Google offers engineer $3.5M to not leave for Facebook(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Google offers engineer $3.5M to not leave for Facebook
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/11/google-offers-staff-engineer-3-5-million-to-turn-down-facebook-offer/
150 comments
I can't believe anyone would buy that, though. Facebook makes almost no money. That's not going to change. People are leaving the platform. There is constant negative publicity.
Facebook is not a sure bet, so if you want to work there, do it because you like the project you're going to be working on. If you want to get rich quick, start buying lottery tickets.
(If you want to get rich slowly, then take Google's $500,000 stock offer! While Google's growth may be slowing, they still have a solid product that makes them a shit-ton of money.)
Facebook is not a sure bet, so if you want to work there, do it because you like the project you're going to be working on. If you want to get rich quick, start buying lottery tickets.
(If you want to get rich slowly, then take Google's $500,000 stock offer! While Google's growth may be slowing, they still have a solid product that makes them a shit-ton of money.)
"Facebook makes almost no money. That's not going to change."
I doubt that you honestly believe that, but if you do -- want to make a longbet? I bet Facebook will 5x their revenues in the next 2 years. Loser pays $5,000 to a charity of the winner's choice. I'm 100% serious.
I doubt that you honestly believe that, but if you do -- want to make a longbet? I bet Facebook will 5x their revenues in the next 2 years. Loser pays $5,000 to a charity of the winner's choice. I'm 100% serious.
What's any multiple of revenue have to do with making money? Revenue is easy, profit's hard.
That's so unbelievably not true. Both can be difficult in their own right.
Making a lot of revenue is certainly not easy. Not a lot of business models scale up to making hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of revenue per year. Achieving that part is ridiculously difficult.
Making profit, on the other hand, is relatively simple: just control costs. We're making many millions of profit per year because we have a high profit margin. Making profit, relatively speaking, is easy.
For us to grow to hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue, that will be hard.
The idea behind valuing "top line" revenue is that the leverage there is unbelievable. If you increase your efficiency by 1%, you've instantly made tens of millions of dollars per year in profit. In the meantime, most companies voluntarily choose to pour all of their profits into growth, like hiring ahead of the curve.
Making a lot of revenue is certainly not easy. Not a lot of business models scale up to making hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of revenue per year. Achieving that part is ridiculously difficult.
Making profit, on the other hand, is relatively simple: just control costs. We're making many millions of profit per year because we have a high profit margin. Making profit, relatively speaking, is easy.
For us to grow to hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue, that will be hard.
The idea behind valuing "top line" revenue is that the leverage there is unbelievable. If you increase your efficiency by 1%, you've instantly made tens of millions of dollars per year in profit. In the meantime, most companies voluntarily choose to pour all of their profits into growth, like hiring ahead of the curve.
It's only hard for you to grow to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue because of your profit margin. Start selling stuff for a loss and you'll have tons of revenue (given that your goods are in demand and you are selling them for less than everyone else). They're are tons of businesses with plenty of revenue but shit to show for it. The auto industry comes to mind...
Facebook is not selling physical goods at a loss, and the comparison is not apt.
Facebook is making a bet that if it hires a bunch of really talented people while they are available, those people will eventually make more money for Facebook than they cost them.
Don't confuse that bet with an inability to make profit should they so choose.
Facebook is making a bet that if it hires a bunch of really talented people while they are available, those people will eventually make more money for Facebook than they cost them.
Don't confuse that bet with an inability to make profit should they so choose.
[deleted]
You don't need profit if you're too big to fail.
I agree with the parent. Facebook recently announced Facebook Deals (which allows advertisers to advertise based on check-in triggers from facebook's location platform) and the facebook location check-in platform I'm sure will soon dwarf foursquare and gowalla combined. That combination is just as compelling if not more so to advertising as advertising when people are searching. Facebook deals could very easily be the new adsense.
Google may have a stranglehold on web advertising but Facebook is in a very good position to get a stranglehold on local advertising.
Google may have a stranglehold on web advertising but Facebook is in a very good position to get a stranglehold on local advertising.
Facebook deals could very easily be the new adsense.
How? I don't have a Facebook account. I do need to search the web, though.
Google's advertising platform is strong because they put their ads where I need to be. Facebook is not as strong because I don't need to check-in with Facebook when I go somewhere. Some people think it's fun, but what I've noticed is that most people stop using Foursquare after the first week or so. Is Facebook any different?
How? I don't have a Facebook account. I do need to search the web, though.
Google's advertising platform is strong because they put their ads where I need to be. Facebook is not as strong because I don't need to check-in with Facebook when I go somewhere. Some people think it's fun, but what I've noticed is that most people stop using Foursquare after the first week or so. Is Facebook any different?
>Is Facebook any different?So Facebook's business model is paying people to use it? OK. Can I sell my shares now?
Facebook doesn't have to pay anyone for that to work. Same model as Foursquare, with a userbase orders of magnitude larger
Facebook is not as strong because I don't need to check-in
with Facebook when I go somewhere.
And they are not prevented from entering the store if they don't "check-in" on Facebook. It's something extra to do if you feel like it.
Compare this to Google search ... how else are you going to find stuff on the Internet?
Compare this to Google search ... how else are you going to find stuff on the Internet?
