top | item 12437322

Employee #1: Amazon

368 points| craigcannon | 9 years ago |themacro.com | reply

119 comments

order
[+] mikeleeorg|9 years ago|reply
Craig : How did you troubleshoot? Today I use Stack Overflow constantly. What would you do when you ran into a bug that you couldn’t figure out?

Shel : Stay up late.

Hahaha. I remember building an online art gallery back in 1996. It was for an internship. I got it because I bluffed and said I knew HTML. After I was hired, I purchased a book on HTML. Turns out, the company's "CTO" did the same thing.

We both learned on the job and stayed up late trying to put that site together. It's almost hard to remember how "primitive" that was now that there's Google and SO.

[+] pault|9 years ago|reply
I taught myself to code in the early 2000s, coming from a graphic design background, through javascript and actionscript[1]. It took me years of sitting in my bedroom after work, reading dense paper manuals with very few resources for clarification. The mailing lists were often intimidating and took days to get an answer, if it all. You can imagine how stressful that was when working on a deadline and hoping that someone responded to your question about some obscure error message before the project was due. I remember being intensely jealous of my coworkers who were learning to code around 2010 and could be spoon fed the information I fought so hard to unearth!

[1] Say what you will about actionscript, it was an extremely helpful platform for beginners. I probably would have given up without the easy installation and IDE support. Javascript had essentially no debugging tools (firebug didn't exist until 2006; browsers were a nightmare of inconsistency, and debugging meant dumping vars via document.write()) and I didn't have the technical skill to get a java development environment up and running at the time.

[+] ojbyrne|9 years ago|reply
I seem to recall that googling (well alta-vista-ing) bugs in the 1990s was definitely a thing. Always seemed to end up on a usenet group though.
[+] 0xmohit|9 years ago|reply
This is interesting:

  Craig: Had you and Jeff stayed close?

  Shel: Not really. When he replaced me in my original job and I
  was moved into the CTO slot, I was nominally in charge of
  architecture, but in fact that just meant rubber stamping
  projects that were 95% complete by the time I saw them. That
  was all after having told me that my job was mine as long as I
  wanted it. And I didn’t have resources other than myself to
  work on anything I was interested in either. So I would say we
  were not really on particularly friendly terms at that point.
[+] AstralStorm|9 years ago|reply
Beautiful example of Peter principle and how to promote someone into uselessness and inefficacy.
[+] danielvf|9 years ago|reply
On modern technology:

"You walk down the streets, you have to weave around people standing there in random orientations in the middle of the sidewalk looking at their cellphones. Then you see people speaking robotically so that their speech recognizer can understand them. Now they are running around in mobs in parks with their phones in front of them trying to catch imaginary animals. I don’t necessarily see all that as a positive development."

[+] afarrell|9 years ago|reply
People, or at least children, have been running around in parks trying to catch invisible animals for decades. As adults, it has definitely been a positive development for my wife and I.
[+] amzn-336495|9 years ago|reply
An Amazon employee less than #10 does a seminar about SDE careers at Amazon where he/she brags about how Amazon fired all their early engineers because "they weren't good enough." Yeah the people who got Amazon off the ground weren't good enough. Then he/she talks about how if you want to be promoted you better start sucking up to the people deciding your fate in "smoke filled rooms" because you're wrong if you think it has anything to do with your work. This is supposed to be a seminar on how to get promoted at Amazon. It is truly vile and goes to the core of Amazon's culture. Smart people are only there to be exploited.

So I read this article interested to see how long engineer #1 lasted: 5 years.

[+] strangetimes|9 years ago|reply
I was hoping Shel would talk about using Lisp in the early days of Amazon.

https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/tour-de-babel#TOC-...

[+] skaphan|9 years ago|reply
It was used only in the form of Emacs Lisp, as a set of tools for customer service folks to make replying to typical email easier for them. They pretty much built all that themselves (and they didn't start out as programmers).
[+] djsumdog|9 years ago|reply
Tour de Babel is one of my favourite posts. I feel it's a pretty objective look at languages.
[+] parrish|9 years ago|reply
I was wishing for the same when I saw the title.
[+] pault|9 years ago|reply
I have a friend that got an offer to be employee #15 or so, but turned it down because "nobody wants to buy books online!".
[+] bbcbasic|9 years ago|reply
Ironically there is some truth in that, with moving towards ebooks, selling other shit and of course AWS
[+] thecus|9 years ago|reply
Multiple people have asked about his wealth. In the S-1 it gives you a good overview of the minimum amount of wealth generation potential he had.

