Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Smart Things Jeff Bezos Has Said (fool.com)
307 points by lazydon on Sept 17, 2013 | hide | past | web | favorite | 107 comments



They missed the most important and generally applicable one: "People who are right a lot of the time are people who often change their minds.

"The smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. They’re open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking."

http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3289-some-advice-from-jeff-be...


In that sense the 'flip flopper' insult from American politics should actually become a mark of distinction. It is as if changing your opinion due to additional insight/input/thinking is a bad thing instead of a good one.


The negative connotations of 'flip flopper' are mostly based on the implicit assumption that the politician in question changed their[1] opinion for reasons of political expediency, i.e. for reasons more to do with polling data than new data actually pertinent to the issue at hand.

It is true that this makes it harder for conscientious politicians to legitimately change their mind, though.

[1]: they as singular gender-neutral pronoun FTW


The political flip-flopper is I think more scorned for flipping or trying to play both sides of issues that are more matters of principle than simply changing a position based on new evidence. I have much more respect for a politician who sticks to principles, even if I don't agree with them, than I do one who tries to have it both ways depending on who he's talking to.

("He" can be used with gender-neutral intent. I dislike using the plural "they" for this purpose.)


> "He" can be used with gender-neutral intent. I dislike using the plural "they" for this purpose.

Then you and I are on opposite sides of the greatest grammatical battle of our time, my friend.[1]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_language_in_Engl... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-neut...


They is perfect for being gender neutral; the only other method I've seen is those weird journalist articles that randomly switch between him and her. They makes semantic sense and is explicitly gender neutral, I don't see what the problem is?

One can argue that he is technically neutral, but practically speaking the association is always male.


Or they claim to have one opinion in front of one audience, and a different opinion in front of another.

Or they claimed one thing to get elected, and then "changed their mind" post-election.


> "He" can be used with gender-neutral intent.

Um, no it can't.


I can't tell ams6110 what intent he or she may or may not have....

but I can say that "he" will not be reliably read as gender-neutral.



Ugh, I hate it when I get new data and change my opinion and people look at me as if I'm easily swayed or something. I have new data that invalidates the old one, do you expect me to keep the same opinion even though I now think it's wrong?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, etc.


The more you know the more you know how much you don't know.


with the proviso that the "additional input" is something more substantial that an opinion poll...


It's a nice quote, but I'd change "smartest" to something like "wisest". Many smart people are quite stuck in their beliefs.


Well said.

Basically the theme of Nate Silver's book as well. Don't stick to your forecast in the face of new information that might contradict your forecast.


Also: "pivoting."


"Strong Opinions, Weakly Held" is the best version of this I've heard.

I had it taped up above my desk at one point.


"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"


11. "The framework I found, which made the decision [to start Amazon in 1994] incredibly easy, was what I called a regret minimization framework. I wanted to project myself forward to age 80 and say, 'OK, I'm looking back on my life. I want to minimize the number of regrets I have.' And I knew that when I was 80, I was not going to regret having tried this. I was not going to regret trying to participate in this thing called the Internet that I thought was going to be a really big deal. I knew that if I failed, I wouldn't regret that. But I knew the one thing I might regret is not ever having tried. I knew that that would haunt me every day."

Amen.


Woah. I independently came up with something similar. I used to wonder what kind of advice I'd give myself if I could go back in time. At some point, I realised that I could change it around and project myself forward in time instead and imagine what future me would say to me right now. What the advice lost in accuracy it made up for in actionability.


Thanks for posting that. I've tried it since I read it, and it made it easier much to make the right decisions all day, with less drain on willpower. We'll see if that keeps up.



Don't want to be pouring cold water here but there are much more important things that should be fine in order to avoid later regrets: traveling in another culture deep enough to really know what is different and what is similar, having kids and spend time with them, etc. Say you get to be the next dropbox founder, good for you, but will that count that much when you will be 80?


Sounds like a way of hacking near/far thinking (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Near/far_thinking).


That's a great quote.