Compare this to Google search ... how else are you going to
find stuff on the Internet?
Bling!
What sort of device are they going to use to "check in" when they're moving about?
This guy seems legit
(p.s. - my charity of choice gets 30% of your winnings for being a moral backer)
(p.s. - my charity of choice gets 30% of your winnings for being a moral backer)
People are leaving the platform?
Do you mean like someone deactivated their account?
Or do you mean more people leave facebook every month than sign up?
If the latter, can you provide a source?
Do you mean like someone deactivated their account?
Or do you mean more people leave facebook every month than sign up?
If the latter, can you provide a source?
Facebook makes almost no money? You're insane. Facebook is making a billion of profits a year, and that's a 3-5-fold increase on last year. They're not shouting about it on the rooftops (why should they?), but they're clearly on their way to having a business that makes just as much money as Google (however it is they're doing it) and so will probably command similar valuations.
This reminds me of the few years before Google IPOed, when Google were deliberately keeping quiet about their profits so as to not generate lots of competition for themselves, but were quietly putting away hundreds of millions a year and multiplying that each year.
This reminds me of the few years before Google IPOed, when Google were deliberately keeping quiet about their profits so as to not generate lots of competition for themselves, but were quietly putting away hundreds of millions a year and multiplying that each year.
Facebook is making a billion of profits a year, and that's a 3-5-fold increase on last year.
The most we know is that their profits are in the "tens of millions", their revenues are in the billions.
The most we know is that their profits are in the "tens of millions", their revenues are in the billions.
I wonder what the ratio of new people signing up to people leaving facebook is.
I personally think it's more than just slightly higher than 1 to 1.
I personally think it's more than just slightly higher than 1 to 1.
It's clearly not. When they state user numbers, they only ever state active user numbers. And it's growing like a bat out of hell.
Let that sink in for a minute. Almost 600 million people use Facebook every single month. That's not the number that's signed up, and left. It's the number that is still actively using Facebook.
Let that sink in for a minute. Almost 600 million people use Facebook every single month. That's not the number that's signed up, and left. It's the number that is still actively using Facebook.
> they only ever state active user numbers
Yeeeeeessss...? just as anyone else, amirite?
Yeeeeeessss...? just as anyone else, amirite?
The derivative of that ratio is far more interesting than the ratio itself.
There is no way to possibly find this out.
What you 'personally think' this number is should suffice.
What you 'personally think' this number is should suffice.
Facebook makes almost no money.
Not only you have no way of knowing that (unless of course you work there, in which case please let me know), but you grossly underestimate their capacity to take a revenue of hundreds of billions and turn it into a profit. No matter what their management is smoking, I doubt they're complete idiots or are squandering it.
Not only you have no way of knowing that (unless of course you work there, in which case please let me know), but you grossly underestimate their capacity to take a revenue of hundreds of billions and turn it into a profit. No matter what their management is smoking, I doubt they're complete idiots or are squandering it.
At this point, I have to wonder if it's really Facebook telling people that, or if it's TC repeating that line over and over for everyone to read.
It only matters that TC may be making this stuff up if you work at Google. If you work at Google, go find an offer from Facebook that is better. If you get such an offer, then you can see if you get a counter.
If not, go collect more money at Facebook. Worst comes to worst, you're getting paid more, it makes morale worse at Google leading to others getting offers.
Google isn't a unicorn, it's a business, the purpose of working at a business is to extract as much value as you can from the 'business resource'. And in return you should expect the business to extract as much value from their 'human resource' as possible.
That's how life works. Google provides snacks and benefits because it allows them to extract more value, if the expected value from such benefits were negative they would not do it.
If not, go collect more money at Facebook. Worst comes to worst, you're getting paid more, it makes morale worse at Google leading to others getting offers.
Google isn't a unicorn, it's a business, the purpose of working at a business is to extract as much value as you can from the 'business resource'. And in return you should expect the business to extract as much value from their 'human resource' as possible.
That's how life works. Google provides snacks and benefits because it allows them to extract more value, if the expected value from such benefits were negative they would not do it.
Value isn't measured solely in dollars, even at work.
I agree with you that value is not always measured in dollars.
However, if the value is not measured in dollars, then why is Google offering dollars?
I think what is happening is that Facebook is offering more dollars (likely, via stock) and the developers would prefer more dollars to more non-dollar denominated value Google is offering.
Developers are not always the best investors, but at this point in time Facebook would appear to have much more upside in their stock than Google. It's just a matter of time before enough developers vest that Facebook is forced public like Google.
I think what is happening is that Facebook is offering more dollars (likely, via stock) and the developers would prefer more dollars to more non-dollar denominated value Google is offering.
Developers are not always the best investors, but at this point in time Facebook would appear to have much more upside in their stock than Google. It's just a matter of time before enough developers vest that Facebook is forced public like Google.
It's absolutely hilarious (and sad) that people here are jumping all over that nonsense line, and now's there's an actual debate over whether Facebook is worth $100 billion.
1) These are numbers Arrington pulled out of his ass.
2) 0.1% at present valuation is already beyond his $3.5 million counteroffer. Nobody is getting 0.1% anymore.
1) These are numbers Arrington pulled out of his ass.
2) 0.1% at present valuation is already beyond his $3.5 million counteroffer. Nobody is getting 0.1% anymore.
