Meet the Lucknow-born tech whiz whom Google offered over ₹850 crore to stop from joining a rival company
In a riveting episode of
People by WTF
, hosted by
Zerodha
co-founder
Nikhil Kamath
, a fascinating story of ambition, loyalty, and tech-world drama unfolded. The guest? None other than
YouTube CEO
Neal Mohan — the Lucknow-born man who once received a jaw-dropping ₹855 crore stock offer from
Google
just to keep him from jumping ship to
Twitter
.
The ₹855 Crore Moment That Changed Silicon Valley's Course
Back in 2011, as Twitter was rapidly expanding and scouting for dynamic leadership, they had their eyes set on
Neal Mohan
for the role of Chief Product Officer. Mohan, already a product visionary at Google, seemed like the perfect fit. With Twitter rebranding and pushing into new territories, it was ready to roll out the red carpet. But Google wasn't about to lose one of its brightest minds.
In a move that would go down in corporate lore, Google offered Mohan a staggering $100 million (approximately ₹855 crore) in restricted stock units. These were structured to vest over time, essentially tying him to the company's future and ensuring his continued influence on its most crucial products. This unprecedented counteroffer worked — and Neal Mohan stayed.
Kamath brought up this now-legendary moment during their conversation: 'I remember reading this thing about Google offering you $100 million not to quit… not today, but 15 years ago, which was a lot of money.' Mohan responded with a smile and silence — which, in the world of high-stakes tech negotiations, was confirmation enough.
A Childhood Split Between Lucknow and Silicon Dreams
Long before Mohan became a key player in Google's war room, he was just another young boy walking the hallways of St. Francis' College in Lucknow. His family had moved back to India in 1986 from the U.S., where his father was completing a doctoral degree after attending IIT. Adjusting to India was tough for young Mohan, especially with his American accent and shaky Hindi. But it also helped shape the resilient, cross-cultural thinker he would become.
You Might Also Like:
From housewife to CEO: She wanted to show her daughter that 'we can balance everything'
'Coming here… I sounded funny. I didn't have those immediate things to connect with people,' he recalled during the podcast. But even then, his love for technology remained unwavering. 'I had a little software startup in high school,' Mohan revealed, recalling how he built educational tools for classmates and teachers — an early hint of the product genius he would later become.
From Lucknow to Stanford to Leading YouTube
After finishing his schooling in Lucknow, Mohan headed back to the U.S. to study electrical engineering at
Stanford University
. That marked the beginning of his ascent through the tech universe. His career, shaped by deep technical knowledge and a user-first product philosophy, eventually led him to helm YouTube — one of the world's most influential platforms today.
What makes his story exceptional is not just the billion-dollar figures or executive titles, but the rare blend of grounded beginnings and global impact. In a world where tech leaders often seem detached from reality, Mohan's reflections on his humble roots and cultural adjustments make his journey all the more compelling.
The Legacy of Saying 'No'
Mohan's decision to stay at Google might seem like just another business deal, but in hindsight, it was a turning point for both companies. Had he joined Twitter, its product trajectory could have been vastly different. Instead, he went on to help shape some of Google's most powerful tools — and now oversees the future of content as YouTube's CEO.
You Might Also Like:
How a Bengaluru techie found her manager's side job. She books Uber, her boss shows up as cab driver
So yes, Google paid him a fortune not to leave. But perhaps what they truly bought was time — and the continued brilliance of a small-town boy from
Lucknow
who never stopped dreaming in code.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
33 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Google CEO Sundar Pichai downplays AI jobs threats, says ‘it allows us to do more'
Google CEO Sundar Pichai maintains that AI will not replace workers even as many of his peers in the tech industry appear to believe otherwise. Pichai, who also leads Google parent Alphabet, said that AI tools will enable engineers to be more productive and help them focus on more impactful work by automating tedious tasks. He made these remarks while speaking at the Bloomberg Tech conference held in San Francisco this week. This comes amid a raging debate over the impact of AI on jobs that has been re-ignited after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said that the technology would erode half of all entry-level jobs within the next five years. In response to Amodei's recent comments, Pichai said, 'I respect that . . .I think it's important to voice those concerns and debate them.' 'We've made predictions like that for the last 20 years about technology and automation, and it hasn't quite played out that way,' he added. On whether AI could eventually make half the company's 1,80,000-person workforce redundant, Pichai said, 'I expect we will grow from our current engineering phase even into next year, because it allows us to do more.' Pichai has previously mentioned that over 30 per cent of Google's code is AI-generated. However, he continues to refer to AI as an 'accelerator' that will drive new product development and create demand for more employees. So far in 2025, Google has laid off around 100 employees from its cloud division. This number is far fewer than when the company cut 12,000 jobs and 1,000 jobs in 2023 and 2024, respectively. On the limitations of AI and whether it is possible for the world to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI), an AI system that performs tasks on-par or better than a human, Pichai said, 'There's a lot of forward progress ahead with the paths we are on, not only the set of ideas we are working on today, [but] some of the newer ideas we are experimenting with.' 'I'm very optimistic on seeing a lot of progress. But you know, you've always had these technology curves where you may hit a temporary plateau. So are we currently on an absolute path to AGI? I don't think anyone can say for sure,' he added. Pichai was also optimistic about other technologies and innovations such as Alphabet-owned Waymo autonomous vehicles as well as Google's quantum computing initiatives and YouTube's explosive growth in countries like India.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
What if Google Just Broke Itself Up? A Tech Insider Makes the Case.
