Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
geekwire.com
Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
#2Am I wrong in thinking that just because you're employee #1 (after the founder) that that doesn't make you a co-founder. I don't think it matters if the company had been legally formed yet or not.
I think a co-founder is about what you do, not when you join. If Mr. Kaplan was key in strategy and envisioning the business, that would go a long way, but if he was responsible for implementing Bezos plan, I don't think he should be considered a co-founder.
Re: Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
#3Am I wrong in thinking that just because you're employee #1 (after the founder) that that doesn't make you a co-founder. I don't think it matters if the company had been legally formed yet or not. I think a co-founder is about what you do, not when you join. If Mr. Kaplan was key in strategy and envisioning the business, that would go a long way, but if he was responsible for implementing Bezos plan, I don't think he…
It's not like in startups founders sit in a closed room and "envision" strategy and plan, then come out and hand it over to their minions to implement.
Startupping is a creative process in which all levels of company should participate, good ideas might very well have come from below ranks.
He mentions he didn't get founder's stock though, so that kinda answers your question.
Re: Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
#4Am I wrong in thinking that just because you're employee #1 (after the founder) that that doesn't make you a co-founder. I don't think it matters if the company had been legally formed yet or not. I think a co-founder is about what you do, not when you join. If Mr. Kaplan was key in strategy and envisioning the business, that would go a long way, but if he was responsible for implementing Bezos plan, I don't think he…
The person being interviewed addresses that in his first response: “Well, you could either consider me the first employee or a co-founder depending upon how you want to think about it."
So he's not claiming to be one; and if you look at the headline of the article it says "first employee".
Re: Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
#5Am I wrong in thinking that just because you're employee #1 (after the founder) that that doesn't make you a co-founder. I don't think it matters if the company had been legally formed yet or not. I think a co-founder is about what you do, not when you join. If Mr. Kaplan was key in strategy and envisioning the business, that would go a long way, but if he was responsible for implementing Bezos plan, I don't think he…
In practice, the terms founder/cofounder/founding-employee are fuzzy and granted based on mutual agreement among those present. Every early pivot or talent-acquisition or rebranding or product launch could reasonably reset the 'founding team', if that's the spirit of the participants.
To limit the term only to the person with the idea overemphasizes ideation. To limit the term only to the person who first writes checks would overemphasize finance. Something great didn't exist; a group worked together; then it did exist. We might honor the leader or original spark as 'The Founder' but all the team are also 'founders' in a reasonable, non-hagiographic sense of the word.
Re: Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
#6Am I wrong in thinking that just because you're employee #1 (after the founder) that that doesn't make you a co-founder. I don't think it matters if the company had been legally formed yet or not. I think a co-founder is about what you do, not when you join. If Mr. Kaplan was key in strategy and envisioning the business, that would go a long way, but if he was responsible for implementing Bezos plan, I don't think he…
[deleted]
Re: Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
#7Am I wrong in thinking that just because you're employee #1 (after the founder) that that doesn't make you a co-founder. I don't think it matters if the company had been legally formed yet or not. I think a co-founder is about what you do, not when you join. If Mr. Kaplan was key in strategy and envisioning the business, that would go a long way, but if he was responsible for implementing Bezos plan, I don't think he…
The person being interviewed addresses that in his first response: “Well, you could either consider me the first employee or a co-founder depending upon how you want to think about it." So he's not claiming to be one; and if you look at the headline of the article it says "first employee".
[deleted]
Re: Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
#8Am I wrong in thinking that just because you're employee #1 (after the founder) that that doesn't make you a co-founder. I don't think it matters if the company had been legally formed yet or not. I think a co-founder is about what you do, not when you join. If Mr. Kaplan was key in strategy and envisioning the business, that would go a long way, but if he was responsible for implementing Bezos plan, I don't think he…
In practice, the terms founder/cofounder/founding-employee are fuzzy and granted based on mutual agreement among those present. Every early pivot or talent-acquisition or rebranding or product launch could reasonably reset the 'founding team', if that's the spirit of the participants. To limit the term only to the person with the idea overemphasizes ideation. To limit the term only to the person who first writes chec…
"but all the team are also 'founders' in a reasonable, non-hagiographic sense of the word."
I suppose, but who is taking all of the risk? A founder takes a loss if the company loses and wins when the company is profitable. An employee doesn't take a loss (in a sense that they are paid a regular salary no matter what).
Re: Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
#9There's a reason nobody remembers this guy.
Re: Meet Amazon.com’s first employee: Shel Kaphan
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice, the terms founder/cofounder/founding-employee are fuzzy and granted based on mutual agreement among those present. Every early pivot or talent-acquisition or rebranding or product launch could reasonably reset the 'founding team', if that's the spirit of the participants. To limit the term only to the person with the idea overemphasizes ideation. To limit the term only to the person who first writes chec…
"but all the team are also 'founders' in a reasonable, non-hagiographic sense of the word." I suppose, but who is taking all of the risk? A founder takes a loss if the company loses and wins when the company is profitable. An employee doesn't take a loss (in a sense that they are paid a regular salary no matter what).
Most early employees in startups are investing through opportunity cost - they lose out on what they could be making elsewhere, in a less risky job by taking a salary cut.