I would be extremely surprised if anyone that joins as an engineer now is getting 0.10%. I would guess its more around 0.01%. 10 basis points is more like a 30th engineer offer than a 300th engineer offer.
"that would be 100x revenue"
They are already expected to make well over 1B this year. Why would that be the same a few years from now?
They are already expected to make well over 1B this year. Why would that be the same a few years from now?
From what I read last year's revenue was ~$800M and this year is looking like $1.2B. I hit it right in the middle. Regardless, this is revenue and revenue gets you shit on Wall Street. No one knows what their profit is, but even if it's in the $250M range (which I think is about 5x high), it still has to increase ~10x to get into the territory that a $100B valuation would need.
They're also quickly running out of people with money to register, so I doubt we'll continue to see such huge growth. Not saying they won't make a great business out of it, but tantalizing would be hires with a $100B valuation seems pretty shady to me.
They're also quickly running out of people with money to register, so I doubt we'll continue to see such huge growth. Not saying they won't make a great business out of it, but tantalizing would be hires with a $100B valuation seems pretty shady to me.
Rumor has it, it's more like 2B.
Sweet, so they only have to raise that 50x before it's not a ludicrous statement. All they need to do now is get 25 billion people with as much money as the current 500m do signed up and they are good to go.
No, you are assuming that Facebook have already reached their maximum revenue per user. Facebook's revenue potential is massive and is only going to go up.
Indeed. Advertising is the easy way to make money, but I see a lot more creative ways to sell their social graph.
One would be to sell it to credit-rating agencies and insurance companies. If all your friends have totaled their cars and defaulted on their loans, then you aren't going to get one either. The only problem with this is that it's extremely evil (because even non-users of Facebook can be fucked by this, thanks to the "steal all of your email addresses" import method), and that there aren't very many banks and insurance companies.
Another model I see is using the photo service and the photo graph to help the police solve cold cases. Match the artist's sketch to the Facebook photo database, find some matches, and talk to their friends. Also very scary and evil, but potentially profitable. "Won't someone please think of the children?"
Anyway, once Facebook feels like they have a fairly complete graph and don't need any more users, then the money making can really begin.
One would be to sell it to credit-rating agencies and insurance companies. If all your friends have totaled their cars and defaulted on their loans, then you aren't going to get one either. The only problem with this is that it's extremely evil (because even non-users of Facebook can be fucked by this, thanks to the "steal all of your email addresses" import method), and that there aren't very many banks and insurance companies.
Another model I see is using the photo service and the photo graph to help the police solve cold cases. Match the artist's sketch to the Facebook photo database, find some matches, and talk to their friends. Also very scary and evil, but potentially profitable. "Won't someone please think of the children?"
Anyway, once Facebook feels like they have a fairly complete graph and don't need any more users, then the money making can really begin.
Any more unlawful ideas for Facebook revenue?
Yeah. Using the Facebook graph to price health insurance. Has your girlfriend slept with someone who slept with someone who slept with someone who has AIDS? That will be $100,000 per month kthx.
[deleted]
Yes, because they need $100 billion in revenue to be a $100 billion cap company.
Depending on their profit margin, yes they do. Revenue is worthless. They aren't making much money now and will have to make tons to be worth $100B. They're not a huge number of people with money left to register, so it's up to making more with what they have now. We'll see I guess.
s/Facebook/MySpace/ and ask again
s/Facebook/AOL/ may be more appropriate.
MySpace just blew it. AOL was a safe walled garden for people who didn't know what the internet was. As the internet outside AOL increased in value, people had less use for their walled garden.
The same thing could happen to facebook if the rest of the internet gets more inherently social.
MySpace just blew it. AOL was a safe walled garden for people who didn't know what the internet was. As the internet outside AOL increased in value, people had less use for their walled garden.
The same thing could happen to facebook if the rest of the internet gets more inherently social.
s/Facebook Fan page/AOL Keyword/
s/Facebook email/AOL email/
s/Facebook Games/AOL Games/The people running Facebook clearly know their ass from their face a little better than those running MySpace.
The point is that startups can go either way. Facebook's doing well now, but it would not be shocking if fewer people used it in 5 years.
Seems odd that a 6 year old company with 2000 employees and almost 10% of the planet using its services is still referred to as a startup.
I hesitated before writing that. The reason I thought startup was the appropriate term is because as a business, facebook is still judged by what they might become/achieve.
Facebook's doing well now, but it would not be shocking if fewer people used it in 5 years.
Why wouldn't it be shocking? They've shown that they can ship and see through to maturity several revolutionary products. Stop thinking in the abstract: if a company employs teams who can build stuff, ship it, and bring it to maturity, that's what they'll keep doing. The tech industry isn't exactly lacking in revolutionary ideas to implement.
Why wouldn't it be shocking? They've shown that they can ship and see through to maturity several revolutionary products. Stop thinking in the abstract: if a company employs teams who can build stuff, ship it, and bring it to maturity, that's what they'll keep doing. The tech industry isn't exactly lacking in revolutionary ideas to implement.
And Google couldn't fail spectacularly in the same period?
They could. I'm not saying they can't.
But, the chances are probably lower than Facebook failing. The chances of Google failing are much lower than the chances of Facebook growing its revenues (or prospects) 5X.
