5 ms·

Android Probably added 100-200B to GOOG Market Cap. I would say thats peanuts.

by kumarm 8y ago

KorematsuFred 8y ago
I think many thought he should not get anything because the allegations of misconduct against Rubin. I personally think that is irrelevant, he should be fired for the misconduct but the fruits of his labour should not be denied to him. Android has made world a better place and Google along with all the employees a much better company financially.
skybrian 8y ago
This is another example of the fallacy where you give all the credit to the famous leader in the news. While leadership is important, it's not like he did it all himself.
- B-Con 8y ago
  Nobody said he did. Turns out people are very happy to reward results. No one needs to do everything them self.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Yeah, I just think everyone should be rewarded. The comment I was replying to attributed 100-200B in market cap to Rubin, rather than to the Android team, which is a lot of people. Back when I worked at Google, often when something new was announced at TGIF (even seemingly minor features), they'd have slides crediting everyone who helped, and it went on and on like movie credits.
- bmurphy1976 8y ago
  The king sips wine from his golden chalice while his pawn's die on the battlefield.
- bitL 8y ago
  Think about the alternative - somebody does a measurably great job, growing you a new multi-billion business from zero, even making you a dominant player. Later, that person ends up as a suspect of an unrelated crime, so you deny them any reward. Why would anyone with great potential want to work for you? From outside, it could all look like there is some possibility you orchestrated the whole problem to avoid paying, e.g. by analyzing that person's weaknesses, then paying somebody else to be a bait etc. There are indeed a few cases where co-founders were baited by VCs into illegal acts like buying drugs or hiring escorts and later coerced to "do the right thing" or else... That's probably not a signal you'd like to send.
  - sonofaplum 8y ago
    its not strictly speaking an unrelated crime. It wasn't like a drunk driving offense. He was being rewarded for his positive contributions as an employee and people are criticizing that reward based on his alleged negative behavior as an employee.
  - entee 8y ago
    1.) If a founder got baited into illegal acts by a VC, they should be fired immediately. Not sure how you fire a VC, but that sort of thing should end that VC's career as well. 2.) It's irrelevant that he built a billion dollar business. He was well compensated throughout his time at Google, he knew the terms of his compensation package and presumably was fine with it given that he didn't leave voluntarily. This is a case where he was given an enormous compensation package AFTER a crime was discovered that is directly related to his job function. If you lead a team, your function is to lead it well. Hitting on your subordinates and worse is NOT leading it well, regardless of the success of that team. He should have been fired, for cause, with zero severance. Google should have accepted the inevitable lawsuit. Stand up for your values even if you lose in court, otherwise they're meaningless. I'm tired of assholes being rewarded and worshipped in the valley. It is possible to not be a horrible person and still accomplish great things. And if it's not, then it's probably not worth the great things if you lose your ethics in the process.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
drugme 8y ago
You realize that's not the issue. Right?
- lefstathiou 8y ago
  I think it could in fact be the only issue. Now I have not gone through all the news on this, I don't have the time. My point is that the presumption of innocence is baked into our legal framework (morally, legally and philosophically) and Andy (last I recall) has not admitted to, been charged with nor convicted of any crime. So in theory, the "issues" that I suspect you are referring could arguably be moot. From LP's perspective (and I can only speculate what that could be), I can see the challenge in justifying withholding a compensation package from someone who did in fact create tremendous value for you knowing that while there has been ample time to press charges for his alleged crimes no charges have been pressed. Is an accusation that is not followed through enough to justify reneging on a commitment made? Is sleeping with someone you work with enough to renege on a commitment made? Tough questions that I don't have the answer to. Anecdotally, I live in NYC and have 3 Google couples in my apartment building and none of them are the same age (so presumably, there may or may not be some title / comp/ role differential). Anyway, not so black and white in my opinion.
URSpider94 8y ago
That's not the point. The point is, the corporation presumably has an executive compensation committee that should review and sign off on any award of this magnitude (or frankly, probably awards 10x smaller than this). Those rules are in place for a reason, to keep the company's funds from being used as a private piggy bank. If Page thought Rubin deserved this bonus, he should have taken it to the compensation committee in advance of making the award. Of course, then there would be the risk that they would say no ...
- dmix 8y ago
  Process just for the sake of process doesn’t make it a useful function. You can usually spot a useless administrative process by the words ‘rubber stamp’ which was used in this article to describe the later approval by the board. In practice that idealistic oversight which such a process is supposed to bring about weren’t being followed by the board regardless. If they did it without also caring then I don’t see how the investors or public are better off for it, other than to check a checkbox. It’s certainly useful for finger pointing later on but that doesn’t mean Page would have acted differently had they went through the process. If they find it necessary to observe the process for ‘risk management’ then fine. But it has to still be done earnestly and to be relevant here it has to be clear this was the stopgap or protection layer needed in that situation, particularly for dealing with sexual assault allegations.
  - URSpider94 8y ago
    Agree 100%. The comp committee should have smacked this back in Page’s face if they didn’t support it. What’s more likely (guessing here) is that they didn’t want to pick a fight with the company’s founder and potentially set themselves up for a legal fight with Rubin (Page, like all company officers, can legally bind the company to a contract regardless of approvals, so Rubin would probably have a case here if they tried to renege). Anyone else would have been fired for pulling this stunt. Firing the co-founder of Google for breaking the rules - well, I guess he called their bluff.
- CalChris 8y ago
  In exactly what universe is 100-200B in Market Cap not the point? Moreover, Larry and Sergei still own more than 50% of the voting rights of the company. So exactly what is the point of standing on ceremony?
throwaway66666 8y ago
People are not freaking out because Page gave away 150M to huge benefactor and innovator, but because "Page gave away $150000000 to a sexual harassment perpetrator!!!". In this light, doesn't it look bad? My opinion is that Rubin deserves to be awarded (with a proper company policy to prevent misuse of funds, nepotism etc). But also deserves to be fired and punished for misconduct (if it is proven to have occurred). These two are not mutually exclusive. The rest is all fluff about how the public perceives a company's culture.
- pisarzp 8y ago
  well, he kind of was fired (asked to leave)
  - drugme 8y ago
    But the $150M part is much more important. It's kind of like Larry's way of saying: "No hard feelings, Andy -- we know these things happen."

