Google Once Paid $100 Million To This Indian-American Man To Retain Him
New Delhi:
Google paid an Indian-American businessman a mammoth $100 million over a decade ago to keep him from joining Twitter, now known as X. The revelation came on a recent episode of Zerodha co-founder Nikhil Kamath's podcast when the host referenced the high-stakes talent war that once surrounded YouTube CEO Neal Mohan.
In 2011, Neal Mohan was a key player in Google's advertising and YouTube product strategy. During the podcast, Mr Kamath mentioned, "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." Mr Mohan did not deny the claim.
According to a 2011 TechCrunch report, Google's offer was made in the form of restricted stock units that would vest over several years. It was part of Google's aggressive bid to stop Mr Mohan from joining Twitter, where his former boss David Rosenblatt joined the board and was keen on recruiting him as Chief Product Officer.
Neal Mohan, who holds a degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University, began his career at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture) before moving to NetGravity. The startup was acquired by DoubleClick, where Mr Mohan rose through the ranks and eventually became Vice President of Business Operations. When Google acquired DoubleClick for $3.1 billion in 2007, Mr Mohan transitioned into a leading role within Google's ad business.
By 2011, he was already one of the central figures in Google's product development strategy, with a growing influence on YouTube's future roadmap. Recognising his value, Google made the $100 million offer to retain him, a move that paid off in the long term.
Neal Mohan wasn't the only target in Twitter's recruitment drive. Around the same time, Twitter also attempted to lure Sundar Pichai, then heading Chrome and Chrome OS at Google. In response, Google reportedly countered with a $50 million stock grant to retain him.
Today, both executives continue to hold influential roles in the tech world. Neal Mohan serves as the CEO of YouTube, succeeding Susan Wojcicki in 2023, while Sundar Pichai became CEO of Google in 2015 and later assumed the role of Alphabet Inc's CEO in 2019.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Narender surrendered to Adani, China': Congress ups ante with fresh jibe at PM
The Congress on Thursday upped the ante with its " Narender-surrender " jibe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi , alleging that he "surrendered" before billionaire Gautam Adani as well as to China. There was no immediate response from the government or the Adani Group over the Congress's accusations but the business conglomerate has, in the past, rejected all such allegations against it. Congress leader Ajoy Kumar said the duo of Adani and Modi has left behind the Jai-Veeru duo from the film "Sholay". "The process of Narendra Modi's surrender before (US President Donald) Trump has happened after many years of practice," Kumar said at a press conference at the Indira Bhawan, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) headquarters here. "Wherever Narendra Modi goes or whatever Adani wants -- he gets the contract.... The diplomatic moves of India's prime minister have helped industrialist Mr A to expand his international business interests in ports, airports, electricity, coal mining and weapons," the Congress leader claimed and cited examples from various countries. Live Events "Narenderji has hurt his country's relations with her neighbours as well as with other countries by brazenly promoting Mr A's ambitions. The growth of the Mr A Group outside India over the past decade or so has been closely aligned with the diplomatic efforts of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi," he alleged. Many of "Mr A's" international deals were struck soon after Modi's official visits to certain countries or after heads of government visited India, Kumar claimed. Alleging that Modi had also "surrendered" before China, he said "Narender-Surrender" must apologise to the country for his "clean chit" to the neighbouring country on its invasion of Indian territory in 2020. Kumar claimed that China has vowed to stand by Pakistan in defending its "sovereignty" and "territorial integrity", and called it its "iron-clad friend". "China's foreign minister, Wang Yi, recently gave a statement that his country would continue to stand by Pakistan in upholding its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national independence. China has supplied arms worth over USD 20 billion to Pakistan," Kumar claimed. The Congress had said on Wednesday that it is wrong to think that "Narendra Modi is India and India is Narendra Modi", as it slammed the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for its criticism of Rahul Gandhi over his dig at the prime minister, and doubled down on the "Narender-surrender" jibe. Gandhi had said in Bhopal on Tuesday that "as soon as Trump signalled from there, picked up the phone and said, 'what are you doing Modiji? Narender, surrender'.... And Modiji obeyed Trump's orders with Ji Huzoor'". Urging people to remember 1971, Gandhi said back then, a phone call had not come but the United States had sent its 7th fleet, weapons and an aircraft carrier, but prime minister Indira Gandhi did not surrender and said she would go by national interest. Referring to the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Gandhi said they are habituated to writing "surrender letters" since Independence. The BJP has accused Gandhi of insulting the armed forces with his "surrender" barb at Modi, saying it amounted to undermining the success of Operation Sindoor. BJP national spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi said the Congress leader has surpassed even Pakistan's army chief, prime minister and the terror masterminds based there in speaking in support of the neighbouring country, and alleged that his jibes reflect a sick and dangerous mindset. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
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
38 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."
