That's a fairly standard acq-hire, actually. It's not just Yahoo that's paying over $5 million per head. It's ridiculous, when you consider that the value of an employment relationship (which can be ended by either party at any time) is set at 30-60 times the annual salary. (Just think about it: how is a relationship that lasts 4.5 years on average worth 50x salary?) As I said, either engineers are getting screwed, or acq-hires are signs of severe desperation and devastating information poverty. It seems to be both.
I've also read a few posts on this thread saying as much as "there are no smart people at Yahoo" or "everyone at Yahoo is an idiot" (paraphrasing). Coming from folks at HN I think these kinds of statements are really unbecoming. Of course there are a lot of amazing people at Yahoo. Tons of them.
I am dead sure that there are a lot of amazing engineers at Yahoo. It's just sad that the company is so calamitously bad at recognizing talent at the bottom that it has to hire external 17-year-olds. I'm sure they have plenty of great people who'd be thrilled to do an NLP/R&D project for just their regular salary.
If I were at Yahoo right now, after this acq-hire I'd write Marissa Mayer an email:
Dear Marissa,
Hi, I'm Michael O. Church. My salary is now $500,000 and I have full autonomy to
work on whatever project I want. Based on the rate you are paying for external
talent, this salary is justified. I am dead sure I will deliver more
economic value to Yahoo than I take from it, but I will choose my projects
from here on out. If that is not acceptable to you, Friday is my last day.
If you're writing $30-million acq-hire checks for 17-year-olds, you should fire every goddamn middle manager, because your ability to recognize talent at the bottom is for shit.