I like this one:

6. "I very frequently get the question: 'What's going to change in the next 10 years?' And that is a very interesting question; it's a very common one. I almost never get the question: 'What's not going to change in the next 10 years?' And I submit to you that that second question is actually the more important of the two -- because you can build a business strategy around the things that are stable in time. ... [I]n our retail business, we know that customers want low prices, and I know that's going to be true 10 years from now. They want fast delivery; they want vast selection. It's impossible to imagine a future 10 years from now where a customer comes up and says, 'Jeff I love Amazon; I just wish the prices were a little higher,' [or] 'I love Amazon; I just wish you'd deliver a little more slowly.' Impossible. And so the effort we put into those things, spinning those things up, we know the energy we put into it today will still be paying off dividends for our customers 10 years from now. When you have something that you know is true, even over the long term, you can afford to put a lot of energy into it."

I enjoy the irony of getting his wisdom at a site called Fool.com.


I enjoy the irony of getting his wisdom at a site called Fool.com.

From http://www.fool.com/legal/the-motley-fool-disclaimer.aspx

Our name derives from Elizabethan drama, where only the court jester (the "Fool") could tell the King the truth without getting his head lopped off. We're dedicated to educating, amusing, and enriching individuals in search of the truth.


Hearing Bezos's regret minimization framework was one of the things that helped to make an easier decision to leave my job to start a company (I left Amazon, ironically). Here is the original video which this quote is taken from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwG_qR6XmDQ


One could also argue that Bezos already made up his mind and he just needed to find a line of reasoning that supports his decisions. Well, isn't that how science works, when you do experiments and then come up with theories to support the results?


Disproving theories is as big (if not a bigger) part of science as it is to come up with theories that support certain results. After all there could be many such theories but which one is the true one you can only find out by setting up experiments to explicitly make the decision which theories are false and which are not (or at least, less so).


It's also easy for him to say since he was successful. I know a fair number of people who tried "this thing called the internet" at about the same time and had their asses handed to them a few years later. Most don't actually say they regret it, but more than a few were burned badly enough to not try it again.


Most People will not regret being involve in 'the thing called the internet', they may regret other decisions like poorly managing cash flow, not understanding marketing or software or people...


This whole 'deathbed' theory has always seemed entirely bunk to me. At 35, my values and thought processes are almost entirely different to what I /thought/ they would be when I was 20, and so any decisions I'd made at 20 to please the 35-year-old 'me' would almost certainly have missed the mark.

The idea that at 35 I can predict what will or won't please my 80-year-old self is preposterous. The best thing I can do for that guy is make sure he has the resources available to do what makes him happy.


I love the sentiment that Bezos expressed through this quote, and I sincerely hope to apply his advice to my career.

Having said that, this long-term way of thinking about happiness and regrets may conflict with human nature. The vast majority of us are incapable of predicting what will - or will not - make us happy:

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/04/22/happiness-pr...


Bezos is a contender for the best manager of my generation. That being said, don't take these statements as absolute truths. They reflect the very successful strategy at Amazon, but they are by no means absolute.

Examples:

- "(...) keeping our prices very, very low, we earn trust with customers over time, and that that actually does maximize free cash flow over the long term." This is violated by luxury goods. Louis Vuitton purses must be expensive, it's part of their "contract" with their customers.

- "There are two kinds of companies: Those that work to try to charge more and those that work to charge less. We will be the second." The alternative is to deliver ever increasing value, at constant prices, which is the very successful strategy at Volkswagen.

Don't take this as it being my opinion that Bezos is wrong. He's my ideal CEO: long term oriented, customer focused, innovation driven. There are faults at Amazon, but in the grand scheme of things, Amazon is a great feat in itself.


> This is violated by luxury goods. Louis Vuitton purses must be expensive, it's part of their "contract" with their customers.

That's because the actual product you pay for isn't the bag itself, but a symbol of exclusivity.


"ever increasing value, at constant prices, which is the very successful strategy at Volkswagen"

That might be strategy for the VW brand, but VW Group very cleverly uses its huge array of brands to segment the market very nicely (SEAT, Skoda, VW, Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti).


Out of curiosity: who else would be in contention for "best manager of the generation"?


The one I admire the most is from a previous generation: Amancio Ortega, from Inditex. The innovations in logistics by Inditex are amazing. As for current(ish), and with a heavy skew towards IT, my list would be, in no particular order:

- Bill Gates, for MS strategy during the 90s. Evil and Borg-esque but ultra effective.

- Steve Jobs, for Pixar and the early 00s turnaround at Apple.

