things personal just because they can't win an argument.
I read a bit in your comment history and this seems to be a recurring theme for you, it is almost as if you take this single founder thing personal. The way to prove that it works is to simply succeed. As a single founder myself I've been there, I've done the multiple-founder thing too (with mixed success). There are no guarantees, to pretend either way is a shoe-in is nonsense. But statistically speaking, and looking at things from the point of view of a guy or girl considering going it alone or from the point of view of an investor that has the choice to invest in a company founded by one or more people the statistics seem to point to more being the better choice. Exceptions will always happen. But the ones that you point to are not those exceptions.
We can't know anything about pasts and futures that didn't happen, but we can safely say that things that did happen and that were likely significant were at least as significant as anything that you think would have happened otherwise. Jobs, Wozniak, Gates and Allen would probably never have said what you just said, and that alone marks them as potentially more successful. How you interact with others is an important factor in your chances for success, and being able to give credit where credit is due is another.
I agree that you and I should not be involved in any business because we'd probably fight, and you are making that point very eloquently.
"Without Paul Allen Microsoft as we know it would not have existed because he named Microsoft Microsoft."
So he named the company? Now you are being totally silly and showing that you are determined to fight with me for just silly reasons.
You are the one being 'personal'. You just don't want the argument made that sole founders can be a good bet and just want to stay with the PG and VC herd that cofounders are crucial, say, for naming the company and cut me down for not joining your herd.
Jobs was a successful sole founder at Next, Pixar, and his return to Apple. The only role from Woz and Jobs's first time at Apple was just cash, not Woz or a 'cofounder'. You are straining to deny that Jobs was successful in his last three gigs as a sole founder.
Gates? He had to refound the company after the success of MS/DOS and make Windows, Windows Server, SQL Server, and Office all real. He did. Alone. While doing this, IBM was laughing at him. He knocked the socks off IBM, DB2, Lotus, WordPerfect, Sun, HP, and more.
Just look around you: Commonly cofounders and coleaders just suck. Big committees suck. Group decision making sucks. Take IBM, AT&T, GM, Sun, HP: In each case, the management suite and top management 'team' was awash in what was regarded as the best qualifications. Still, they all just sucked. The Navy knows better: On the bridge of a ship, there exactly one captain. Although one captain can be bad, two is usually worse.
Then you are ignoring the present for what is central at HN: IT startups, especially Web 2.0 startups. Elsewhere on this thread I've explained in good detail: A founder needs to understand his business; he needs to understand the software; the bottleneck in understanding the software is not the unique software of the company but just understanding the now huge software components available; that bottleneck can be passed by just one person at a time, essentially alone, or learning is not a spectator sport or a team sport; once a founder has passed this bottleneck, a cofounder becomes much less relevant than in the past. You can see this, if you want to.
The main issue here is sole founders or cofounders. The resolution is, net, having all the business between one pair of ears is a great advantage when it can be done, and now for a Web 2.0 startup it not only can be done but should be done. The 'team' of Michelangelo and anyone else would be nowhere nearly as good at painting the ceiling as just Michelangelo alone.
Eh I wouldn't call Jobs a sole founder of Pixar. Ed Catmull and John Lasseter are really the founders of Pixar. They wouldn't have become what they became without Job's support, but to call him a "sole founder" is a little bit of a stretch.
No one is denying that Gates,Jobs and Buffett accomplished incredible feats. I'm just arguing that, at the beginning, each had a partner to help get things started. Woz created the Apple 1 and 2 which brought incredible financial success to Apple allowing Jobs to later start Next and purchase Pixar from Lucas. Paul Allen was instrumental Microsoft's early days including coding Microsoft Basic and making deals. Gates had the chance to then operate from a strong position to grow Microsoft and lock in that monopoly. Warren Buffett has always said that he didn't create Bershire alone and that Charlie Munger (as well as Benjamin Graham) helped immensely.
I am currently a single founder and I disagree with the idea that you must have a co-founder to be successful. I'm just arguing that if you want to use Gates,Jobs and Buffett as your examples of single founders they don't hold up well.
