Google's Marissa Mayer Becomes Yahoo! CEO 302
D H NG writes "Marissa Mayer, Google's employee #20 and Vice President of Local, has been appointed CEO of Yahoo. She was Google's public face for years, famously being responsible for the look and feel of Google's most popular products: the famously unadorned white search homepage, Gmail, Google News and Google Images. Mayer resigned from Google Monday afternoon and will begin her new job on Tuesday."
Seems like a funny choice (Score:5, Insightful)
She spent her time working at a company that has a good product and a pretty solid streak of good years.
Yahoo is stuck with lots of products that nobody wants anymore and flailing to find what to cut and what to keep. Those kinds of decisions are much more difficult that riding a rocket like Google's last decade. CEOs who turn around failing companies are not pragmatic technologists or engineers, but either cutthroats or visionaries with a killer instinct.
Re: (Score:2)
That would explain why so many people continue to use their services.
Seriously, this idea that Yahoo has no customers is based on nothing. They have one of the biggest photo sharing sites in the world, one of the biggest hosts for discussion groups and mailing lists, one of the largest bases of email users, etc... etc...
Just because they aren't a darling of the tech set doesn't mean they're a tumbleweed filled wasteland.
Re: (Score:2)
either cutthroats or visionaries with a killer instinct.
Yahoo already went trough an asshole cutthroat Bartz and a cutthroat technocrat Thompson and they still did not get very far. Mayer better be a visionary I guess.
Re:Seems like a funny choice (Score:5, Funny)
Like a house of cards. Checkmate!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know. Sarah Palin comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if she was a "token woman" or just a good bullshitter (as most people high in organizations seem to be), but when I worked at Freescale we had a female VP who did not impress me at all as being competent. Then again, the entire executive team at the time was pretty incompetent, so she fit in well there.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And how would you know that all the way down in the mail room?
Re: (Score:2)
Non-compete? (Score:2)
Re:Non-compete? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm curious if she had a non-compete clause in her contract, and how it will all work out if she does. Any Google employees who know the details on their typical contracts?
No matter what's in a typical Google contract, hers is certainly different. She was a top-level executive for some time, then one rung down the ladder. She has hundreds of millions of dollars. There's no way she agreed to disadvantageous terms.
Re:Non-compete? (Score:5, Informative)
Since both companies are based in California, and California forbids non-compete clauses, no such clause is applicable.
Now she could be sued for use of trade secrets, that is, if she ever does, but just going to work for Yahoo is not illegal for her.
Re:Non-compete? (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL but my understanding is that non-compete clauses are binding in California if you are compensated for your lost opportunities (not just your lost income, but lost business opportunities as well.).
The compensation requirement makes enforceable non-compete clauses very rare in California
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll bet she talked this over with Larry, Sergei and Eric before she accepted the position. I'd even be suprised if she doesn't get a going away party and offers for assistance from most if not all of the Google execs.
Look at it this way ---
If Microsoft can do what it did to Nokia, why can't Google do the same thing to Yahoo?
At least, in Yahoo's case, it's in a worse shape than Nokia before the invasion of Microsoft's mole
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Does Yahoo compete?
Re: (Score:2)
Such clauses are not worth the paper they're written on in California. Which is a good thing, as no company should be able to have any say whatsoever on what you do after you've left their employ.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. California is at will employment. No contract can stop you from leaving or joining another company. If she breaks other contracts such as NDA they could sue for that.
Re: (Score:2)
best thing to happen to Yahoo (Score:5, Informative)
That is the best thing to happen to Yahoo in a long time. She's significantly more competent than the previous CEO, and has more knowledge of tech companies than the one before that. She has some serious challenges, but she could change the worst parts of culture at Yahoo (which is currently driving away top talent).
She did a couple [wsj.com] interviews [wsj.com] lately, if you want to know more about her.
Bio and more links here [wsj.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She has 0 CEO experience.
In a case like this you need a rockstar CEO who is top rated and has a proven track record as Yahoo is not stable right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Wallstreet expects a rockstar CEO with solid track record. Employees on the other hand, need someone like Mayer to lead them. She has solid technical experience and has has proved to a good leader. I would definitely love to work in a company led by her.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:best thing to happen to Yahoo (Score:5, Informative)
psychology major
What
Mayer graduated from Stanford University with a B.S. with honors in symbolic systems and an M.S. in Computer Science. For both degrees, she specialized in artificial intelligence.
No 2 week notice? (Score:2)
Wow. "Okay boss I'm done here. Bye!"
Re: (Score:3)
Welcome to California.
She has been raising her public profile a lot in the last 12 months so her quitting after a couple lateral "promotions" is not really unexpected.
The surprise is that the Yahoo board did not snag Elop for his ability to build Yahoo's partnership with Microsoft. That would have been typical Yahoo board behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Elop is still very busy driving Nokia into the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
California is an "employment-at-will" state. If there is no contract of employment, then either the employer or the employee can terminate without notice or reason.
Of course, there are laws that protect employees from unlawful dismissal, but generally the burden of proof of violation is with the employee.
Re: (Score:2)
All the companies I've worked for (in at-will states) would cut some benefits without the proper notice (like cashing out vacation/sick time).
IANAL. However...
Accrued vacation time belongs to you, not the company. If the company refuses to pay out your vacation time, they're breaking the law.
Accrued sick time, on the other hand, generally does not belong to the employee, AFAIK. Some employers might do something with it on termination (e.g., add it to your service time) but I don't think there are any laws that govern its disposition when you are separated.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Vacation time, in most states, is required to be paid out to you at your hourly compensation rate. Otherwise, you can file a complaint with the state labor board, as well as sue your employeer over unpaid wages.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe for your generation. Mine knows better. Especially when your new employer is a competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
If you flake out on an employer it will follow you to your next employer.
Only if you need that employer as a reference. I'm 29, make a $100K+/yr income (and have for the last ~5 years, with 12 years total in IT), and have had at least 9 jobs. Times I've given two weeks notice? 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Only true for us trenchworkers. Once you're in the executive offices, things differ. Particularly if you're known in the industry by all the other executives. Nobody is going to refuse to hire Marissa Mayer for the CEO slot (and I doubt she'll ever consider anything less again) because she didn't give 2 weeks notice to Google.
Re: (Score:2)
A couple things. First, it's likely Google has known about this prospect for some time, and it's just us finding out about it now. They all seem like the classy sort of people who could work that out. Second, she already has three hundred million dollars. It seems unlikely she's concerned about her next employer. Agreed though, courtesy is courtesy and two weeks is the expected notice.
Ashamed of this site (Score:3, Insightful)
I would kindly refer everyone here to geekfeminism.org since all those sexist comments are awful, you should be better than that.
Re:Ashamed of this site (Score:5, Funny)
Don't bother clicking that link, it's exactly what it says but with no pics of sexy geeky chicks.
Re: (Score:2)
"you should be better than that."
As they say at the OTHER Slashdot (4chan), "you must be new here.")
Good luck Marissa (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody expects Yahoo to return to its glory years, but if you can right the ship and steer it to stability, consider it a success. Aim high by shooting low.
Back to products hopefully! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Googlers are going to be awfully happy she's out. Larry's ex squeeze in case anyone doesn't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You insensitive clods! (Score:2)
No Non-compete with Google? (Score:2)
Two possible outcomes:
1. As soon as she turns the ship around and brings Yahoo! above water, Google sues or acquires them as settlement for using her knowledge of Google's trade secrets.
2. Yahoo! continues to circle the drain and she rides to the bottom, bravely staying with the ship and is barely able to console herself with the Yahoo trademarked Obscenely Huge Golden Parachute of Doom.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-competes are unenforceable in California except in some very limited circumstances.
She was unappreciated at Google (Score:2)
After the reorganization once Larry took over and Marissa was left with Google Local I think the writing was on the wall and she was just looking for the right opportunity .
Re: (Score:2)
She was also taken off the Operating Committee (Larry Page's inner circle) at the end of 2011. Yeah the writing was on the wall.
Good choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since she was employee #20 she probably has some experience of that sort.
I'm sure Google will miss her (Score:4, Funny)
They'll definitely miss her distinctive laugh around the hallways I'm sure.
An Interesting Choice For Several Reasons (Score:3)
This could be an interesting choice for many reasons.....if she succeeds with Yahoo.
Many women can't get some jobs because companies are concerned about them getting pregnant and not being there for them. She is due in October. If she pulls off turning Yahoo around she could make a contribution toward ending that kind of discrimination.
She could also help end the stereotype that a cute, blonde, conventionally attractive woman isn't likely to be an effective CEO.
If she succeeds, if not she will fuel to the fire of stereotypes.
I hope she succeeds. Yahoo used to be "the Google" back in the day. Now they seem to be stuck in mediocrity. It would be nice if she could bring some of that Google magic to Yahoo.
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh?
I'm confused. I guess that I didn't understand right, I thought that we users were the product, and the customers were the advertising agencies and companies that pay Google to deliver our views/time to them...
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, no... it's gotta be all about me! Every company exists to serve me, and me alone! If those big companies aren't pleasing me, they're wrong and evil!
</sarcasm>
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:4, Interesting)
Companies exist to serve the public. The profit motive is only a guide.
Just because the social contract isn't written down does not mean it doesn't exist. Many people appear to have forgotten this. Not only are many big companies not serving the public well, they are marginalizing and robbing their own shareholders through huge executive compensation packages, and poor planning that spends their good reputations, their accumulated resources, and their very futures to boost immediate profits and executive bonuses. What kind of idiotic thinking leads to decisions to waste money on huge disinformation campaigns, as Big Oil did when trying to deny Climate Change, and Big Tobacco did when trying to claim nicotine was not addictive? There isn't a single big bank or telecoms company that has a good reputation. The biggest of the entertainment industry have thoroughly dirtied themselves by waging a highhanded, mean spirited, sanctimonious, bullying terror campaign against the entire world, calling us all evil thieving pirates. Many of these executives are parasites, psychopaths, and megalomaniacs, not leaders.
Thank Santa Clara County (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad [wikipedia.org]
That particular decision is also the reason it's so hard to revoke a corporate charter in California (the corporate equivalent of a death penalty on the "person").
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies exist to serve the public. The profit motive is only a guide.
By what law or logic is this? Last I knew, a "company" was simply a group of people who have pooled their resources to accomplish a common goal. That goal could be "cure cancer", "promote world peace", or simply (and commonly) "make money", but there's no mandate I've ever encountered that they must serve the public.
In fact, I can think of many companies that explicitly do not serve the public, or do so only indirectly. Holding companies, for example, exist to just own other companies. Defense companies will often only serve governments, which may or may not serve the public interest. Foreign financial companies are often merely vehicles for relocating money for tax purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Same logic by which governments exist. There have been many governments that have failed horribly at this, and seriously deluded themselves, thinking their purpose is to treat their inner circle to the good life on the backs of the 99%. Today, it is Syria. In the Middle Ages, it was the monarchies that became increasingly out of touch. Thought they were too good for the common people. Wise monarchs understood that majesty was just propaganda, their power was not absolute, they weren't really godlike be
Re: (Score:3)
Companies exist to serve the public. The profit motive is only a guide.
By what law or logic is this?
Because the people are sovereign. Companies can only exist because the public wills it. If companies are to justly exist, they can only exist to serve the public. If a company exists that does not serve the public interest, either the people will remove it, or the people have been oppressed to the point where they can't.
Re: (Score:2)
"Companies exist to serve the public. The profit motive is only a guide. "
Companies exist to make profit. Public service is a cost center.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the social contract isn't written down does not mean it doesn't exist.
I have a contract that says you will mail me US $325.00 on the first and third Fridays of each month, except during leap years, and years following each football season when the Dallas Cowboys make it to the playoffs. During said years the amount due is $675.50, which must be delivered via FedEx Priority Overnight in bills of $50 or lower denomination.
Like your "social contract," this one isn't written down, either, but...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:5, Interesting)
If there is no product left you are screwed. Yahoo is not Google either and is less aggressive in marketing and advertising.
What I really see is from the security scandal and many many other problems including spammers taking over, and feature rott, are all a sign of a lack of vision and people just giving a damn about their products. Their products reak, porn spammers even go into the children's chat rooms for crying out loud and spam every 1 minute! I am not talking about a one time thing, but they have been doing that for over 10 years! I quit using Yahoo right around then with chat.
Their IM program is malware ladden and slows down older computers and has people randomly friending and spamming you, again no one gives a shit at Yahoo and I use Digsby for my Yahoo client now.
They could have taken on Google in 2002 with an improved search engine. They could have taken on Skype with improved video as they did have some of it workign and calling in YahooIM 5 years ago at least. They could have got rid of all the porn spammers and made Yahoo chat a must have thing rather than letting AOL and then MSN steal this market.
In comparison Google and even Microsoft quickly fix things and are always at least trying to compete and outdo companies like Skype. No one cares and it is just a boring day job with no passion left. This new CEO needs to excite her employees and fire QA and security people and provide a vision for improvments.
Do this and we the product shall return.
Re: (Score:3)
Their IM program is malware ladden and slows down older computers and has people randomly friending and spamming you, again no one gives a shit at Yahoo and I use Digsby for my Yahoo client now.
It's sad, Yahoo Messenger used to be their best product (and their mail was pretty solid, too). I understand they are free, and would be fine with a few ads. But as you said both of them are now completely stuffed with (totally irrelevant at best, borderline sleazy/offensive/phishing/scam at worst) ads. And UI-wis
Re: (Score:3)
Here's another pathetic example. Yahoo was the inventor of the DKIM system for cryptographically signing email in 2004. It's a valuable tool for fighting spam. When you get spam fro
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, the definition of your 'customer' is someone who gives you money. Did you remember to pay the Google bill this month? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you paying google? If not, it's not surprising, and perfectly natural, that you should be the product.
Never assume they are doing anything for your benifit. They aren't. 'Do no evil' stopped forever when they started having shareholders to answer to.
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Without users Google has no "product" to sell.
There is a distinction that can be drawn between "customer" and "consumer." The average Joe might not be Google's primary "customer" but he is their primary "consumer" ... and without consumers Google is out of business.
It's a total logical fallacy to assume that Google doesn't need to treat their consumers right, and only needs to pander to the people who buy their advertising services. Their advertising services are worth nothing without the consumers, and that makes "us" important (no, essential) to Google's bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Without users Google has no "product" to sell.
The users are vendors, who deliver the eyes Google is selling, there are PLENTY of them, and they demand very little overall.
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me give your analogy everything and say unequivocally "YES we're 'lettuce'" ... it does not invalidate my point.
Can the grocery store benefit by selling rotten lettuce ? Can it benefit by stocking less of it despite their "customers" demanding more ? And can it benefit from an attitude of "fuck the farmers who make the lettuce, we're going to spit on them and kick them to the ground because we 'only care about our customers!'" ?
Honestly who cares if we're the product ? Why is that a bad thing ? When we sell our services to an employer we're "the product" (to the same extent that we're "the product" to advertisers. Obviously we're not talking about trading or selling us as human beings in a literal sense). The point is, we choose to use Google for a reason. If they remove that reason or start slacking then we'll be itching for an alternative and a new market opportunity opens up to compete with them. For what it's worth I've already heard of some people who have stopped using Google search, going directly to Wikipedia instead. It might not be a great example but it is an example of choosing "not Google." In fine dining the Filet Mingon might be the product but you better bet your sweet ass the Chef holds that cut of beef on an insanely high pedestal and treats it with ridiculous amounts of respect because doing so is crucial to the restaurant's bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
"And can it benefit from an attitude of "fuck the farmers who make the lettuce, we're going to spit on them and kick them to the ground because we 'only care about our customers!'" ?"
Erm, I don't know how it is where you live, but around here, that's pretty much how it works.
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:5, Funny)
Is that Cole's Law?
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We should be viewed as the customers not a product.
Not if they wish to make money.
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't find *most* of Google's ads on their own services to be that annoying. They come in the form of text, mostly, and are significantly more relevant to me than ads from other services. I don't like ads, but if I'm going to "pay" for the free services by putting up with ads, I'd rather they be appropriate than for crap that really annoys me.
Re: (Score:2)
How much do you pay for Gmail? For Google Search?
I'm guessing the advertisers give Google a lot more money than you do.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, seems like Google is really starting to drive away its loyal employees like rats from a ship. I guess that's what happens when you start doing evil and putting your advertisers above what should be your actual customers not the product you sell.
I thought that was Yahoo's specialty. I stopped using Yahoo years ago due to the glut of advertising in everything to the point I felt Yahoo was becoming unusable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ship is sinking (Score:5, Insightful)
This woman is brilliant. Maybe she'll find a way. Certainly she won't have any trouble getting the press to show up for her events. Pretty CEO = Lots of clicks, therefore ad views, therefore lots of coverage. So whatever they do she won't have a hard time letting people know about it. She should exploit that as much as possible. Slashdot may as well add an icon of her mug right now.
She should also go over the top with the Community partnership, green energy, great Place to work, human interest type articles. Maybe fly a few columnists out at a time, all the time to bring Yahoo home to the local communities they serve all over the world - have an office dedicated to that. Build the community love.
Sales and process types wind up at the top of corporations after a while, and Yahoo's got more than a few of those. It probably won't take her long to find out which ones are stuffed shirts with empty hats. That part is easy. Finding the right people to sit in those chairs is hard.
Re: (Score:2)
I frankly don't get why do people claim that Google is now turning evil.
Googe was founded in '98. In 2003, just five years after, and almost a decade from now, they created AdSense and started tracking people using cookies. And now they're suddenly evil? It makes no sense.
On the other hand, they're still doing good stuff - paying Mozilla, offering FOSS tools (and keeping private forks closed, but again, they always did), campaigning against SOPA, etc.
I'm not claiming they are or not evil - I frankly find th
Re: (Score:2)
Google is competing against Apple and Microsoft. These three all have a lot of fans - as in "fanatics". A fanatic is having a reality break. They will go willfully blind to overlook any flaw in the object of their fantasy, and amplify the slightest perceived flaw to high crimes and misdemeanors for no other reason than they want to promote the thing they like and prevent the other thing. Some of these fans work for these companies and are just putting their honest opinions. And then there's the profit
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, they're still doing good stuff - paying Mozilla[...]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yahoo! simply has nowhere to go. They've been out innovated in everything and their original purpose, human indexed websites, is no longer relevant to the world. Anything Yahoo! does, Google or Microsoft can do better.
The question is .. do they still have enough money and desire to innovate? They could yet dig themselves out of the hole, but it requires getting the company to be a great place to work, attracting brilliant, energetic minds to create. If all Yahoo are is a company of cowering cubicle moles, trying not to be noticed and whacked, there's not much she or anyone can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:yahoo might actually have a chance now (Score:4, Insightful)
If all Yahoo are is a company of cowering cubicle moles, trying not to be noticed and whacked, there's not much she or anyone can do.
I don't know about that. It seems to be working pretty well for IBM.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd query that.
Too bad it will return zero results. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Don't you wish your CEO was hot like theirs? (Score:4, Funny)
Talk about not properly sanitizing your database input!
Re:Her profile picture... (Score:4, Funny)
An Original Sarlacc, or a Special Edition Sarlacc?
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I was young, they came out when I was in high school. It was the first time my generation got to see Star Wars on the silver screen, and they touted it as fixing things to the way they would have done them had they had those resources in the beginning, as well as cleaning up some of the obvious bad edits.
All of the crap though, like the animals that prey on each other, the added singer thing, the miniature Jabba being walked on by
Re: (Score:3)
In that case, I'll get my Boba Fett costume and make it a party.
Re:Her profile picture... (Score:5, Funny)
Ya HOOO....
Yeah, looks like she was pretty hot like 10, 15 years ago.
Just like Yahoo.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
worst
How so?
Re:So, she used up all her creativy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I bet ALL of the female bosses you've ever had, have had faces like a welder's bench"
Full of square holes and Acorn clamps? Yuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Best search engine? Have you forgotten AltaVista?