HighlightsGoogle has faced significant challenges with two major antitrust cases in the past year, leading to a decline in its stock value and pressure from federal prosecutors to divest key business units. Technology analyst Gil Luria proposes that Google should consider a voluntary breakup into independent entities to unlock shareholder value and stimulate competition, arguing that the combined value of Google's various segments could exceed $3.7 trillion. The historical context of corporate breakups is highlighted, referencing the successful voluntary breakup of AT&T in the 1980s as a precedent, while noting that Google's unusual share structure could complicate any significant changes without the approval of co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Google has lost two important antitrust cases in the past year. Its search business is threatened and its stock is stalled. Federal prosecutors are pushing for it to divest various businesses. Unless the company can pull off a few miracles in court, it will be forced to shrink. There's another possibility. Instead of resisting change, Google could accelerate it. It could spin off huge chunks of itself into independent entities. That would be a very Silicon Valley power move: Break yourself up before courts can break you up. In an era when Big Tech is under suspicion, a maneuver like this would probably be applauded across the political spectrum. For a company that used to have the motto "Don't be evil," such redemption might be irresistible. The Department of Justice wants Google to sell its Chrome browser and its ad network, and maybe its Android mobile business, to fix its monopoly problems. But Gil Luria , a technology analyst with D.A. Davidson & Co., an investment firm based in Montana with $6 billion under management, is thinking bigger. Much bigger. He published a research note May 12 saying Google had become a conglomerate. This was not a compliment. He meant that Google offers an array of products and services that often have little relationship to one another, including the Waymo self-driving taxi service, YouTube, a cloud storage business, a search firm and an ad network. Google's $2 trillion stock market valuation is driven by search advertising, which generates more than half of its revenues. Search is also the part of the company under the most pressure as artificial intelligence begins to answer queries. Google searches in Apple's Safari browser fell for the first time ever in April. That's one big reason Google shares are down more than 9% this year. Other parts of Google are not getting their due. If Waymo were publicly traded, Luria argued, investors might give it something closer to Tesla's $1 trillion valuation, especially since Tesla's self-driving cab ambitions are little more than a concept at this point. The same goes for YouTube when compared with its rival Netflix, a Wall Street darling. Luria estimated that all the parts of Google could separately be worth more than $3.7 trillion, or nearly double the company's valuation now. "Investors want a big-bang breakup, not isolated spinoffs," he wrote. The benefits would not just be financial, he said. Competition would be stoked. Unleashed engineers might create things as amazing as the original Google search engine, which awed people who first used it a quarter-century ago. Luria knows his proposal is a long shot. "The likelihood of the Google board proceeding in this direction is probably less than 10%," he said in an interview. "But it goes up every day." The analyst's analysis got a fair amount of traction in the financial press. The moment was right: Google was arguing to Judge Amit Mehta of U.S. District Court in Washington that its punishment for illegally monopolizing online search should be relatively light. The government and Google met in court again Friday for closing arguments in the penalty phase of the trial. A decision by Mehta might come this summer. Google has said it will then appeal. Barring some sort of wild card from President Donald Trump, the process could slog on for years. Google's troubles were compounded by a second antitrust trial. That one, over Google's advertising technology, resulted in another decision against the company in April. The penalty phase will take place later this year. Google is likely to appeal that case, too. Other asset managers say the logic of a breakup is clear to them. "While breakups often promise to unlock shareholder value in theory but fail in practice, this case appears to be an exception, one where real value could be realized," said Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management. There is a precedent here. In the early 1980s, the national phone company, AT&T, had been fighting off the Justice Department for years. Worried that it would lose the case, AT&T agreed to voluntarily break itself up. It kept the long-distance lines and shed the seven regional companies that offered local calling. For the next decade, at least, competition reigned. Google declined to comment directly on Luria's arguments. A spokesperson pointed to a blog post that said the Justice Department's "proposal to split off Chrome and Android -- which we built at great cost over many years and make available for free -- would break those platforms, hurt businesses built on them, and undermine security." It also sent a list of ways it is still innovating. Among them: Nielsen has ranked YouTube the No. 1 streaming platform for the last two years. Adam Kovacevich, CEO of Chamber of Progress, a trade group funded by Google and other tech companies, said Google needed to be big and think big. "It's a company the size of a cruise ship," he said. "Could it split itself into four yacht-sized companies? Sure. But what would be gained? Google is locked in an intense competition against the other cruise ships -- Apple, Meta, Amazon. And there are some opportunities only a cruise-ship-sized company can tackle, like AI." (BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.) If a split encourages competition, proponents argue, that will benefit Google's ad customers, who will see lower prices. Employees might be more challenged working for a smaller company, where it is easier to move higher. "The breakup of Google would only hurt people who would otherwise benefit from unlawful market power," said Barry Barnett, an antitrust lawyer at Susman Godfrey . "These might include Google executives, whose compensation could fall; startups, which could get lower buyout offers from Google or none at all; and rivals like Apple, which could see chances to share revenue vanish." Google pays Apple $20 billion annually to be the default search engine on the Safari browser. Looming over any discussion of a voluntary breakup is the weight of history. Beyond AT&T, there are few examples of a successful company willing to pull itself apart. Companies that are in permanent slumps have regularly done it, however. General Electric, whose roots go back to Thomas Edison in 1892 and which was once as iconic as Google, split itself into three companies last year after skittering close to death. Hewlett-Packard, another iconic company suffering a long-term decline, broke itself in two in 2015. Microsoft, an earlier antitrust target, is often cited as a company that may have benefited from either an imposed or voluntary breakup. The government won its monopoly case against the company in 2000, and the judge ordered it to divide in two. That decision was reversed on appeal, and the parties settled. Microsoft took a confrontational approach to the case from the beginning, and in the end, it paid off. Google is taking the path now that Microsoft went down 25 years ago, Luria said. "It's saying, 'We are not breaking up, and we'll fight you tooth and nail in court,'" he said. "Microsoft might have won, but the stock was flat for 10 years. They were so focused on fighting the Department of Justice they didn't notice the rise of mobile devices or cloud computing." After the government sued Microsoft, David Readerman of Endurance Capital Partners said, "litigation was a major distraction to Microsoft business unit heads: email retrieval, depositions, et al. There were Xerox document copying centers fenced under the buildings for security reasons." Microsoft did not recover its momentum until Satya Nadella became CEO in 2014. Google's competitors would presumably be happy with smaller Googles, although maybe not. IBM had a dominant position in computing for years, if not decades, probably even greater than that of Google now. The government pursued an antitrust case against it starting in the late 1960s. Some in the industry thought this was a problematic move. Dick Brandon of Brandon Applied Systems, a computer consulting firm, told The New York Times in 1972 that "I would prefer to compete against one I.B.M. than two, three, four, or even eight similarly managed competitors without the present gloves that have been tied on in fear of antitrust action." (END OPTIONAL TRIM.) Another issue shadowing any talk of a breakup: Owing to Google's unusual share structure, major changes could never be undertaken without the approval of the two founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin . And founders tend to be emotionally attached to what they have created. But "never say never," said Kovacevich, who worked in public policy at Google for many years. " Larry and Sergey like bold, unconventional moves," he added. "Could they decide at some point this would be beneficial to the company? Sure. Any business leader should keep all options on the table."
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Google has handled people's deepest, darkest secrets responsibly: CEO Sundar Pichai
Google CEO Sundar Pichai was recently asked during an interview why people should trust Big Tech companies such as Google, given that these companies store their users' 'deepest and darkest secrets'. 'We earned the trust,' Pichai replied during the interview with news agency Bloomberg. 'We've been storing people's emails now for many, many years, but we've handled that content responsibly.' He went on to explain that Google has protected its users from 'bad actors' and 'unwarranted requests,' and that people trust the company because of this. On the topic of using user information for AI integration and a more personalised experience, which raises privacy concerns, Pichai said that Google is evolving these products based on user feedback. 'You know, the biggest thing people ask with Gemini and Gmail is 'why can't it write more like me?'. It's an ask we are responding to.' Live Events Antitrust rulings Discover the stories of your interest Blockchain 5 Stories Cyber-safety 7 Stories Fintech 9 Stories E-comm 9 Stories ML 8 Stories Edtech 6 Stories Regarding Google's dominance in search and advertising, and the antitrust rulings by the US courts, Pichai said that the company disagrees with the decisions and is currently appealing. He added, 'I don't think there's anyone here who is using anything they don't want to use…The reason people use Google is because they want to use it, right?' 'I think choice is good for users. Competition is good for the world. So, that's how I see it,' he concluded. Google is set to face a trial in September concerning antitrust regulators' proposals requiring the company to divest part of its advertising technology business. This move aims to address Google's dominance over the tools used by online publishers to sell ads. Regarding the recent search monopoly case, Google stated , 'We will wait for the Court's opinion. And we still strongly believe the Court's original decision was wrong, and look forward to our eventual appeal.'
