Connect with us

Published

on

Ruth Porat, chief financial officer of Alphabet Inc., speaks during a news conference at Michigan Central Station in Detroit, Michigan, on Friday, Feb. 4, 2022.

Jeff Kowalsky | Bloomberg | Getty Images

A string of Google executives have changed their roles in the span of several months, in a shift that has sidelined many of company’s remaining old guard.

The changes encompass high-profile executives such as finance chief Ruth Porat, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki and employee No. 8, Urs Hölzle, among others. Some say they have left their roles for a new challenge and others have left to seek opportunities in artificial intelligence.

In February, Wojcicki — one of the most prominent women in Silicon Valley — announced that she was stepping back after nine years at the helm of the Google-owned platform that grew to be the world’s most popular video service. She had been at Google for more than 25 years, after famously lending her garage to Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page to use as their first office.

While she’ll still be in an advisory role at Google, she said she wanted to “start a new chapter.”

Wojcicki wasn’t the only executive to leave YouTube. Robert Kyncl, the chief business officer for 12 years, stepped away to become CEO of Warner Music Group at the beginning of the year. 

In March, CapitalG founder and longtime Google employee David Lawee stepped down from his role after 17 years at Alphabet, saying he wanted to explore new areas of interest and spend more time with his family.

Hölzle, who has long overseen Google’s technical infrastructure and was its eighth employee, said he would be stepping back from management after 24 years of leading technical teams, CNBC reported in July. Hölzle will be classified as an “individual contributor,” which means he will be working independently and no longer managing employees. 

Also in July, Porat announced that she will step down as Alphabet‘s chief financial officer after eight years and take a new role as president and chief investment officer. When asked about the timing of the move, Porat, who was previously Morgan Stanley‘s CFO, said she wanted to take on a different set of challenges.

Porat will also be engaged with policymakers to “recognize the importance of technology” and on issues including employment, economic, competitiveness and infrastructure expansion,” the company said.

“We have a steady and experienced leadership team, many of whom have been with the company for well over a decade, ” said Google spokesperson Courtenay Mencini in statement about the shifts. “We also have a strong bench of leaders at Google who can smoothly transition when people who’ve had long and successful careers here decide to pursue new opportunities inside and outside the company.”

Searching for itself in an AI-first world

As Google looks for replacements for executives like Porat, it’s also searching for its own identity in a pivotal moment in the company’s history.

The company was caught flat-footed last fall when OpenAI launched its AI-powered chatbot ChatGPT, and suddenly found itself in a rare spot where its core search business was threatened.

Industry observers wondered if users could simply get answers from an AI-powered chatbot, how long would they keep entering queries into a search engine? It was an ironic moment for the search giant, given that CEO Sundar Pichai had been talking up the company’s “AI-first” strategy since 2016, with little to show externally.

In June, Google execs admitted to employees that users are “still not quite happy” with the search experience, CNBC reported. Search boss Prabhakar Raghavan and engineering VP HJ Kim spent several minutes pledging to do a better job to employees while Pichai noted that it’s still the most trusted search engine.

Geoffrey Hinton, known as “The godfather of AI” and one of the most respected voices in the field, told The New York Times in May that he was leaving the company after a decade to warn the world about the potential threat of AI, which he said is coming sooner than he previously thought. 

Shortly before that, amid a reorganization in Google’s AI teams, the company promoted the CEO of its DeepMind subsidiary, Demis Hassabis, to lead AI for the entire company, and former McKinsey exec James Manyika to become Google’s senior vice president of technology and society and to oversee Google Research.

Google’s AI head, Jeff Dean, who’s been at the company since 1999, became a chief scientist as part of the change. The company called it a promotion, but it effectively took him out of a large leading role in AI to be an individual contributor, reportedly helping oversee Gemini, one of its critical large language models.

The company is also cutting costs, another rarity, while the core search product faces changing user behavior, ad pullbacks and an AI boom that requires increasing investment, all amid a slowing economy and investor calls to reduce spending.