Price (ie working for shares) is an estimation of probability. I'm not saying Facebook is worthless. It's worth a lot. The reason Facebook's valuation isn't $100b already is because the road from here to there is an uncertain one. The two factors I would consider to be important are: (a) Facebook's revenue model is relatively immature.(b) Facebook might be a trend.
*I think Facebook might even have the potential rival Google in advertising. I'm not a Facebook pessimist.
But, the chances are probably lower than Facebook failing. The chances of Google failing are much lower than the chances of Facebook growing its revenues (or prospects) 5X.
Price (ie working for shares) is an estimation of probability. I'm not saying Facebook is worthless. It's worth a lot. The reason Facebook's valuation isn't $100b already is because the road from here to there is an uncertain one. The two factors I would consider to be important are: (a) Facebook's revenue model is relatively immature.(b) Facebook might be a trend.
*I think Facebook might even have the potential rival Google in advertising. I'm not a Facebook pessimist.
[deleted]
Google could fail in this same period, but it is unlikely to go through a revenue and valuation growth spurt similar to the one it has had over the past decade. Google is now settled into its middle-age and it is no more likely to come up with another money-printing machine like search advertising than any other company. Facebook has a fraction of Google's revenue and it is possible that they will figure out how to monetize their assets in a manner similar to Google, but it is also possible that they screw up or are blocked by social/legal barriers and are unable to realize the potential that everyone is imagining them to be capable of.
The possibility of Facebook cratering is far greater than the possibility that Google will crater, but the possibility of Facebook reaching Google-like revenues is much more likely than the possibility that Google will double their revenue over a similar time period.
The possibility of Facebook cratering is far greater than the possibility that Google will crater, but the possibility of Facebook reaching Google-like revenues is much more likely than the possibility that Google will double their revenue over a similar time period.
It can, but on the other hand they aren't telling new hires that Google could be a $2 trillion company and that would make their stock options worth an amazing amount (which would be the same amount of increase for Google that Facebook is suggesting). They're just handing out stock that's already worth a lot.
How much did Tom Anderson walk away with in cash from Fox?
The point is that, in a scenario where their market cap reached 100B, we would not expect their revenue to remain stagnant between now and then.
At a point where their market cap reached 100B we'd expect their profits to be between 2-3B a year. (P/E between 33-50)
Considering that's 2-3x their current revenues can you understand the skepticism?
Considering that's 2-3x their current revenues can you understand the skepticism?
But very very few people would get 1/10 of 1% these days at FB. More like a tenth of that. Nothing to sneeze at, but it's a long way to that $100B valuation still.
Sounds like a good way for Google to guarantee that every one of their engineers will apply for a job at Facebook, just for the chance of getting an offer.
Example of perverse incentive: "In Hanoi, under French colonial rule, a program paying people a bounty for each rat pelt handed in was intended to exterminate rats. Instead, it led to the farming of rats."
19th century palaeontologists traveling to China used to pay peasants for each fragment of dinosaur bone (dinosaur fossils) that they produced. They later discovered that peasants dug up the bones and then smashed them into multiple pieces to maximise their payments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
19th century palaeontologists traveling to China used to pay peasants for each fragment of dinosaur bone (dinosaur fossils) that they produced. They later discovered that peasants dug up the bones and then smashed them into multiple pieces to maximise their payments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
This is definitely what happens in academia, and is not really great for a lot of reasons imo. Quickest way to get a big raise, to be fast-tracked to full professor, to get appointed director of some lab, etc., etc., is to get made a good offer by another university, and get all that stuff in a counter-offer. So of course, everyone is always soliciting offers from other universities. The few people who don't, end up paid less and with fewer perks, even though they're often the people actually long-term building the department's research and education programs.
I could not agree more. This has happened to a few people I know... including myself. As with most places, they never value you until you are almost out the door.
And at the same time, test with absolute certainty your worth to Google. Your offer might turn out to be.. ummm somewhat less than millions.
The engineer who wanted to leave had a combination of skill and institutional knowledge that Google decided would cost more than $3.5M to replace. How many engineers could possibly be in this position at Google?
The engineer who wanted to leave had a combination of skill and institutional knowledge that Google decided would cost more than $3.5M to replace. How many engineers could possibly be in this position at Google?
Everyone is talking like this is such a huge number. If it vests over four years (They mention vesting, but not period.) then it is roughly $900,000 per year. If typical is $150,000 , then we're asking how many people could possibly be worth six times that much? Maybe 10%?
Another way to look at it is that this looks small in comparison to early equity positions in startups that go on to work out. It sounds like a good way to combat a desire on an engineer's part to roll the dice on that.
Another way to look at it is that this looks small in comparison to early equity positions in startups that go on to work out. It sounds like a good way to combat a desire on an engineer's part to roll the dice on that.
"Everyone is talking like this is such a huge number. "
That's because it is. It automatically puts you in the top 0.1% of wealthiest persons in the world.
http://www.capgemini.com/services-and-solutions/by-industry/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire
(note: edited from 0.001)
That's because it is. It automatically puts you in the top 0.1% of wealthiest persons in the world.
http://www.capgemini.com/services-and-solutions/by-industry/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire
(note: edited from 0.001)
How did you get 0.001%? It says there are ten million HNWI (millionaires). $3.5M is (assuming that one uses half of it for a primary residence, not unreasonable in the Bay Area) somewhat more than a million, so say seven million people are as rich as this guy will be. Seven million / seven billion = 0.1%, not 0.001%.
