Another reason to consider not going solo is that some experienced engineers will consider it a black mark - here's a guy who either believes he can do it all -or- is too greedy/control-freaky to share; this is someone who didn't meet someone better than themselves in their career or simply couldn't recognize that fact.

The few solo founders I have personally dealt with have fit that description exactly.

Eh. If you’re a good salesman you can sell engineers on joining your company.

I think it would be a distinct recruitment advantage not to have a cofounder. You could reallocate equity you would have given to a cofounder, to early employees. Cofounder or no, money talks.

Maybe it’s my different experience and age, but I definitely nudge people away from solo startups using the examples I’m referring to as concrete examples when talking live to friends.

Reality is no one is so good that having another voice in the room isn’t usually an advantage for the leaf nodes. There are plenty of people who believe they are, though.

I will say this only applies to more traditional startups - seeking funding, hiring a team. It’s different when the solo entrepreneur builds and sells and then is hiring to augment the company. Not sure I would join that either but it is different.

Agree completely. I've never heard of a major company founded by someone who couldn't sell. Those people make products, not businesses, as Mark Cuban says a lot on Shark Tank.

What if cannot code to the level needed to get an MVP?

Hire someone who can.

Even if they only increase your speed by 50%, it seems like a worthwhile gain. Anything to get to that escape velocity.

Partners increase failure cases too. Arguments, differing visions, different commitments.

Pros and cons to both paths.

I think the biggest reason not to go solo, is not many people are good at both the tech AND talking to customers and thinking big picture.