- Elon Musk, not so much for co-founding PayPal, but rather because of Tesla

Now that I'm at it, let me nominate the worst CEO: Eric Schmidt. Title earned for destroying engineer culture at three great companies: Novell, Sun and Google. Novell and Sun tanked, Google will be the first to survive Schmidt's effects, albeit scarred. There are financially worse CEOs, but Schmidt attacked companies that I particularly liked with the same repeat effects.


I would add that Novell and Sun also failed through a strategy of focussing on enterprise and government market segements. Google is an open question here, but it's something to watch when a company is under Schmidt-control.


Radioactive RAM chips, costing Sun billions, played a part.

"When Sun folks get together and bullshit about their theories of why Sun died, the one that comes up most often is another one of these supplier disasters. Towards the end of the DotCom bubble, we introduced the UltraSPARC-II. Total killer product for large datacenters. We sold lots. But then reports started coming in of odd failures."

http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/at_the_mercy_of_suppl...

---

I hated Novell with the passion of a billion burning novas. As only a NetWare admin could. So I was happy to see them tank.

I vaguely recall that Ray Noorda wanted to take on Microsoft, so went on a spending spree to acquire an Office competitor, completely ignoring their NetWare and GroupWise (?) offerings, allowing Microsoft to get traction in both applications servers and directory services.


I thought Google flourished and grew explosively under Schmidt, and engineering in Google was doing great, no?


Nevertheless, all three companies he led had engineer-driven management, with the kind of ad-hoc innovation culture typical of engineering companies, before Schmidt, all three became business-focused and narrow-minded after Schmidt. This results in excellent financial returns in the short term, followed by cliff diving.

Is he responsible? One is bad luck, two is coincidence, three is a trend.

P.S. No, I don't think Google will financially collapse. Not while there is no strong competition on the AdWords space. The change in culture is pretty obvious, though.


Google also had the advantage of original founders who remained extremely engaged, and have re-emerged as leadership - founders who are ultra-talented and ambitious engineers. The X Lab gives Google a place to continue bringing in top engineers regardless of what the Mountain View office is like.


> advantage of original founders who remained extremely engaged

I'm skeptical about whether this is true in a straightforward way.

For one thing, most of the complaining about the (relative) decline in engineer-centric culture at Google has happened since, oh, about six months after Larry returned to the CEO position. More wood behind fewer arrows, big push on G+, more shutdowns, more constraints on 20% time, etc. (... although I have no personal experience of Google under Schmidt)

For another thing, if Sergey is engaged in anything other than his (awesome!) blue-sky projects in X, he puts a lot of work into hiding it. Seriously. Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to give him a thumbs-up, if he's going to keep putting his capital (financial, social, and political) into socially transformative projects. But I would not describe him as engaged with basically anything web-related (search, ads, social, android, etc).

Also, you seem a little confused about X. X is a tiny fraction of engineers, and as such it's not clear what it has to do with "bringing in top engineers". I mean, unless you mean "bringing in top engineers and preventing them from working on money-making projects". And also, btw, it's mostly within the Mountain View office complex.

This post probably gives the wrong impression. I'm long GOOG, and I think X is awesome, and I think Google is still doing more good than harm. But I believe these in spite of the other stuff I mentioned here, not because of "original founders who remain extremely engaged", especially in the context of sergiosgc's comments.


>>And also, btw, it's mostly within the Mountain View office complex. I know that, my main point is that they aren't part of the Google that most people see.

>>Also, you seem a little confused about X. X is a tiny fraction of engineers, and as such it's not clear what it has to do with "bringing in top engineers". I'm also aware of this. Being a tiny fraction of engineers shouldn't preclude it from bringing in top engineers, correct? Top engineers are a tiny fraction of engineers in the total population, so this seems like a good sign to me.

>>if Sergey is engaged in anything other than his (awesome!) blue-sky projects in X, he puts a lot of work into hiding it Again, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. I don't disagree that Google is no longer the engineering paradise company-wide that it used to be. However, you worry about not having engineers on money making projects. I disagree that the X lab is not a money making project. They don't have revenue goals and targets in the way that most places would, but I can't imagine something better for Google's long term bottom line than things like Project Loon being successful, or becoming the first mover in the self-driving car world.