It’s also staring down multiple federal lawsuits, including an imminent antitrust trial set to begin in September that alleges Google illegally maintained a monopoly by cutting off rivals from search distribution channels.

More like other big companies, some employees say

Employees’ perceptions of the company have also changed in recent years.

While potential employees still consider Google a top place to work with extremely competitive perks, it has grown to be more bureaucratic than in its earlier days.

This perception shift has created a “fragile moment” for Google amid the pressure from OpenAI and Microsoft, argued former Google employee Praveen Seshadri in a Medium post that went viral earlier this year.

“I have left Google understanding how a once-great company has slowly ceased to function,” wrote Seshadri in his blog post that detailed the challenges of Google’s growing bureaucracy.

“Like mice, they are trapped in a maze of approvals, launch processes, legal reviews, performance reviews, exec reviews, documents, meetings, bug reports, triage, OKRs, H1 plans followed by H2 plans, all-hands summits, and inevitable reorgs.”

Former Waze CEO Noam Bardin, who quit Google in 2021, shared Seshadri’s post on LinkedIn. In a blog post a couple years earlier, Bardin had written that employees aren’t incentivized to build Google products.

“The problem was me — believing I can keep the startup magic within a corporation, in spite of all the evidence showing the opposite,” he wrote in his critique of the company.

Like Seshadri and Bardin, a number of AI specialists have left the company, saying it had grown too bureaucratic to get things done.

Eight AI researchers who created “Transformers,” an integral part of the infrastructure behind ChatGPT and other chatbots, have left the search giant since 2017 — many of them going on to start their own companies. Five of them left in 2021 alone.

Llion Jones, who departed Google this month to start his own company focused on AI, told CNBC’s Jordan Novet, “the bureaucracy had built to the point where I just felt like I couldn’t get anything done.”

Other AI researchers at Google have made similar complaints in recent months. Several have gone on to start their own companies focused on AI, where they have more agency over vision and speed.

In February, longtime product exec Clay Bavor said after 18 “wonderful years” at Google, he was leaving to start an artificial intelligence company with former Salesforce co-CEO Bret Taylor. “We share an obsession with recent advances in AI, and we’re excited to build a new company to apply AI to solve some of the most important problems in business,” Bavor wrote at the time.

“We’ve made intentional efforts throughout the year to move quickly with nimble teams,” said Google spokesperson Courtenay Mencini. “For instance, products like Bard and SGE [Search Generative Experience] are being developed by small, fast-moving teams that have been built for these high-priority efforts.”

Despite its efforts, the company faced criticism from investors and its own employees when it quickly tried to announce its ChatGPT competitor Bard, which it started opening up to the wider public in March. While the rollout’s reputation has rebounded after several updates and a successful developer conference, the company still has yet to launch SGE to the wider public.

The company has also become less flexible as it strives to get employees back into the office.

Google recently cracked down on its hybrid three-day-a-week office policy to include badge tracking, and noted attendance will be included in performance reviews, CNBC previously reported. Additionally, employees who already received approval for remote work may now have that status reevaluated.

There’s also a new emphasis on cost-cutting that has taken some employees by surprise.

Even if the company had been considered slower moving, at least it had been considered secure — commonly known as a place where employees could “rest and vest.” That changed with the company’s first-ever mass layoffs in January, where Alphabet abruptly announced it was eliminating about 12,000 jobs, or 6% of its workforce, in an overnight email. Some employees reportedly arrived at work to discover their badges no longer worked. It then declined to pay out the remainder of employees’ approved leave time.

While the company included competitive severance packages, some employees lost trust in leadership, who had long encouraged employees to be kind, humble and open-minded, or “Googley.”

The company has also reduced spending on real estate, even asking employees in its cloud unit to share desks. It’s also cut down on desktop PCs and equipment refreshes for employees. It started cutting travel and events late last year.

In an all-hands meeting last September, employees voted to ask Pichai why the company is “nickel-and-diming employees” with some of its cutbacks on perks and travel.

Google’s culture can still be enjoyable even if some things, like certain swag items, are getting taken away, the CEO argued.

“I remember when Google was small and scrappy,” Pichai said. “We shouldn’t always equate fun with money. I think you can walk into a hardworking startup and people may be having fun and it shouldn’t always equate to money.” 

Pichai’s statement touched a nerve. Yes, many people joined Google so their work would immediately have an impact of many more users than other companies. It’s still considered one of the top places to work, with opportunities to tackle some of the industry’s biggest problems. But, alongside all that, money and perks had flowed generously, regardless of the speed at which projects moved.

Now, the company faces its biggest challenge yet, which falls on the shoulders of Pichai and the next guard — trying to recreate the magic of its early days along with delivering revenue while being under more pressure than ever.

Continue Reading

Technology

Biggest mistakes crypto investors make with estate planning

Published

on

By

Biggest mistakes crypto investors make with estate planning

Roughly 1 in 7 people are leaving unclaimed property on the table, according to the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators. While the recent heavy selling in bitcoin and ether is rightly getting all the short-term attention, this estate planning issue is a longer-term one that’s likely to be exacerbated as crypto adoption and ownership increase.

Many people neglect to account for cryptocurrency in their estate plans, or they don’t let their heirs know how to access their crypto holdings. With surveys in recent years from Gallup and Pew Research estimating that 14% to 17% of U.S. adults have owned cryptocurrency, losing access to those funds is a growing concern.

“Leaving property or mutual funds behind in a will is pretty cut and dried, but with more and more assets placed in cryptocurrency, a large share of inherited assets are in danger of forfeiture,” said Azriel Baer, partner in the estate planning and administration group at law firm Farrell Fritz.

This issue could be mitigated, in part, by crypto ETFs, which are gaining popularity with investors since the first batch of spot bitcoin ETFs were approved by the SEC in 2024, such as the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), followed a few months later by ethereum spot price ETFs, such as the Fidelity Ethereum Fund ETF (FETH). These ETFs allow investors access to the crypto asset class without actually owning crypto outright, helping reduce the chances of actual crypto getting lost.

Nevertheless, estate planning mistakes among crypto owners are common and can be avoided. Here are some of the biggest issues cryptocurrency owners need to tackle sooner rather than later.

Wills, if they exist, often don’t include digital assets language

Only 24% of Americans have a will that describes how they want their money and estate managed after their death, according to a survey from Caring.com. Even people who have wills in place have not updated them for many years, with nearly one in four Americans saying they haven’t touched their wills since their original was drafted, according to the survey.

This can be problematic for many reasons. An old will may no longer reflect people’s current wishes. In a crypto-specific context, anyone who hasn’t updated their estate plan in the past several years may not have language to provide legal authority for the trustee or executor to gain access to digital assets.

“It’s very common for people not to update their estate planning documents for 10, 20 years or sometimes longer. If that’s the case, you’re behind,” said Patrick D. Owens, shareholder at Buchalter and a member of the law firm’s tax, benefits and estate planning practice group.

Absent language about digital assets, your heirs might have to go to court to get the authority for the executor or administrator of the estate to gain access to the crypto assets. Most likely they’ll get access, “but it’s a hassle,” Owens said. “Obviously, it means time and money going into court.”

Even with a will, crypto assets can get stuck in court

A standard will is appropriate for many people, but many attorneys recommend clients also utilize a revocable living trust as part of their estate plan. Drafting a will is less expensive, but a revocable living trust offers more privacy and can help limit the time and expense of the probate process after death.

Baer advises clients to transfer their crypto to a revocable living trust so the trustee has immediate access upon the owner’s death. It could be six to eight months, or more, before a will is settled in probate and in the meantime, heirs wouldn’t have access to the assets. If the price of the crypto was going down rapidly, for example, they would have to wait to sell it if the estate was caught up in probate. Putting crypto assets into a revocable trust to avoid probate can prevent a lot of headaches, he said. 

Generally, a revocable trust is paired with a pour-over will so that assets not included in the trust at the time of a person’s death are transferred to the trust and distributed accordingly. 

Not sharing basic crypto information can cost millions

You don’t have to tell heirs you’re worth a fortune in bitcoin before you pass away, but you should make sure they know how to access your crypto after you’re gone. 

Baer worked on an estate where tens of millions of dollars in crypto were lost to the heirs because they didn’t know the decedent’s private keys, which function as digital passwords to grant access to cryptocurrency funds and prove ownership of blockchain assets.

Someone should know how to access the assets, whether through written instructions in a safe box, a safe at home, or directions kept with a lawyer or with one of the various crypto inheritance services that help ensure crypto assets are passed on to your family members, Baer said. Don’t put these private keys or other sensitive information in a will, because wills become public through the probate process, he added.

Many designated fiduciaries can’t handle crypto 

The person you chose to handle your other assets may not be the right person to deal with the crypto portion of your estate.

Not everyone understands crypto, the associated volatility or how to transact with digital currency, meaning lots of money can inadvertently be lost. The recent volatility in the price of bitcoin is a reminder that if you name someone who needs weeks to get up to speed on how to transact with bitcoin, the financial losses could be meaningful, Baer said. “Uncle Bob may be a great person, but he may have more challenges transacting with an asset class he’s totally not familiar with,” he added.

Sometimes, even institutional trustees might not be able to take on the responsibility for crypto. Owens had a client pass away with half a million dollars in bitcoin and ether. The institutional trustee who oversaw the client’s account refused to take on the responsibility for the crypto and a special trustee was named. Luckily, the client had a nephew who took on the role, but finding a suitable replacement can often be costly from a time and money perspective, Owens said. 

Failure to plan for crypto estate taxes

With the massive explosion in the values around cryptocurrency, many people have large crypto holdings, which could be subject to significant taxes, whether that’s income taxes or estate taxes, and failure to plan could be detrimental to their families, said Jonathan Forster, shareholder at law firm Weinstock Manion.

There could, for example, be estate taxes due, depending on the size of the estate. The federal estate tax exemption for 2025 is $13.99 million per individual. Some states also have a state-level estate tax.

Knowing the impact crypto ownership might have on your estate is an important consideration while you are alive. Forster has clients whose crypto holdings are worth more than $50 million. They wanted an efficient way to make gifts for the benefit of their children to get some money out of their estate. They created a limited liability corporation, transferred the crypto into the LLC and gifted an interest in the LLC to an irrevocable trust for the benefit of minor children with an independent trustee, Forster said. 

Many crypto investors fail to keep track of cost basis, which can be problematic for many reasons, including if you’re considering gifting digital assets during your lifetime. If you want to gift the assets while you’re alive, you need to have the basis so the recipient can properly account for the crypto if it’s eventually sold, Baer said. “It can be onerous to keep track of basis, but it’s important,” he said.

Continue Reading

Technology

SpaceX aims for $800 billion valuation in secondary share sale, WSJ reports

Published

on

By

SpaceX aims for 0 billion valuation in secondary share sale, WSJ reports

Dado Ruvic | Reuters

Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is initiating a secondary share sale that would give the company a valuation of up to $800 billion, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

SpaceX is also telling some investors it will consider going public possibly around the end of next year, the report said.

At the elevated price, Musk’s aerospace and defense contractor would be valued above ChatGPT maker OpenAI, which wrapped up a share sale at a $500 billion valuation in October.

SpaceX has been investing heavily in reusable rockets, launch facilities and satellites, while competing for government contracts with newer space players, including Jeff Bezos‘ Blue Origin. SpaceX is far ahead, and operates the world’s largest network of satellites in low earth orbit through Starlink, which powers satellite internet services under the same brand name.

A SpaceX IPO would include its Starlink business, which the company previously considered spinning out.

Musk recently discussed whether SpaceX would go public during Tesla‘s annual shareholders meeting last month. Musk, who is the CEO of both companies, said he doesn’t love running publicly traded businesses, in part because they draw “spurious lawsuits,” and can “make it very difficult to operate effectively.”

However, Musk said during the meeting that he wanted to “try to figure out some way for Tesla shareholders to participate in SpaceX,” adding, “maybe at some point, SpaceX should become a public company despite all the downsides.”

WATCH: What retail investors should know about OpenAI and SpaceX

Want to ‘invest' in OpenAI and SpaceX? How tokenization will change investing

Continue Reading

Technology

Judge finalizes remedies in Google antitrust case

Published

on

By

Judge finalizes remedies in Google antitrust case

The logo for Google LLC is seen at the Google Store Chelsea in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., November 17, 2021.

Andrew Kelly | Reuters

A U.S. judge on Friday finalized his decision for the consequences Google will face for its search monopoly ruling, adding new details to the decided remedies.

Last year, Google was found to hold an illegal monopoly in its core market of internet search, and in September, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled against the most severe consequences that were proposed by the Department of Justice.

That included the proposal of a forced sale of Google’s Chrome browser, which provides data that helps the company’s advertising business deliver targeted ads. Alphabet shares popped 8% in extended trading as investors celebrated what they viewed as minimal consequences from a historic defeat last year in the landmark antitrust case.

Investors largely shrugged off the ruling as non-impactful to Google. However some told CNBC it’s still a bite that could “sting.”

Mehta on Friday issued additional details for his ruling in new filings.

“The age-old saying ‘the devil is in the details’ may not have been devised with the drafting of an antitrust remedies judgment in mind, but it sure does fit,” Mehta wrote in one of the Friday filings.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company has previously said it will appeal the remedies.

In August 2024, Mehta ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act and held a monopoly in search and related advertising. The antitrust trial started in September 2023.

In his September decision, Mehta said the company would be able to make payments to preload products, but it could not have exclusive contracts that condition payments or licensing. Google was also ordered to loosen its hold on search data. Mehta in September also ruled that Google would have to make available certain search index data and user interaction data, though “not ads data.”

The DOJ had asked Google to stop the practice of “compelled syndication,” which refers to the practice of making certain deals with companies to ensure its search engine remains the default choice in browsers and smartphones.

The judge’s September ruling didn’t end the practice entirely — Mehta ruled out that Google couldn’t enter into exclusive deals, which was a win for the company. Google pays Apple billions of dollars per year to be the default search engine on iPhones. It’s lucrative for Apple and a valuable way for Google to get more search volume and users.

Mehta’s new details

In the Friday filings, Mehta wrote that Google cannot enter into any deal like the one it’s had with Apple “unless the agreement terminates no more than one year after the date it is entered.”

This includes deals involving generative artificial intelligence products, including any “application, software, service, feature, tool, functionality, or product” that involve or use genAI or large-language models, Mehta wrote.

GenAI “plays a significant role in these remedies,” Mehta wrote.

The judge also reiterated the web index data it will require Google to share with certain competitors. 

Google has to share some of the raw search interaction data it uses to train its ranking and AI systems, but it does not have to share the actual algorithms — just the data that feeds them.” In September, Mehta said those data sets represent a “small fraction” of Google’s overall traffic, but argued the company’s models are trained on data that contributed to Google’s edge over competitors.

The company must make this data available to qualified competitors at least twice, one of the Friday filing states. Google must share that data in a “syndication license” model whose term will be five years from the date the license is signed, the filing states.

Mehta on Friday also included requirements on the makeup of a technical committee that will determine the firms Google must share its data with.

Committee “members shall be experts in some combination of software engineering, information retrieval, artificial intelligence, economics, behavioral science, and data privacy and data security,” the filing states.

The judge went on to say that no committee member can have a conflict of interest, such as having worked for Google or any of its competitors in the six months prior to or one year after serving in the role.

Google is also required to appoint an internal compliance officer that will be responsible “for administering Google’s antitrust compliance program and helping to ensure compliance with this Final Judgment,” per one of the filings. The company must also appoint a senior business executive “whom Google shall make available to update the Court on Google’s compliance at regular status conferences or as otherwise ordered.”

This is breaking news. Check back for updates.

WATCH: Judge Issues final remedies in Google antitrust case

Judge Issues final remedies in Google antitrust case

Continue Reading

Trending