You're right, I think I misread some number somewhere :) .
Still, the distribution is not even, of the 7 million millionaires, a huge percentage are probably just over the one million mark.
You made me download the Capgemini report (I love data and reports :) ), and it says:
"A disproportionate amount of wealth remained concentrated in the hands of Ultra-HNWIs. At the end of 2009, Ultra-HNWIs represented only 0.9% of the global HNWI population, but accounted for 35.5% of global HNWI wealth."
Btw you can download the 2009 report (PDF, requires registration) here, though it's lacking in the "actual figures" department and it's more of the "text and graphs" variety:
http://www.capgemini.com/insights-and-resources/by-publicati...
As an Uruguayan (South America), I'm always aware that you really can't comprehend really how rich people in the U.S. are (and Bay Area in particular, the Bay Area has probably one of the highest per capita incomes in the world).
Still, the distribution is not even, of the 7 million millionaires, a huge percentage are probably just over the one million mark.
You made me download the Capgemini report (I love data and reports :) ), and it says:
"A disproportionate amount of wealth remained concentrated in the hands of Ultra-HNWIs. At the end of 2009, Ultra-HNWIs represented only 0.9% of the global HNWI population, but accounted for 35.5% of global HNWI wealth."
Btw you can download the 2009 report (PDF, requires registration) here, though it's lacking in the "actual figures" department and it's more of the "text and graphs" variety:
http://www.capgemini.com/insights-and-resources/by-publicati...
As an Uruguayan (South America), I'm always aware that you really can't comprehend really how rich people in the U.S. are (and Bay Area in particular, the Bay Area has probably one of the highest per capita incomes in the world).
That does happen quite a bit, but I'm sure the $3.5 million engineer was recruited by Facebook, and did not apply for a job at Facebook.
This seems like a dangerous precedent to set.
It makes me wonder if this programmer was strategic, ie, he could have brought a very specific / useful skill set to Facebook -- or if he knew a lot about key Google developments.
It makes me wonder if this programmer was strategic, ie, he could have brought a very specific / useful skill set to Facebook -- or if he knew a lot about key Google developments.
Isn't that a usual practice? (It is, in my country, not sure of valley culture)
Anyone inside Google care to anonymously comment how morale is over there these days? Why so many people jumping ship? Is it purely about money, or something else?
I can't comment on Google goings-on, but sometimes jumping ship is simply explained by looking at stock option vesting dates. Google only had 6,000 employees at the beginning of 2006.
Maybe the work conditions have gotten worse compared to pre-IPO Google?
If I just had a 10% pay rise in this economic climate I'd be pretty darn happy right now . . how long it will last of course . . .
But remember, it's a 10% raise immediately after the company got caught with illegal no-poaching agreements with their competitors.
The 10% pay rise was offset by a $17 drop in the stock. Most employees own stock, so they got an extra 10% taxed as income at the cost of lower stock value which is taxed as gains
Something tells me Google didn't think it through
Something tells me Google didn't think it through
I doubt HP and Adobe were poaching Google employees, the "clod-calling" agreement was most likely to everyone else's benefit, a Google employee would only leave for IPO money or to start their own thing.
Why not? Especially HP, they're going heavy into the cloud infrastructure space. A lot of Google's scale expertise would probably come in handy. And Adobe being a software company... well, good software companies always want good programmers. Clearly, Google has those.
Goldman sach's traders routinely get money in this order of magnitude for creating a net value less than top engineers at Google.
>traders routinely get money in this order of magnitude for creating a net value less than top engineers at Google
But traders don't create value they leech it. Yes they create price changes that result in profit, but that's a quirk of the financial system. Yes, fluidity, yadda-yadda, I don't buy that crap.
Engineers, if they're working effectively are creating value.
(Downvoters, please also comment).
But traders don't create value they leech it. Yes they create price changes that result in profit, but that's a quirk of the financial system. Yes, fluidity, yadda-yadda, I don't buy that crap.
Engineers, if they're working effectively are creating value.
(Downvoters, please also comment).
That's a pretty bold statement : The Goldman trader's NPV will be pretty solid in cash terms (given that Goldman's risk group actually does a decent job, and values things accurately). The NPV created by a Google engineer is more difficult to judge - depending on how far into the future it is, and what risk/reward is embedded in Google's stock valuation.
I'm not arguing that either one is over or under-paid. Just that it's not apples-to-apples.
I'm not arguing that either one is over or under-paid. Just that it's not apples-to-apples.
Techcrunch really is eating up these Google and Facebook stories. I mean they're kind of interesting, but not interesting in the way that stories on innovation are interesting.
I kind of want to see the perspective of lower level google employees. They wouldn't get offers like this, but they would all have some thought about the future of their company
I kind of want to see the perspective of lower level google employees. They wouldn't get offers like this, but they would all have some thought about the future of their company
I know I'm stating the obvious, but Google, Facebook and Apple stories like this get eaten up by mainstream news. There are more readers of mainstream news than there are entrepreneurial types like us on HN.
