171–180 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He runs the 2nd most valuable company in the world, and the company is most profitable company ever. Giving him 700m in stock to keep him around is worth it for both the investors and employees.
Isn't Google famous for the investors and the employees both being entirely powerless?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the things that a CEO drives is vision and innovation. Sundar misses the mark on these things. AI is a good example. Google invented the transformer architecture, but simply published it for its competitors to use. It took a code red in 2023 to finally push Google to develop products based on this. Cloud. Years late to the game. All it would have taken is a letter similar to the famous Bezos memo to eventually…
> Google invented the transformer architecture, but simply published it for its competitors to use. That's how innovation works in this industry. If companies didn't allow researchers to publish their work it would set us back decades. Researchers building on each other's work is how this industry was built. > It took a code red in 2023 to finally push Google to develop products based on this. So Google executed. Abi…
Lmao I love this. "Hey, engineers. Make something like that but better here's money, but only a fraction of what I'll make off it!"
Yeah, being a CEO is reeeally hard. Even when they fail they still walk out with >10m.
Is this what motivates Sundar Pichai to work harder for Google? More money? Surely there's nothing he could want that he doesn't already have. I understand it's insulting to be paid less than other CEOs, and I get that it's a way of keeping score. All the same I think he's doing it for the power, the respect, the fame. Would he have walked away if the number was only $100m? Would that have been rational?
I think the confusion stems from mapping normal people money usage on people, that have much more money than they can use on themselves: They don't do that. You can use excess money to make things happen as you see fit.
Money enables you to do things in the world, and if you want to do things in the world, a few hundred million are very easily spent. I am sure most people around here would have no trouble allocating that amount of money towards something they would like to see happen or improved, and that's how a lot of money, that someone does not feel they need, is used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting a lump-sum payment at the end of three years is worse than getting paid incrementally, and is sort of the opposite of how insurance companies make money (which is taking frontloaded payments for long-term liabilities and investing the float).
You're thinking about cash. This is options
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is completely meaningless. Anyone can sell a bunch of one dollar bills for 50 cents
That was the proper takeaway during Amazon.com’s preprofit stages.
They have the people, the models and the chips. And Sundar helped achieve that.
That's what he said on some podcast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are a public company.
Private in that they're not owned by the taxpayers or government. Amtrak would be an example of a "public" company in the sense that I believe that the poster was describing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they are a private company They are a public company
Sorry I'm European, I mean "private" in the sense "not a Public Body", they are a company whose board has approved the remuneration using the company's own funds, meaning that the majority of shareholders are happy with this pay package.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry I'm European, I mean "private" in the sense "not a Public Body", they are a company whose board has approved the remuneration using the company's own funds, meaning that the majority of shareholders are happy with this pay package.
The meaning is the same in "European". I'm Portuguese.