>>For one thing, most of the complaining about the (relative) decline in engineer-centric culture at Google has happened since, oh, about six months after Larry returned to the CEO position. You may be right about this. I don't totally know. I do know that Eric Schmidt doesn't have Larry's credibility as an engineer, and this original thread was about Schmidt's destruction of engineering culture, not Larry's. For all the worry about the reduction in 20% time and all the stuff that Google does that drives me nuts (G+, shutting down Reader - that one still hurts), they still have the X lab working on moon shots being driven by a founder. Come to think of it, the X lab may have replaced 20% time as Google's innovation lab (not saying I agree with that, there is a place for innovation and improvements in non-moonshots too, this is just a thought I had as I wrote this out).


Absolutely tue regarding Ortega. One of the case studies that are mentioned all the time in supply chain management. Yet, most people just look at Inditex, say "wow" only to turn around without having learned anything from it.

Regarding the rest, good list. Regarding the previous geneeration I would add the TPS guys from Toyota.

As for Eric Schmidt, I can't neither agree nor dosagree since I'm lacking the necessary insight.


> - Steve Jobs, for Pixar and the early 00s turnaround at Apple.

I'm afraid the case for Steve Jobs is stronger than that. He founded Apple and made it successful. Then, while others drove it into the ground again, he made Pixar successful (not to mention minor success with NeXT), then turned Apple from a company in serious trouble, into the biggest company in the world.

By all accounts he was a tremendous jerk, but you can't argue with that level of success.


> 3. "Your margin is my opportunity."

Very scary and very aggressive. Also, smart (if you can pull off that sort of thing).

> 7. "If you're not stubborn, you'll give up on experiments too soon. And if you're not flexible, you'll pound your head against the wall and you won't see a different solution to a problem you're trying to solve."

Making a note to tell this to my kids.

> 14. "[don't] get addicted to being shiny, because shiny doesn't last."

This one, too, sounds like a good general-purpose life advice.


> 3. "Your margin is my opportunity."

Isn't that just Microeconomics 101?


It's also central to The Innovator's Dilemma.


If you;re in a commodity business and there are no other comparative advantages, then sure.


> Very scary and very aggressive.

I would not want to work for a company whose explicit strategy is locating other successful businesses, copying their model, and leveraging economies of scale to undercut them. Wringing out margins also decreases innovation, lowers wages, and drives out all but the biggest players.


This is because Bezos is going for the endgame from day 1 rather than to get stuck in the middle. It definitely is aggressive but it also is where things will end up eventually anyway so entering the game with that in mind is a definite strategy to avoid having someone else do that to you instead. Capitalism is brutal, just how brutal you can see in that quote.


It's certainly a strategy, just not one that appeals to me, or (I imagine) to most of the readership of this site. Essentially Bezos is saying "your desire to make money is a weakness, and we're going to beat you by being cheaper than you." If you can wring out all profits, then no other players in the industry can afford to invest, which validates the strategy. Even employees become not an asset, but an obstacle to greater cheapness. Per Steve Yegge, Bezos reportedly said on multiple occasions that people should be paying him to work at Amazon. There's your endgame!

Here's another brutal, but far more appealing strategy: "Your lack of vision, imagination, and agility is my opportunity." Execute it properly, and you revolutionize the industry instead of commoditizing it.


It appeals to people who like paying less for the same products, ie customers. At the end of the day, that's all that matters right?


That statement is micro-econ 101 though. In a perfectly competitive market, no firm can have economic rents. A high margin implies a non-competitive firm or industry.


Only that all the bigger players are doing basically the same thing. Only difference being that the big players use the results to drive up their margins instead of lowering prices for customers.

And most of innovation is payed for by cash instead of mergin anyway. I, for my part, like that strategy.


I find #14 odd, as shiny luxury brands, especially fashion brands, are some of the oldest in the marketplace.


Here's another favorite of mine:

Because, you know, resilience - if you think of it in terms of the Gold Rush, then you'd be pretty depressed right now because the last nugget of gold would be gone. But the good thing is, with innovation, there isn't a last nugget. Every new thing creates two new questions and two new opportunities.


Two words: diminishing returns.


I think the best thing he ever said was at a commencement speech. This one I could never forget.