His agreement stipulated that he had ISOs for 709,568 shares at a strike price of $.001471.

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=3847...

"This Amended and Restated Incentive Stock Option Letter Agreement (this "Agreement") amends and supersedes paragraph 2(c) of the Employment Agreement between you and the Company dated October 24, 1994, regarding the grant to you of a stock option (the "Option") for the purchase of 709,568 shares (the "Option Shares") of the Common Stock of Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") at an exercise price of $.001471 per share (reflects stock split effected on November 23, 1996)."

[+] peter303|9 years ago|reply
A lot of people would haved bailed during the dot.crash of 2000. Amazon lost was high flyer and lost over 80% of peak value. Who knew it would become atop ten most valuable company.
[+] abc_lisper|9 years ago|reply
The most important question left unasked :

Did he make enough money to retire after it?

[+] gumby|9 years ago|reply
You could just look him up in the S-1 to answer the question.

I have talked to him a couple of times and although I have no idea what the sum is yes, he made enough over the years to retire.

[+] thecus|9 years ago|reply
His agreement stipulated that he had ISOs for 709,568 shares at a strike price of $.001471.

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=3847...

"This Amended and Restated Incentive Stock Option Letter Agreement (this "Agreement") amends and supersedes paragraph 2(c) of the Employment Agreement between you and the Company dated October 24, 1994, regarding the grant to you of a stock option (the "Option") for the purchase of 709,568 shares (the "Option Shares") of the Common Stock of Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") at an exercise price of $.001471 per share (reflects stock split effected on November 23, 1996)."

[+] BatFastard|9 years ago|reply
Unquestionably! Lets say he had a typical 5%, no conservatively lets guess 1%. So 1% of 366 billion! Let you do the math. On the other hand if he had 10% which would not be unreasonable, he would be very rich.
[+] phonon|9 years ago|reply
His review of "The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon"

https://www.amazon.com/review/R3J863C5ZP53BA

"I wasn't really planning on reviewing this book, because I was mentioned in it several times and it didn't seem appropriate. But several other people who were also mentioned in the book have already posted reviews, and in fact, MacKenzie Bezos, in her well known 1-star review, suggested that other "characters" might "step out of books" and "speak for themselves".

I was at Amazon for the first 5 years of its existence, so I also have firsthand experience of those times at the company, and I have been a fairly close observer since I left. By and large I found Mr. Stone's treatment of that which I know firsthand to be accurate -- at least as accurate as it is possible to be at this great a remove, and with no contemporaneous documentation of the early chaotic days or access to certain of the principals. Relying on people's memories of nearly twenty-year-old events is of necessity somewhat perilous. Of course there are a few minor errors here and there, but I don't have firsthand knowledge of important mistakes much less anything that appears to be intentionally misleading. But there are a few minor glitches. In my case, I can testify that I did not, in fact, have a bushy beard at age 17 when I worked at the Whole Earth Truck Store & Catalog in Menlo Park. It was a publisher and seller of books and other things, not a lending library. It was in a storefront and was no longer a mobile service operating out of a truck by the time I worked there (p. 32). But I do not think this is a reason to disregard the entire book; it's just some not terribly relevant detail the author got a bit wrong in a way that doesn't change the story materially. MacKenzie listed one error, which didn't seem especially awful or material to me, and then referred only vaguely to "way too many inaccuracies". Without a more explicit list of mistakes it is hard to know what to make of that. Breaking news: a new 372 page book has some errors!

Since Mr. Stone did not have access to Jeff Bezos for this book, but had to rely on previous interviews and the accounts of others, it would be surprising if there weren't a few mistakes regarding his thought processes. As part of my agreement to be interviewed for this book, I was allowed to read a draft of the chapter which covered the time I was there, and I offered a number of corrections, some of which Mr. Stone was able to verify and incorporate. To the extent I am quoted, my quotes are, while not complete, fair and in context. I don't love or agree with everything that Mr. Stone wrote about me -- especially his broader conclusions regarding the circumstances of my departure from the company -- but I do think it was fair and reasonable. I am aware of at least one other interviewee who was also given a chance to check over the chapter in which his story was discussed. I obviously can't know this, but I suspect that if Mr. Stone had been granted access to Jeff Bezos, that he would have extended a similar courtesy. I have a pretty high degree of confidence that Mr. Stone made a significant effort, and did what was in his power, to make the book accurate.

