Nothing against this guy. If it were $1 million, or $3 million, I probably wouldn't bat an eye.
A hundred million for a non-technical executive would be OK, if engineers had basic autonomy and open allocation. Then (and only then) they'd actually be able to afford (morally speaking) a $100M payout to a non-technical executive.
Don't call yourself a technical company if engineers in the $100k-200k range can't even fucking change projects until 18 months in (and often not even then, due to a corrupt performance review system) but you're running a private welfare system for non-tech executives.
I know all about Hanlon's Razor ("never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence") but somewhere around the 5-standard-deviation incompetence level I go back to malice because 5-sigma is just awful rare. Paying a non-tech executive $100M while engineers making < 1% of that struggle to get a decent project is 8, 9 sigma at the least.
Choke on a fucking taint, Google. Choke. On. A. Taint.
(Or just implement basic autonomy/open allocation for all engineers. Then we're cool no matter what you pay your execs.)
I know GOOG has been dominating the search market for more than a decade, does it also have the same position in the ad market?