Why would it be in that same ballpark? Google has a notoriously silly hiring process so its costs are probably higher than the costs of some other companies, but really 5-10MM to hire 3-4 people? I guess if they're willing to spend that on a "talent acquisition" it may not be that far out of line with normal hiring costs but I'd say there's certainly a problem there.
As I stated in my post I understand that demonstrating ability via Frid.ge can certainly be valuable and worth a premium. It just seems to be much higher than one might expect Google to spend on normal hiring processes.
Comments
How much would Google have to spend to hire a complete team to add and expand fridge-like features for Google+? It's got to be in that same ballpark.
Surely it's worth the premium to hire a cohesive, motivated team that's already learned the domain and has a proven ability to execute.
Particularly considering the benefit Google can realize from getting a better solution to market faster.
Why would it be in that same ballpark? Google has a notoriously silly hiring process so its costs are probably higher than the costs of some other companies, but really 5-10MM to hire 3-4 people? I guess if they're willing to spend that on a "talent acquisition" it may not be that far out of line with normal hiring costs but I'd say there's certainly a problem there.
As I stated in my post I understand that demonstrating ability via Frid.ge can certainly be valuable and worth a premium. It just seems to be much higher than one might expect Google to spend on normal hiring processes.
I think the part of the equation that we're weighting differently is the value to Google of having better features for Google+, available sooner.
I'd join you in surprise if we weren't talking about Google Plus.