alexdmoore

Go Garry!

no, you are taking to the wrong person in the firm. You need the more junior lawyer who can likely do your work too. Major partners are only needed to do huge deals or very complicated legal procedures. Just ask around.

A lot of these points are valid. We are talking about local journalism. I use the word "newspaper" to describe the business and staff which comprise the folks that are creating the content, spending time with real people face to face and creating culture. People can call this piece marketing, but I call it supporting what I believe in. The fact is that SI and other companies are finding newer and better ways for "newspapers" to thrive. This directly keeps our nation's local journalists employed which equals more boots on the ground reporting and informing us about local issues. It may be tougher for folks from large cities to make the inter-personal connection I am discussing here, but the main point is defending American culture is valuable in units of measure beyond US Dollars.

This is a great article. The shift to super angel is primarily a model that favors entrepreneurs structurally. I would expect the trend to continue until the entrepreneur/angel group is hard to differentiate. Talented people will jump back and forth and fund each other's companies so that it appears your startup is funded by a ton of other startup CEOs.

Great points on both sides. I think a top in the world business person is as helpful for a company as a top engineer, but this doesn't have to be a co-founder. It can an advisor or later hire that has a transformative effect on a business.

Also I would point out consumer internet business people might not be able to have the same impact as a top bd person for an enterprise software company as ES companies have greater needs on building real sales organizations while consumer internet relies on marketing a social phenomena.

To answer some points: In 2008, revenue grew 29% to $19.17 BN. You can go back over the past 5 or 10 years and nit pick, but the numbers are all solid and within the ranges mentioned. I used 15% in the article over 20 years to express my confidence in ecommerce overall and in Amazon's ability to capitalize. The thrust of my argument is changing consumer behavior, but also a strong long position on the value of computer science. Amazon will leverage CS and technology generally better than all competitors. I stand by my claims. The data backs it up. I am confident current trends will continue because the underlying phenomena is so powerful.

2-2.5% and a lowball salary is right. I would argue that folks are only getting more when the founders are weak in some area. If you are weak and the 1st emp is a sick engineer give whatever it takes to lock up the talent. Otherwise 2% and 50k is right.