Also, how easy a company is to pitch (and therefore find another to join you) is absolutely irrelevant to how good the idea is. If there's a relation, it's most likely inverse -- unless you mean by "good idea", "able to get further funding." (Pets.com was easy to pitch, Google not so much.)
I'm a sole founder. I progress for the same reason I breathe; there's no "not breathing." And because I'm a sole founder, nothing can stop me. No co-founder issues, no arguing. The worst I face is that I can be slowed down. Nothing can stop me.
I see your point, but I would disagree that Google wasn't an easy pitch. Example: "We're the best search engine. If we're better than everyone else and easier to use, more people will use us. We'll use those eyeballs to make money."
Ah, but there were many search engines touting themselves as better. Better won't cut it. Google was so much better that people were willing to switch from Yahoo and the others, and that's an empty pitch. You would have to back that up, and to back it up means already having achieved your goal. Of the two, in my opinion, pets.com had the better pitch.
I'm a sole founder. I progress for the same reason I breathe; there's no "not breathing." And because I'm a sole founder, nothing can stop me. No co-founder issues, no arguing. The worst I face is that I can be slowed down. Nothing can stop me.