"would they have been able to without the support of the other half?" The evidence overwhelmingly, yes they would have been successful. You are correct that Gates, Jobs, and Buffett are not perfect examples of successful sole founders, but the question is, can a sole founder be successful? The 'rub' in this question is, can just one guy, alone, making all the decisions alone, do well? Then the examples of Gates, Jobs, and Buffett are quite relevant because each did great things essentially alone.

For Jobs, whatever might say about Woz and Jobs's first period at Apple, later Jobs did very well alone at Next, Pixar, and back at Apple. For those last three gigs, Woz was somewhere in the nickel seats. Yes, the success with Woz gave Jobs a lot of cash that was no doubt important for him in his last three gigs. So, then we say that Jobs is an example of a three time successful sole founder with cash. So, with cash a sole founder can work.

After the success of MS/DOS and Allen leaving Microsoft, Gates really had to reinvent, 'refound' the company. It is fair to say that he was a founder again. Yes, he was a founder with cash, but he was still acting essentially alone. Again, the issue is, can a sole founder do it alone, and that is what we are addressing. With the cash from MS/DOS, Gates did it alone. It's amazing what he did because he crushed IBM, Sun, Lotus, Netscape, DB2, and more.

For Buffett, no way should we count Ben Graham! He wrote a book and was a prof of Buffett at Columbia and possibly a friend. Graham had likely hundreds of students and millions of readers, but there was just one Berkshire. So, for Berkshire I don't credit Graham.

For Munger's role, that's just a judgment call, but my reading is that Buffett didn't much need him. Partly I draw that conclusion because it appears in recent years Buffett has been making his decisions essentially just alone.

Again, the main issue is, can a sole founder really get the work done or will he go off the deep end, for fast women, slow horses, cheap booze, wacko ideas, etc.? Well, Gates, Jobs, and Buffett didn't do any of these bad things.

There's another great example: Fred Smith at FedEx. I absolutely, positively guarantee you that there I know in fine detail just what the heck I'm talking about: FedEx was due almost entirely just to Smith, not Art Bass, Roger Frock, Mike Basch, ..., or me. Yes, it's true that Smith had a fortune from Southern Greyhound.

But with a fortune, it's easy, right? Tell that to Carly Fiorina, John Akers, Gil Amelio, Pat Dunn, etc.

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.

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.