[davidkobilnyk]

Thanks for clearing that up, Shel. I shouldn't have commented before reading the rest of the interview.

How does it feel to see people arguing over whether you are a founder or not? It would seem that they care more about it than you do. :)

[skaphan]

It's definitely a little odd. In one way it is just a matter of semantics: what exactly does the word "founder" really denote? But some may be asking whether I personally was all that important in the company's history. I can't judge that. All I know for sure is that I put my heart and soul into it especially during the first half of my time there, and I still feel a strong connection to the place (despite having left almost 12 years ago) even when they really get me angry, like with this sales tax thing. I'd prefer not to have to have a personal reaction to things like that, but there you are. As is pointed out elsewhere, Bezos was the only one who was really making strategic decisions, and it's probably still that way for all I know, though I participated in some. The idea to do a bookstore was his, though we were not the first on the web to do that. That doesn't mean I (and other early "participants") didn't have our own visions of where things ought to go too. When you do the engineering, hacking, and tech operations side of a startup, going from nothing to something, it's like it grows out of you and it feels like an extension of you. That's a different relationship from being the person with the idea who does the fund-raising and makes the big decisions. You need to have both.

At one point I'd say the company's "DNA" probably was influenced by me to an extent, but I've been gone for a long time, and it was tiny compared to its current size when I left, so it would be pretty surprising if any of that is still there. That's fine with me -- that's just how things work.