They're interesting to me because of all the technologies that huge platforms like Google and Facebook spawn. For instance when Facebook launched the Places API, there were 3-4 Places apps out there within a week or two. For that reason the long term growth (or death) of these giants is interesting to me even if I'm not able to/don't desire to work there. Then again my startup is all about Facebook so maybe I'm just a nerd for it.
I remember having a conversation with the athletic director @ BYU in my younger years. I naively asked why the football team had 92 full scholarships when only a fraction of that was required to field a team. He told me flat out, "because those 2nd & 3rd string players might make something of themselves if they played for another team."
So, there you go. A rock-star programmer can be a dangerous thing in the hands of the competition.
So, there you go. A rock-star programmer can be a dangerous thing in the hands of the competition.
I don't see how this could be good strategy.
1) Can BYU seriously hire enough of the football talent out there as to reduce the chances that other teams will succeed?
2) Is BYU so prized a destination among football players that they would be willing to sit on the sidelines at BYU rather than get more time playing, at another team? Consider that they also want to attract the attention of NFL scouts.
Google doesn't have any of these problems -- for many candidates, it is the NFL, and there's no real limit on how many people can "play".
1) Can BYU seriously hire enough of the football talent out there as to reduce the chances that other teams will succeed?
2) Is BYU so prized a destination among football players that they would be willing to sit on the sidelines at BYU rather than get more time playing, at another team? Consider that they also want to attract the attention of NFL scouts.
Google doesn't have any of these problems -- for many candidates, it is the NFL, and there's no real limit on how many people can "play".
1. Elite players within the state of Utah (U of U being their main rivalry), yes.
2. Nobody wants to sit on the sidelines, but if you can work your way up to first string at a top 20 University then yes, the scouts are more likely to take notice.
Why do you think the NFL pays millions and millions of dollars recruiting the best of the best? It's because talent at that level is rare, hard to find, and even harder to hold on to.
In my experience, a rock star programmer can be worth more to an organization than 100 of your common CS grads.
2. Nobody wants to sit on the sidelines, but if you can work your way up to first string at a top 20 University then yes, the scouts are more likely to take notice.
Why do you think the NFL pays millions and millions of dollars recruiting the best of the best? It's because talent at that level is rare, hard to find, and even harder to hold on to.
In my experience, a rock star programmer can be worth more to an organization than 100 of your common CS grads.
I'm an avid college football fan and the BYU athletic director's response doesn't seem right.
Roster depth is very important to a team for various reasons such as having players who can step in for injured players (important given the nature of football), allowing players to learn the system/schemes before playing (despite what many think of football it is complex and being able to "reload" rather than "rebuild" is key to the perennial powerhouses), giving players time to develop and grow before seeing game time (most are a mere 18 years old when starting college), being able to field scout teams for the starters to practice against, etc.
USC football is currently facing sanctions and lost 10 football scholarships per year for three years. Read any sports analyses on the sanctions and they'll tell you that the scholarship loss hurts USC not because so much because top recruits will be making something of themselves elsewhere but because it hurts USC's roster depth.
Roster depth is very important to a team for various reasons such as having players who can step in for injured players (important given the nature of football), allowing players to learn the system/schemes before playing (despite what many think of football it is complex and being able to "reload" rather than "rebuild" is key to the perennial powerhouses), giving players time to develop and grow before seeing game time (most are a mere 18 years old when starting college), being able to field scout teams for the starters to practice against, etc.
USC football is currently facing sanctions and lost 10 football scholarships per year for three years. Read any sports analyses on the sanctions and they'll tell you that the scholarship loss hurts USC not because so much because top recruits will be making something of themselves elsewhere but because it hurts USC's roster depth.
This is basically the whole raison d'etre of Microsoft Research.
An interesting part of this story is that Google knows full well who that person is (unless they've been giving out $3.5M to a lot of people...), and leaking that story to TechCrunch makes Google look desperate and less interesting than Facebook.
Especially knowing that they just fired the person that leaked a positive (though confidential) memo that was addressed to 23,000 people. (that is, not super private to begin with)
It feels a bit like biting the hand that just fed you a huge amount of money.
Especially knowing that they just fired the person that leaked a positive (though confidential) memo that was addressed to 23,000 people. (that is, not super private to begin with)
It feels a bit like biting the hand that just fed you a huge amount of money.
I'm sure that person (again, assuming that there was only one) wasn't the only one to know about the money.
It's probably more likely that a manager, someone in HR, etc leaked the info.
It's probably more likely that a manager, someone in HR, etc leaked the info.
You're right, of course. Overall, it just feels that the person who did leak this story would have more reasons to be fired that the one about the memo... Especially if it's someone in HR who are clearly not supposed to divulge any information like that.
If I was that employee, I would think I've now reached the most awkward point of my career. And the most dangerous.
Yeah, but you just scored $3.5 million. I think most people can deal with a bit of awkwardness and danger for that kind of cash.
Especially knowing that they just fired the person that leaked a positive (though confidential) memo that was addressed to 23,000 people.
Really? Wow. I missed that --- link?
Really? Wow. I missed that --- link?
I can guarantee you that in the eyes of top young grads Google has looked less interesting than Facebook for several years now. Google is where you go if you aren't good enough for Facebook. It's a safe, stale, big corp that is the dream job of every mediocre, middle-aged programmer out there.
