Re:Three's Company (Why three co-founders is better than two.)
by takrupp on Wednesday November 18, 2009 @04:18PM
(#949145)
We also rock the 3-partner model - No problems yet. Easy to mediate decisions. We each have our core focus and can make game time decisions ad hoc, but if strategy is involved or a big decision needs to be made, the third person usually has very valuable insight, especially when two partners are butting heads.
Re:Three's Company (Why three co-founders is better than two.)
by spencerfry on Wednesday November 18, 2009 @11:46AM
(#948553)
Good point about ramen profitability going up with a third partner. On the flip side, you could say that your company is even further along when you do in fact reach ramen profitability then.
Re:Three's Company (Why three co-founders is better than two.)
by maxklein on Wednesday November 18, 2009 @12:57PM
(#948690)
Absolutely. With 3 founders, you don't stop when you're making enough for 2 people to be comfortable with. You have to earn enough for at least 3 people, and when you are at that level, it's much easier to grow.
Another downside that I don't think was mentioned is that your "ramen profitable" number goes up by about 50%.
Even with that, I think the 50% bump in (free and maniacal) manpower plus the extra perspective is totally worth it.
I always say that it's better to optimize your CHANCE of success rather than the magnitude of it, should it happen. Hard to argue that a good (free!) co-founder wouldn't do that.