Also it doesn't really match with reality, since they'd usually get refresh grants and have a rolling four year window at all times.
The article sounds like the reporter heard a soundbyte about google's typical four year vesting period, and then did zero actual research into what that means.
I don't know--I've heard a lot of people here noting the "4 year cliff" at most tech companies, not just Google. Not all companies give refreshes, and of those that do, it's usually not enough to make up for the initial grant going away.
I left my last job pretty much on the day of my 4 year anniversary because I'd otherwise be taking a 25% comp hit in year 5. It's definitely a thing.
When you initially start at Google, say, you get an RSU grant that vests over 4 years. So for 4 years you are getting your salary and on some schedule also getting stock. The stock can be a quite large portion of your total compensation (as in, comparable to the base salary).
After 4 years, unless you got refresher grants, your compensation is just your salary, so you effectively make less money than during the first 4 years. At that point the incentive is to move to some other company and start the 4-year clock again...
Ok got it! So I guess the only way for Google to keep the best performers is to eliminate this cliff by giving RSU and/or offering a significant pay increase.
The article sounds like the reporter heard a soundbyte about google's typical four year vesting period, and then did zero actual research into what that means.