Android Probably added 100-200B to GOOG Market Cap. I would say thats peanuts.

by kumarm 8y ago

Android Probably added 100-200B to GOOG Market Cap. I would say thats peanuts.

I think many thought he should not get anything because the allegations of misconduct against Rubin. I personally think that is irrelevant, he should be fired for the misconduct but the fruits of his labour should not be denied to him. Android has made world a better place and Google along with all the employees a much better company financially.

skybrian 8y ago

This is another example of the fallacy where you give all the credit to the famous leader in the news. While leadership is important, it's not like he did it all himself.

B-Con 8y ago
Nobody said he did. Turns out people are very happy to reward results. No one needs to do everything them self.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Yeah, I just think everyone should be rewarded. The comment I was replying to attributed 100-200B in market cap to Rubin, rather than to the Android team, which is a lot of people. Back when I worked at Google, often when something new was announced at TGIF (even seemingly minor features), they'd have slides crediting everyone who helped, and it went on and on like movie credits.
bmurphy1976 8y ago
The king sips wine from his golden chalice while his pawn's die on the battlefield.
bitL 8y ago
Think about the alternative - somebody does a measurably great job, growing you a new multi-billion business from zero, even making you a dominant player. Later, that person ends up as a suspect of an unrelated crime, so you deny them any reward. Why would anyone with great potential want to work for you? From outside, it could all look like there is some possibility you orchestrated the whole problem to avoid paying, e.g. by analyzing that person's weaknesses, then paying somebody else to be a bait etc. There are indeed a few cases where co-founders were baited by VCs into illegal acts like buying drugs or hiring escorts and later coerced to "do the right thing" or else... That's probably not a signal you'd like to send.
- sonofaplum 8y ago
  its not strictly speaking an unrelated crime. It wasn't like a drunk driving offense. He was being rewarded for his positive contributions as an employee and people are criticizing that reward based on his alleged negative behavior as an employee.
- entee 8y ago
  1.) If a founder got baited into illegal acts by a VC, they should be fired immediately. Not sure how you fire a VC, but that sort of thing should end that VC's career as well. 2.) It's irrelevant that he built a billion dollar business. He was well compensated throughout his time at Google, he knew the terms of his compensation package and presumably was fine with it given that he didn't leave voluntarily. This is a case where he was given an enormous compensation package AFTER a crime was discovered that is directly related to his job function. If you lead a team, your function is to lead it well. Hitting on your subordinates and worse is NOT leading it well, regardless of the success of that team. He should have been fired, for cause, with zero severance. Google should have accepted the inevitable lawsuit. Stand up for your values even if you lose in court, otherwise they're meaningless. I'm tired of assholes being rewarded and worshipped in the valley. It is possible to not be a horrible person and still accomplish great things. And if it's not, then it's probably not worth the great things if you lose your ethics in the process.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago

drugme 8y ago

You realize that's not the issue. Right?

lefstathiou 8y ago
I think it could in fact be the only issue. Now I have not gone through all the news on this, I don't have the time. My point is that the presumption of innocence is baked into our legal framework (morally, legally and philosophically) and Andy (last I recall) has not admitted to, been charged with nor convicted of any crime. So in theory, the "issues" that I suspect you are referring could arguably be moot. From LP's perspective (and I can only speculate what that could be), I can see the challenge in justifying withholding a compensation package from someone who did in fact create tremendous value for you knowing that while there has been ample time to press charges for his alleged crimes no charges have been pressed. Is an accusation that is not followed through enough to justify reneging on a commitment made? Is sleeping with someone you work with enough to renege on a commitment made? Tough questions that I don't have the answer to. Anecdotally, I live in NYC and have 3 Google couples in my apartment building and none of them are the same age (so presumably, there may or may not be some title / comp/ role differential). Anyway, not so black and white in my opinion.

URSpider94 8y ago

That's not the point. The point is, the corporation presumably has an executive compensation committee that should review and sign off on any award of this magnitude (or frankly, probably awards 10x smaller than this). Those rules are in place for a reason, to keep the company's funds from being used as a private piggy bank. If Page thought Rubin deserved this bonus, he should have taken it to the compensation committee in advance of making the award. Of course, then there would be the risk that they would say no ...

dmix 8y ago
Process just for the sake of process doesn’t make it a useful function. You can usually spot a useless administrative process by the words ‘rubber stamp’ which was used in this article to describe the later approval by the board. In practice that idealistic oversight which such a process is supposed to bring about weren’t being followed by the board regardless. If they did it without also caring then I don’t see how the investors or public are better off for it, other than to check a checkbox. It’s certainly useful for finger pointing later on but that doesn’t mean Page would have acted differently had they went through the process. If they find it necessary to observe the process for ‘risk management’ then fine. But it has to still be done earnestly and to be relevant here it has to be clear this was the stopgap or protection layer needed in that situation, particularly for dealing with sexual assault allegations.
- URSpider94 8y ago
  Agree 100%. The comp committee should have smacked this back in Page’s face if they didn’t support it. What’s more likely (guessing here) is that they didn’t want to pick a fight with the company’s founder and potentially set themselves up for a legal fight with Rubin (Page, like all company officers, can legally bind the company to a contract regardless of approvals, so Rubin would probably have a case here if they tried to renege). Anyone else would have been fired for pulling this stunt. Firing the co-founder of Google for breaking the rules - well, I guess he called their bluff.
CalChris 8y ago
In exactly what universe is 100-200B in Market Cap not the point? Moreover, Larry and Sergei still own more than 50% of the voting rights of the company. So exactly what is the point of standing on ceremony?

throwaway66666 8y ago

People are not freaking out because Page gave away 150M to huge benefactor and innovator, but because "Page gave away $150000000 to a sexual harassment perpetrator!!!". In this light, doesn't it look bad? My opinion is that Rubin deserves to be awarded (with a proper company policy to prevent misuse of funds, nepotism etc). But also deserves to be fired and punished for misconduct (if it is proven to have occurred). These two are not mutually exclusive. The rest is all fluff about how the public perceives a company's culture.

pisarzp 8y ago
well, he kind of was fired (asked to leave)
- drugme 8y ago
  But the $150M part is much more important. It's kind of like Larry's way of saying: "No hard feelings, Andy -- we know these things happen."