> The way that AWS is tossed around/described almost makes it feel like a class-gap between Amazon employees. "Oh, don't worry, you're with AWS, we pay for our employees parking and give them healthcare, you're not part of those Amazon shlubs who have had articles upon articles released about how poorly they're treated."
I Google around a bit, and found this article [1] from 2017 where an Amazon VP commented that his benefit package is the same as that of warehouse workers.
> For my more applied response to "run as a startup" being bad - after working in 10 startups and losing half of my lifes holidays/weekends/etc launching apps that never make money just sounds like you're going to try your hardest to work me to burn out. So, I don't really like that sentence nowadays even in non-AWS worlds.
Thanks for sharing that. I'm not trying to convince you either, just sharing my perspective to ensure a balanced discussion. When people say "run as a startup" I think they mostly refer to the positives, i.e. having a lot of autonomy and a surprisingly low amount of politics (for the size of the company). People at AWS work hard but it's not crazy and from what I've seen it certainly doesn't rise to anywhere close to your startup experience. One particular about work at AWS is that if you're in a service team you'll be oncall for some amount of time each quarter. Operator culture is very important here. Oncall duties will vary by team, and I think workload will also be different for different teams.
In my experience (having worked at a startup myself too), I think the biggest two differences between a startup and AWS are: i) AWS actually has processes (called "mechanisms" internally) and they generally work, ii) when you're building a product, it will usually be successful. This is because the process to get to a product definition (the "working backwards" process) is extremely rigorous and rarely results in products or features that are duds.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-benefits-201...