391–400 of 543 posts
Let's be honest, a 15 million compensation won't make a difference between 225 million..
It would be better to take the 225 million and make it a potential 1 million bonus to 225 engineers, I guarantee you would have better results.
... And getting caught flat-footed against Microsoft (and Adobe, but but not as loudly) in the precise field Alphabet is supposedly the insurmountable leader. Remind me again how big-co CEOs assume "all the risk"?
Risk is unevenly distributed in corporations, and employees often have more to lose on a personal level
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You anti-work guys are again showing your ignorance. A large chunk of techie compensation is in stock.
What difference does it make what form the compensation is in? Is your argument that because employees receive stock that they somehow have enough voting power to influence company policy? That’s laughable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to find a new job, 4% interest @ 225M USD = 9M USD yearly.
Oh, it's even better than that. This is just his compensation for last year. Add all previous years to it, plus stock he owns. Plus, the ability to get low interest loans which he can spend acquiring more assets.
$218M of it is a stock grant on a 3 year schedule, so no, it is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft would have become IBM, if not for Satya Nadella. He completely rejuvenated Microsoft after Ballmer's reign. Microsoft successfully transitioned into cloud computing with Azure, Office 365, and Teams. They dramatically improved their image among developers/open source with WSL, Typescript, VS Code, and their GitHub acquisition. Now it seems they caught Google completely off guard with respect to AI productiz…
I think the success of Azure is really impressive give how technically poor it is.
Is this the driver?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately Sundar is also relatively weak at setting a bold vision to ensure the company continues to grow and innovate, as Larry had done. I'm willing to presume Larry had bold visions, but if I grouped google products, I think successful and launched before 2006 would be the same. I think it's time to admit that google has been a conglomerate for decades and could no longer run with innovative management. The…
> if I grouped google products, I think successful and launched before 2006 would be the same In October 2006, YouTube was bought by Google for $1.65 billion.[11] Google Maps was launched in February 2005.[2] These are the last 2 Google products I use Search got replaced by DDG then Ecosia Chrome by Firefox Gmail by my own mail server My Pixel 2 ran out of security coverage and sick of buying a new phone every 2 year…
This is hardly reproductible. I guess that the standard place people go after gmail is fastmail.
But getting a free equivalent is hard (at least I do not know any). I could host my mail but this is hard work and monitoring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don't need to be number 1 to make a profit. GCP is not profitable, though. Or at least, was reported as not being during this calendar year.
That's because they're doing the standard thing of spending tons on growth. Like nearly every company does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google was already on a trajectory to do all these things. It doesn't matter who the CEO is. The big tech co lifecycle includes decline. More than 10 years ago, I figured that Google was a few years behind Microsoft on that trajectory. Edit: and a lot of comments here are saying Satya turned MS around; i find that dubious.
That's kind of the point, if they didnt avoid that trajectory then what are they doing? Going down with the ship?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome is sitting near all-time highs in market share: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268254/market-share-of-i... . Search hovers around ~90% for the last several years: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share Google Cloud is growing faster than Azure & AWS for the last few years: https://www.statista.com/statistics/967365/worldwide-cloud-i... . Cloud was at ~4% market share 5 years ago, now it's a…
These are weak reasons. They may have been at 90% over the last few years but things are quickly changing. The fasting growing cloud? 6% in five years after pouring in billions now they need to start charging what it costs. The more unprofitable of the cloud vendors. Chrome is still the most popular free browser. Not sure that matters as much as it once did.
The data they collect via Chrome, plus their ad network, makes Chrome part of their money printing machine.
So market share I think helps them here.