[sib]

No, sorry, didn't mean to imply that. In the case of the acquisition memo, there was no prior (we'd had no previous conversation about the area at all). It was simply something that we thought was clear enough to distill the reasoning down to a very short document. Also, we were looking for a decision on something that was what Jeff likes to call a "two-way door" - we were asking to engage and to conduct diligence, not for a final approval of the acquisition.

The other document, while seemingly a simple issue, had a lot of ramifications and would be hard to reverse once we made the decision. When he finished reading the doc, he initially disagreed that there should be two different names, thinking that it would be simpler from a branding and customer point of view to have only one. our position was that, although that would be true at launch, we needed to plan for success when Alexa, the service, would be available on many different types of hardware, even ones that were not made by Amazon, so we needed to do the work involved in keeping them separate. This type of decision was much more of a "one-way door" in Jeff's parlance.

Hope this makes sense.

[jdt76]

Makes perfect sense to me, given I was there...

FWIW, I do think that more and more "two-way door" decisions are being determined at Amazon using the narrative process, which can be very, very expensive.

At the start-up that I am at now, we are moving much more quickly by being using the narrative format thoughtfully.