I think a co-founder is about what you do, not when you join. If Mr. Kaplan was key in strategy and envisioning the business, that would go a long way, but if he was responsible for implementing Bezos plan, I don't think he should be considered a co-founder.
To limit the term only to the person with the idea overemphasizes ideation. To limit the term only to the person who first writes checks would overemphasize finance. Something great didn't exist; a group worked together; then it did exist. We might honor the leader or original spark as 'The Founder' but all the team are also 'founders' in a reasonable, non-hagiographic sense of the word.
I suppose, but who is taking all of the risk? A founder takes a loss if the company loses and wins when the company is profitable. An employee doesn't take a loss (in a sense that they are paid a regular salary no matter what).
If the big-F Founder has a richer set of post-failure options than founding employees – and gets more beneficial notoriety even in failure – they may in practice be risking less than early employees.
If a company has enough capital to pay employee #1, then yes, the founder is making a salary. But, at this point, the risk is considerably less and employee #1 shouldn't be getting anywhere near the same payout if the company gets bought out.
The founder also most likely has their own money tied up in the company.
Employee #1 can always get unemployment if the company goes bust. The founder will have their name and business credit history tied to the company if there are major problems. Employee #1 can just go find another job as if nothing ever happened.
"If the big-F Founder has a richer set of post-failure options than founding employees – and gets more beneficial notoriety even in failure"
More risk=more reward. If you are employee #1 and you aren't getting paid industry or above industry rates, then you shouldn't be working at that startup. If you want all of the glory when it succeeds, then you need to start your own company.
Have you ever actually started a company? It's not easy. Much more difficult (and risky) than being employee #1.
So he's not claiming to be one; and if you look at the headline of the article it says "first employee".
After reading that whole article i find Kaphlan to be a very interesting guy. I feel i share alot of personality traits with him and from the outcome i can see where those traits has helped and worked against him in the startup world....
Might look into a few things further cause of this article :) Thanks ...
Whatever his title officially was, before him, there was no code. He built the foundation of amazon.com. Doesn't that make him a "founder".
Startupping is a creative process in which all levels of company should participate, good ideas might very well have come from below ranks.
He mentions he didn't get founder's stock though, so that kinda answers your question.