Smartness is a gift, kindness is a choice.(paraphrased)


think both are choices if you consider the context in which people commonly compare each other's "smartness


That's pedantry. To the extend smartness is a choice, it's not something you can decide to do from day to day. Being nice very much is.


Is it? I mean obviously you can choose to be nice or nasty, but maybe in the same way that obese people can choose to exercise and eat healthily. Some people are definitely nicer than others by default.


I would say that the context of the sentence ("is a gift") makes it clear that he is talking about biological predisposition to intelligence - for example, working memory size, and not, say, whether you've spent lots of time doing interesting things and learning useful information.


It depends on how you define 'smartness'.

If it means intelligence (which is what I think it means in this context), I do believe it is not yet possible to "choose" to be born free of debilitating mental conditions.


diagnosable mental illness/impairments is not the common context in which people compare each other's "smartness"


"All businesses need to be young forever. If your customer base ages with you, you're Woolworth's."

This made me think of facebook.


According to various younger folks I know around here (in the 12 +- 2 years range) most kids just use instagram and whatnot nowadays rather than facebook.


As in young forever or in Woolworths?


One of my favorite (and a recent one): People who are right a lot often change their minds. One of the best ways to end a heated debate is to say "Wait a minute.. I think I am wrong!".


I read the URL and after hitting #20 I was like "Where are the other 5?". It took me a while to notice the title of the post said "20" so I assume they created a page with 25 then removed 5 and forgot to update the URL.


More like writer started writing, got lazy, bumped it down to 20 and changed the title, but their CMS didn't update the permalink :)


the 5 other are things that go without saying


One quote that really made quite a bit of difference in how I approach problems in life:

"Good intentions never work, you need good mechanisms to make anything happen"


Love this one "...you need to have that long-term willingness to be misunderstood. It's a key part of invention."


The tenth one is funny in its own little way

"We did studies and we didn't listen to them"


We did studies, but decided they didn't measure what was most important.


  7. "If you're not stubborn, you'll give up on experiments too soon. And if you're
  not flexible, you'll pound your head against the wall and you won't see a different
  solution to a problem you're trying to solve."


Yes I read the article too.


"A company shouldn't get addicted to being shiny, because shiny doesn't last."

This may be true of some companies, but we can see that Apple is quite successful at making products which continuously make last year's invention seem outdated. Of course, if making highly polished products takes a huge toll on your resources and impedes your greater strategy, then you may be better off not being "shiny".


"Last" means 25, 50, 100 years. Apple is the poster child, cause they only have "shiny"(well and customer service) and must continually be shinnyer, it's not sustainable. The new iPhones failed to achieve a sufficient shininess delta.


I don't think that I said anything particularly controversial, though I realize that every company can't be like Apple.

Apple has lasted 37 years, and has a cash balance of 150 billion dollars. Jeff Bezos' Amazon is 19 years old and has a low cash balance due to famously razor thin margins.

Apple's model is clearly sustainable for them, but not necessarily for others. Do you disagree with that?

With regards to the new iPhones not being shiny enough, perhaps you should withhold judgement until the devices go on sale.

See also: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/rethinking-the-ipho... http://www.marco.org/2013/09/15/iphone-reactions


But Apple stopped being shiny in the late '80s, and didn't get shiny again until Steve Jobs came back. Even so, it took many years after that to regain its luster. The iMac looked shiny in some circles, but most technically-minded people I knew thought it was stupid. The iPod, in 2001, was the first thing they made that was truly disruptive, and even then it didn't quite sway public opinion to think Apple was an innovation powerhouse.

Personally, my perception of Apple switched when the iPhone came out in 2007. Other people became interested in 2003 or so. Either way, Apple's shine is around 10 years old, and is starting to fade already.


I agree with most of what you've said. My interest in Apple was piqued when I saw Steve Jobs' presentation of the 2006 Intel Macbook Pro.

I think that the iPod taught Apple how to perfect their iterative process and release their innovations in discrete amounts which maximize profits and gives them time to work on their next big product category.

I too believe that Steve Jobs played a great role in making Apple exciting in the first place and bringing that excitement back after it faded away. However, don't you think that we should wait a few more years before determining whether or not Steve set up any precautions or learned from Apple's mistakes the first time around?

Apple's second wind is also correlated with the amount of influence that Jonathan Ive has had at Apple, which as we know is higher than ever right now.