The irony is, of course, that by reviewing the book as MacKenzie Bezos did, she has brought an immense amount more attention to it -- there are dozens of articles referring to her review via Google News this morning -- and its sales rank has shot up considerably. The book is not a fawning hagiography, but it is also hardly a completely negative account either. It describes not only Amazon's ultra-hardball business practices, but the better aspects of their services and products as well. To the extent of my knowledge it is a pretty realistic account, though necessarily incomplete. Of course Mr. Stone has his own point of view, and of course he does what nearly all biographers do, which is to impute thoughts and emotions to the people he writes about. It would be mighty dull reading without that, but I think readers are generally smart enough to understand that when they read biographies, especially unauthorized biographies, the author has to recreate some kind of persona to make the subject appear life-like. That doesn't make it fiction. This was written as a business book for a popular audience anyway, not as an academic treatise, so expecting every "Bezos thought..." to be footnoted, or couched in hypothetical language, is not realistic.

Especially in comparison to the sad collection of awful books that have been written on this subject, this one is much more detailed, more interesting, and a lot more deeply reported. Sure, there is plenty more that could be written about, and maybe someday somebody will. If and when that happens, I can only hope it is also "unauthorized" and not sanitized by a corporate PR department, and that some real investigative journalism is done, like Mr. Stone did here."

[+] DINKDINK|9 years ago|reply
>We were even talking about possibly locating it in Santa Cruz. This was in spring of ‘94. Jeff went back home to New York and started thinking about where he wanted to locate. We were looking at office space in Santa Cruz but as he learned more about mail-order business he eventually decided it made more sense to be in a smaller population state or one that didn’t charge sales tax.

How California lost out on hosting Amazon because of taxes

[+] blang|9 years ago|reply
Not true. Washington has a high sales tax rate. Washington won out because of its smaller population.
[+] creeble|9 years ago|reply
Well, yeah. Those days were still before everything that’s happened with glorifying startups. If you were going to do a startup business, there wasn’t a huge expectation that it was going to be glamorous in any particular kind of way. You were going to work really hard and maybe it was going to work, though probably not.

Indeed.

Some might even go so far as to say:

  if (glorifying_startups > BUBBLE_MAX) { kaboom(); }
Anyway, great stories!
[+] georgewsinger|9 years ago|reply
> He connected us with Jeff because he knew that Jeff was going to leave to start a web-related business that he had analyzed for this hedge fund. For whatever reason, that company didn’t want to pursue it but Jeff did.

This makes it sound as if (i.e., connotes that) the idea for Amazon was DE Shaw's, not Jeff's. Is this true?? I was under the impression that Bezos personally brainstormed a bunch of ideas for businesses that he thought would be useful with the new internet -- with books being low on the list -- and then, over time as more analysis was done (by Jeff), it rose to the top. I'm sure he talked with fellow DE Shaw employees about his thought process along the way. But the idea was his.

I got this from internet folklore + reading the Jeff Bezos bio that came out a few months ago. Am I right or wrong here? I find this historical fact pretty interesting, so want to get it right :)

[+] rwmj|9 years ago|reply
The "idea for Amazon" being "bookshop" + "on the internet" is not a something that can or should be owned or protected.
[+] Twirrim|9 years ago|reply
> For one reason or another, sorting out architectural issues to scale more gracefully was something I could never convince Jeff to allocate resources to do. There were always too many customer-facing features that needed to be developed.

Some things never change.

[+] ahmetyas01|9 years ago|reply
I can't imagine how much he would worth now if he got any stock option like the employees of today's startups.
[+] linkmotif|9 years ago|reply
Woah that last question and answer...
[+] Radle|9 years ago|reply
"Shel Kaphan was the first employee at Amazon. He is currently pursuing personal interests and still living in Seattle."

Yes bro, live the dream.