Seriously? I have a bit of background on research, and Google always looked the more attractive choice, still does. I'd pick Facebook in anticipation of a massive IPO, honestly; I wouldn't expect to be equally appreciated in Google.
Are you implying that it is easy for mediocre, middle-aged programmers to join Google, and consider that as the plan B for their career? I'd say the opposite.
Folks, from what I hear, "Staff Engineer" is a top-level position; it's not your garden-variety engineer on staff. These are people who have risen to a high position in the company as individual contributors, eschewing the management path.
What a rip off.
I'll not work for Facebook for only $2.5M.
:-)
I'll not work for Facebook for only $2.5M.
:-)
My problem if a company paid me $3.5 million not to leave for its competition would be that I'd quit the day the money was in my bank account anyway. I wouldn't go work for the competition, but I'd be starting my own company.
I could do a hell of a lot with $3.5M, and probably make more than I ever would being an engineer for Google.
I could do a hell of a lot with $3.5M, and probably make more than I ever would being an engineer for Google.
I don't think the money just shows up in your bank account one day. From the TC article: "this means Google is handing over stock worth $3.5 million based on its value today, and that stock will vest over time."
I like how this article is suggesting new hires at Facebook get .1% of the company, or over 25 million dollars worth of stock at the current valuation.
I have a feeling if we actually knew the truth, and not this sensationalism, the whole situation would probably end up being pretty logical. Google is actually a pretty smart company.
I have a feeling if we actually knew the truth, and not this sensationalism, the whole situation would probably end up being pretty logical. Google is actually a pretty smart company.
The only way this story makes sense to me is if the engineer is one of the core contributors to Google Me, or some other strategically important new initiative.
Those teams are small enough that every engineer counts, and a defection could even delay launch.
Facebook would be interested in sabotaging that, but Google would pay even more to defend it.
Those teams are small enough that every engineer counts, and a defection could even delay launch.
Facebook would be interested in sabotaging that, but Google would pay even more to defend it.
I'd work this backwards.
Consider a high-profile late-comer to Google who might have an existing equity position not comparable to peers who were there for the IPO, or peers who had hired in early (e.g., his grants were at pre-bailout highs and only recently recovered). Accepting a $3.5 million counter-offer means that the immediate "sure thing" is greater than or equal to the expected value of Facebook's offer when the risk of Facebook falling short is taken into account. Say this engineer thought there was only a 50% chance of Facebook actually hitting their "quietly told" market cap. That would imply the Facebook offer was something in the $5-$7 million range, or 1/15000th to 1/20000th of the outstanding shares. For recruiting a big name, this is much more plausible amount to offer than the 1/10 of 1% in the story.
If the story is true, then I'd bet that the engineer is someone who came to Google late (or at the wrong time), probably is pretty comfortable with his standing at Google is someone fairly prominent, and is more comfortable taking a stable, sure thing than taking a risk on a situation as early in the company life-cycle as Facebook is. (And it wouldn't surprise me to see this engineer leave for Facebook 5 years from now if and when Facebook becomes a more mature company and more of a sure thing.)
Consider a high-profile late-comer to Google who might have an existing equity position not comparable to peers who were there for the IPO, or peers who had hired in early (e.g., his grants were at pre-bailout highs and only recently recovered). Accepting a $3.5 million counter-offer means that the immediate "sure thing" is greater than or equal to the expected value of Facebook's offer when the risk of Facebook falling short is taken into account. Say this engineer thought there was only a 50% chance of Facebook actually hitting their "quietly told" market cap. That would imply the Facebook offer was something in the $5-$7 million range, or 1/15000th to 1/20000th of the outstanding shares. For recruiting a big name, this is much more plausible amount to offer than the 1/10 of 1% in the story.
If the story is true, then I'd bet that the engineer is someone who came to Google late (or at the wrong time), probably is pretty comfortable with his standing at Google is someone fairly prominent, and is more comfortable taking a stable, sure thing than taking a risk on a situation as early in the company life-cycle as Facebook is. (And it wouldn't surprise me to see this engineer leave for Facebook 5 years from now if and when Facebook becomes a more mature company and more of a sure thing.)
This is the market at it's best. I've heard from many times that Google's salaries aren't competitive but rely on the "you will change the world" mentality. Google pulls in the talent and Facebook gets to cherry pick.
Google is starting to look desperate.
If Google as a company is starting to look desperate; I want my company to look desperate.
This is a nice case study that demonstrates an answer to the question of "Why do those evil Wall Street bankers make so much money?" Competition for skilled labor produces tremendous salaries.
Can someone explain why Pre IPO stock would be worth so much? Either something is wildly inefficient, or the employees are getting duped. If X shares are expected to be worth $1m after IPO, Facebook could offer potential employees X/2 shares, which is still a $500k signing bonus, and use the other shares for something else.
It's a risk/reward calculation. There is a small possibility of pre-IPO stock being worth fuck you money. Google can't even off the possibility of fuck you money, but they can offer decent money (although anecdotal evidence says they underpay) with low risk. Unfortunately for Google, many of their employees have risk/reward profiles closer to Facebook than Google.
Random numbers:
Facebook: Shares with a 1% chance of being worth $10m
Google: Guaranteed $100,000.
Same expected value, different tolerances for risk.
