SAN DIEGO, Calif. — Top algorithm engineers at Google are drawing down tens of millions in stock, pushing up engineering salaries across Silicon Valley, according to Marc Andreessen, a legendary web enterprenur turned venture capitalist at Andreessen Horowitz.
Andreessen gave his views on the economics of startups, the app market, wearables, ARM servers, and massive open online courses (MOOCs) during an hourlong fireside chat at Qualcomm's Uplinq here this week. Here are a few outtakes from his rapid-fire, passionate musings.
On engineering salaries in Silicon Valley:
Engineers are now starting to get paid for their true value, which arguably has not been case for a long time, but it is now, and Google is at heart of this. Google discovered an algorithm change can generate another $100 million in revenue. So now companies are more willing to have superstars, and there are engineers at Goggle making tens of millions of dollars.
The vast majority of engineers are not getting paid that way. [But] average compensation is also rising behind what I call this Kobe Bryant effect.
On advice to the entrepreneur and investor:
It's really easy in this industry to think too small. Yahoo was initially run on a server on the Stanford campus, and they had to start a company because Stanford kicked them off the server. It became a $200 million company.
It's easy to dismiss these crazy ideas out of the gate, even if you are right in the middle of it. You almost want to have a personality defect where you assume everything you see will be gigantic. So I'd say be even more open minded that the idea that looks crazy will be the next big thing.
I'm a believer education online will be overwhelmingly better than in the classroom. Some of it has to do with the technology, and some with the economics.
Suppose 1 million people will sign up for Math 101, and each pays $200. You have this giant $200 million production budget. You could hire Stephen Speilberg to produce university courses. Imagine the best 3D effects and the best teachers in the world -- and amazing trailers. When everyone has a high-def screen and broadband connection, at some point they want to learn through it.
Jon Fortt of CNBC interviewed Marc Andreessen at Uplinq.
With All due respect to Mr. Andreessen, I think he has for the most part missed the point of the MOOCs. The point is democratization of knowledge, not 3D effects and superstar directors, hence first 'O'. Idea is to make high quality courses available to as many people as possible, where customary costs of production would spread over large number of users to make them almost free. $200 per course he envisages is quite a bit of dough for the most parts of the world outside The Valley.
I did not incoude in thre story Marc's comments about companies wanting to preserve a culture of compensating people on a more or less equitable way.
However, I would note CEOs have been way off the charts in compensation for years. I'd say either get CEOs on a similar scale as other employees (at least the same page!) or reward everyone according to revenue tied to their accomplishments.
In this cost and metric obsessed era, maybe Google is on to something?
There are those who will start assuming that they are forever entitled to big bucks and increase their spending accordingly (otherwise known as the NBA Syndrome) and there are those who will use it to save and invest. I am reminded of a story I read about a Nevada brothel that ran investment seminars for the working girls on the basis that they were making very good money for a limited time and needed to plan accordingly.
What I see is the possibility for corporate influence. If advanced technology is seen as a key business driver then engineers get invited to the planning meetings and have a chance to be heard. When the Internet was new and scary CxO's listened to their engineers about what they had to do. This is the first step to returning to that kind of influence.
The short answer is no! But I guess it's all relative. Most people who have stayed in their current job for more than a year have at least subconsciencely decided that they are getting enough compared to the effort required to get a different job.
It's funny that we read about engineering shortages when talking about immigration but if we look at the IEEE salary survey, salaries are down and not keeping up with inflation.
The salaries being so high has some downside too. People get used to these big bucks and their expenses match with that. Reasonable salaries ang job satisfacion is good to have. But that is never a realty. But yes if you have the knowledge and there is business need then you get really rocket high salary. And trust me the more you get the more you want.
The rank and file would work even harder to be superstars. Even though people know, deep inside, that only few of them will make it in the end, it would not stop them from trying because the potential rewards are very high.
Personally, I cannot think of a better way to attract more people into Engineering. We must beat showbiz and elite sport at their own game!
Engineers are now starting to get paid for their true value, which arguably has not been case for a long time, but it is now, and Google is at heart of this.
While I, too, get excited about people making lots of money, I am not a big fan of this whole culture of Valley's obsession with "your worth." I get that we need superstars. But what about rank and file engineers who work just as hard and make your next products sing?
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.