Sounds like they're not hiring engineers but "analysts", i.e. people who correct data manually or semi-manually (scripts, SQL queries, etc.). That explains why $85k is "aggressive" and also why working on Google Maps would be considered "tedious".

(I'm a Google engineer who works on maps/local, but this is purely my own personal speculation based on the article.)

$300k and a $1m signing bonus would be more reasonable for this exceptionally narrow and valuable skill set. As you correctly point out, $85k is not in any way congruent with "aggressive recruitment". In the Bay area, it doesn't even qualify as a mediocre salary for recent grads with no specialization.

"$300k and a $1m signing bonus" - Where is that figure coming from?

It's coming from how much minimally you are going to need to lure away a mapping expert from his stable and appreciated job at Google, which includes options, for a place that is opportunistic, unpleasant and unlikely to have much options upside.

Bonus value based on the case of a few years ago, run of the mill employees getting $500k and up signing bonuses, plus generous options, to leave Google for pre-IPO Facebook. That's run of the mill guys, not guys with the specific talent you need working for the ONLY company that has completely solved the problem. For that person you need more, not less. Salary is based on current salaries for this level of extremely specialized expertise.

There are fewer than 10 people worldwide Apple can hire with the skills they need to organize this right. All the guys they acquired from three poorly known companies that were unable to solve these problems well enough to compete with Google are irrelevant since by definition those guys don't have the skills needed. It's not a buyer's market in any way shape or form.

With all due respect you are pulling a lot of numbers out of thin air. There are only 10 people that they can hire... really? While a totally respectable position, the hire they are talking about (which I guess is the first of the so called 10) was a GIS analyst - again no disrespect but not exactly what I would consider a 1 in 10 in the world kind of profile. Certainly someone who has skill but lets come back down to earth a bit.

"There are fewer than 10 people worldwide Apple can hire with the skills they need to organize this right."

That's an interesting number. I'm why you chose "10" instead of 5, 20, 50, 100 or 1000? There are a lot of smart people out there, who can get things done.

If there were truly only a 100 people world wide that could turn the mapping ship around, then they are worth considerably more than $300K/Year and a "$1mm bonus'. If there were only "10" people in the world who could pull this off, they could command pretty much any compensation they wished - and it would be in the hundreds of millions based on what I've read about the budget for large scale mapping systems ($8B at Nokia)

I'm guessing, that properly incented, there are a couple thousand people that Apple could reach out to who could, in short notice (2-3 years) lead Apple maps to the same quality that Google Maps is today. And such a position would command a salary around $300-$400K/year, with around a $10mm (all in) bonus for successful delivery on that time line. (Presuming that leading such an organization requires skills, experience, and knowledge so rare that there are only 2,000 people on the planet that can do it in 3 years)

The real question is whether Apple really want to invest in maps. Via Philip Elmer Dewit:

""Not doing its own Maps would be a far bigger mistake," says Asymco's Horace Dediu, who addressed the issue at length in last week's Critical Path podcast. "The mistake was not getting involved in maps sooner, which was on Jobs' watch. Nokia saw the writing on the wall five years ago and burned $8 billion to get in front of the problem. The pain Apple feels now is deferred from when they decided to hand over that franchise to Google at the beginning of iPhone.""

Does Apple really want to invest $8 Billion into Maps? Is there really $8 Billion worth of value there?

Eh, I think it's in the best interest of the employed to throw around numbers like $300k / year and $1mm bonus just to shift the window. If people say them enough, eventually someone will pay it. Maybe to one of us!

The position described above isn't an entry level or even medium level position -it's a leadership role (Think "principal engineer") for a strategic project (mapping) on the mobile platform(s) for Apple. I guarantee you that person will be making north of $300K/year.

Put that another away - This person responsible for driving a Multi-Billion dollar project will be only making 3x the lowest paid software engineer at Apple, and they will likely have 500x the responsibilities.

$300k/year is not abnormal at all for a fairly senior engineer or director at Google in Silicon Valley after bonuses and stock grants. It doesn't matter whether people say those numbers or not, anyone who works in the Valley knows that's the market rate.

> for a place that is opportunistic, unpleasant and unlikely to have much options upside

It sounds like you assume:

1) working at apple sucks because they never innovate

2) apple stock never goes up

You might want to check both of those assumptions.

The next four words read "would be more reasonable."

That figure came from what the poster believes to be a more reasonable offer.

Speculation in comments at TechCrunch is that the $85k was a signing bonus rather than an annual salary.

That isn't really phrased as a salary, is it? It sounds like a signing bonus. Which - well, I've never worked around Cupertino. Is $85k really a typical signing bonus?

For a company that has $117b+ in cash reserves and a HUGE PR blunder on their hands with the new Maps, I would assume the incentives for hiring on the key guys to fix that problem would be more substantial.

I think they left out a zero

It's a product development manager, not an engineer. They do the specification and to some extent project management. AFAIK managerial talent is not as rare as technical talent nowadays.

I could see a run of the mill CRUD app PM making $85k, but someone who is being actively sought after by the most profitable company in the world because of demonstrated domain knowledge in an area where they have a clear need and who is expected to relocate to SV? $85k is laughable for that. Laughable!

Hm, I guess you're right. Maybe not laughable, but nothing to boast about on TC.

Managerial talent is just like anything else. Truly game-changing people are rare, and when you find one they are incredibly valuable. Product managers most definitely fit into that category. A great product manager is a huge asset worth as much as any great engineer.