Random numbers:
Facebook: Shares with a 1% chance of being worth $10m
Google: Guaranteed $100,000.
Same expected value, different tolerances for risk.
One wonders if it's Steve Yegge.
No, else the story wouldn't fit on a single page
Why? Is his work that valuable to the company?
His departure would certainly be notable, at least to this community.
Despite the number of people interested in him (myself included), his desire to be out of the public Internet eye has made him less notable.
Plus I get the feeling he doesn't plan on leaving Seattle.
Plus I get the feeling he doesn't plan on leaving Seattle.
His notability is probably useful over and above his engineering ability.
I find it hard to believe that a bunch of post-IPO facebook millionaires ($100mill+) would stick around and maintain/work on Facebook afterwards.
As long as let some people go it's not to bad, if employees of similar importance to the guy they have given the stock to knew all it took was an offer for a big jump they would all do it. Letting some people take the offer though puts some doubt into the minds, are they really prepared to jump ship if Google calls their bluff.
Who knows if this is true, or what the full story is, but in general I think this kind of tactic is poisonous to a company. Please read this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629201 (I just re-read that. Such an excellent post.)
This is ridiculous.
Much better strategy to attack Facebook, would be to spin off startups for talented engineers. Give this $3.5M to Google Ventures, which will invest it into spin-off. The engineers still work for Google with much better upside (comparing to Facebook).
if you get 1/10 of 1%, that’s $100 million in stock. Now it’s a party
I dont get the maths here. Given that facebook already has 3000+ employees, I am not sure they can give everyone 0.1% stocks and given how 100 Billion evaluation is an atrocious claim, numbers dont add up to me.
I dont get the maths here. Given that facebook already has 3000+ employees, I am not sure they can give everyone 0.1% stocks and given how 100 Billion evaluation is an atrocious claim, numbers dont add up to me.
"However effective these counter offers are, they sure aren’t good for morale internally at Google. Unless, of course, you’re one of the ones winning the lottery."
If you got sweet counter offer -- why wouldn't you just shut up so the morale would not be hurt?
If you got sweet counter offer -- why wouldn't you just shut up so the morale would not be hurt?
For the same reason that criminals are often caught after they bragged about crimes to their associates (who then give them up in order to get a deal for themselves if they are caught): because people just have to run their mouths sometimes.
How come no one asked yet, was the person who leaked this information fired or not?
It seems to me that this story has a bit of sensationalism in it?
It doesn't mention the engineer's salary. At that kind of offer, I'm going to assume he's a super-star performer. So his salary is probably on the far right of the bell-curve.
Also, how long is the vesting period? 5 years? 10 years?
So that's a bonus of 350k to 700k per year? What if he was already making 350k a year? What if he was making 500k? If so, then 3.5M isn't that outrageous.
It doesn't mention the engineer's salary. At that kind of offer, I'm going to assume he's a super-star performer. So his salary is probably on the far right of the bell-curve.
Also, how long is the vesting period? 5 years? 10 years?
So that's a bonus of 350k to 700k per year? What if he was already making 350k a year? What if he was making 500k? If so, then 3.5M isn't that outrageous.
Are people really worth this much money? I can't help but think "$3.5m gets me 15 really good developers for a year, and a swimming pool filled with chocolate pudding, just for fun."
If the guy is really top 1% in the world, why not? How much do the top 1% athletes, musicians, etc, make? An argument can probably be made for a top 1% coder.
The top 1% athlete? On average probably about $0. There are probably a few hundred thousand high school football players. There are only 32 NFL teams. Even among those few that make it (probably much smaller than 1% I'd wager), few are superstars. Taking into account chance of injury, short career, and brain damage (in this case), the ~ $700K NFL salary isn't so great.
And musicians? Their situation is probably worse! The truth is talent is pretty bountiful. Finding out that no matter what hot shit you were in high school, there's an army of kids out there ten times smarter is a veritable right of passage. Maybe this guy is the top .01%, but I think the value you can extract from the relative brilliance of one member is a case of diminishing returns. Is he doing, 100% of the time, work that an actual 1% guy or several of them couldn't do?
And musicians? Their situation is probably worse! The truth is talent is pretty bountiful. Finding out that no matter what hot shit you were in high school, there's an army of kids out there ten times smarter is a veritable right of passage. Maybe this guy is the top .01%, but I think the value you can extract from the relative brilliance of one member is a case of diminishing returns. Is he doing, 100% of the time, work that an actual 1% guy or several of them couldn't do?
1 fantastic developer would often be worth '15 really good developers'.
I don't buy it, not from a company as large as Google who has more institutionalized about scaling and building web properties. Just because it sounds really cool that Google throws gobs of money at engineers doesn't necessarily make it the best approach. It sounds like a fear-driven tactic, and if they're that worried about keeping talent, they're probably not going to put that good talent to use anyways.
it finally took Google, Facebook and 3.5M together to make a story that HN crowd would be interested more than being bullied in school :)
Shady shady. Not only are there plenty of good reasons for Facebook not hitting $100B market cap (that would be 100x revenue, making the P/E amazingly high), but they also aren't handing out .001% of stock to many new hires. There's just not that much stock available, there are already more than 1,000 employees and a lot of the shares are spoken for (Zuck's got ~30%, the VCs have another huge chunk, etc).