Agreed. I'm not counting them out, I'm just saying that the current public perception isn't what it used to be. At least that's what I mean by "shininess."


If people's reactions to iOS7, and the keynote, are anything to go by, you could possibly argue that their pursuit of 'shininess' has overtaken their pursuit of innovation and novelty, which now makes it look like they're playing catchup with other companies. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it seems to be an increasingly pervasive and snowballing attitude.

The comments in the iOS6 vs iOS7 thread are almost all variations of "now it looks like Android/WP8". That's not a good perception for Apple, even if it's not a fair perception for people to have.


Those comments are self selecting and don't represent anything meaningful other than that all three OS's no longer rely on textures.

Given that most people say that WP8 is radically different from Android, it makes no sense that people would say that iOS7 looks like both of them simultaneously, unless it has somehow captured the best of all 3 operating systems.


Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's just bad news that it's being said in the first place. I don't think many people on HN would have belittled Apple's design strengths over the last decade. I was rabidly anti-Apple myself, while still admitting that they knew what they were doing design wise. So if some significant percentage of people start seeing them as behind the curve now, that's bad.

And I don't think there'd be as much self selection compared to say, /r/android. We should have a pretty general group of people here.


Apple can't control the quality of discussion in forums. It's not 'bad news' for them in particular that people have illogical discussions.

As to self selection - I don't know what the composition of HN in general is, but once a thread starts echoing an illogical emotive position, people who have a different view that is complex to articulate just stay away. I'm not saying HN itself is biased (although it may be), just that individual submissions become self selecting based on the tenor of early comments.


I found it very interesting, but this quote stood out in a bad way:

"If you're long-term oriented, customer interests and shareholder interests are aligned."

This statement smelled like bullshit since large successful corporations don't tend to be incredibly ethical. The fast food industry has an interest in making you eat shitty food with a smile: this is not in the customer's interest (i.e. health), but because customer perception is what matters it's a great business decision, even in the long term.

I also noticed I was subconsciously confusing his statement with the claim that shareholder interests and society's interests are aligned. And it's a radically different question indeed, because Bezo's statement completely ignores employees. Yes, there is tremendous pressure to deliver consumer and shareholder value, but there is no pressure to deliver value to the kind of disposable workforce that Amazon needs. We all know what kind of workplace Amazon is.

Sorry if this is all a bit incoherent, but I'm curious about how CEOs of big companies really feel about ethical questions. It can't possibly be all rainbows and candy.


> I also noticed I was subconsciously confusing his statement with the claim that shareholder interests and society's interests are aligned.

I noticed this, too. If you don't pay close attention it seems like he's saying there are not ethical concerns if you think long-term, but the statement is actually narrower than that. In addition to employees, there can also be people with no involvement with or even knowledge of the business who are affected by negative externalities.


I've seen the score oscillate up and down several times. Would any downvoter care to comment?


Isn't this what makes his outlook special, though?


There's no denying that Amazon have a great product and think long term, but saying you have the customer's best interests at heart sounds a bit like a generic "corporate values" statement.


They don't mention

"We should set up on a reservation. Taxes are for little people."

Possibly because he might not have worded it like that.


"If you double the number of experiments you do per year, you're going to double your inventiveness."


Is it a smart choice that the store feels like 1998 web applications? Given the size of their workforce and the amount of revenue they make, why can't they invest some time in making the interface any good?


Probably because there's no extra money to be had from altering the interface.


What do you mean? Feels like 1998 as in it is simple, easy and works? Doesn't have enough javascript errors to prevent you from making purchases?


You mean you don't like when pages hang with spinners because they're waiting 40sec for a Comscore (et al) tracker to download?


url structure says "25 smartest things..."


my favorite: "Developers, developers, developers"


I think you're conflating Bezos and Ballmer.


I think he's being ironic.


If you are a company selling a platform, those are some wise words to live by.


1. Hay Benzo's--work on your Prime Account page--especially the term and conditions--like 13 month interval for free 30 day prime trial membership. How many people click on that trial by accident; forgetting they once had it? I noticedyou don't send a receipt either?

2. Require your 2 party sellers to tell customers up front about the availability of an item.

3. Require sellers to state more than they just paid for shipping.

4. Bye

5. Oh yea--the company's main phone line needs "to be set up" at least today.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: