[cookiecaper]

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.

[roc]

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.