mpantone

ihatescreennames said:

mpantone said:

I love how this article makes it sound like Katzenberg was just some "employee" [sic] of DreamWorks who would chat with Eddy Cue on occasion.

Jeffrey Katzenberg is a bonafide Hollywood movie mogul.

He was the chairman of Disney between 1984 and 1994 at which point he co-founded DreamWorks SKG with the other two namesakes: Steven Spielberg and David Geffen (of Geffen Records, the music industry mogul). His estimated net worth is a little shy of $1 billion. Katzenberg's protegé at Disney was Michael Eisner who succeeded Katzenberg in the role of Disney chairman. Katzenberg's focus was animated features and he pushed DreamWorks Animation to be an all-digital house.

For twenty years, Katzenberg was the executive producer of many of Hollywood's biggest animated features. G-rated animated features dominate the box office revenue charts and typically haul in big bucks in merchandise. Which do you think sold better? The Forrest Gump lunch box or the Little Mermaid lunch box?

He might be the guy with the Rolodex but it's a pretty good Rolodex. Katzenberg is definitely on the Hollywood A-list. He hasn't played second fiddle to anyone for over 35 years.

I agree with all of this, except Katzenberg reported to Eisner, not the other way around, and he was never chairman at Disney. IIRC, he was pushing for a promotion at Disney and not getting it was part of the reason he left and then started DreamWorks. 

You are absolutely right. My memory failed me trying to think about something that happened in the mid-Nineties. Eisner was the top dog.

Katzenberg was third in command at Disney and worked under Eisner. Kaztenberg really wanted to be the number 2 guy but Frank Wells was firmly entrenched there until the latter's untimely death in a helicopter accident. Katzenberg did not receive a promotion (Wells' position was left unfilled) so Katzenberg quit Disney to start DreamWorks SKG with Spielberg and Geffen.

It was still a pretty gutsy move as Katzenberg was just 44 years old in 1994.

flyway said:

GPUs such as the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M use GDDR6 and the 5600M uses HBM2 in the 16" MacBook Pro.
Is DDR5 mainly for the CPU and how does it compare to GDDR6 and HBM2?

They aren't interchangeable.

DDR4 and DDR5 are specs for system memory on desktop computers.

LPDDR is for notebook computers, LP standing for Low Power. This type of memory is typically more expensive than the standard desktop computing RAM. 

The 'G' in GDDR is graphics memory for discrete GPUs. You cannot stick GDDR into a desktop computer's system memory slots. They are not compatible.

HBM is a newer mobile graphics memory type. Rather than hang separately off the graphics bus, it is usually more highly integrated with the GPU itself, often in the same package. This technology can provide better mobile graphics performance but with higher cost.

I love how this article makes it sound like Katzenberg was just some "employee" [sic] of DreamWorks who would chat with Eddy Cue on occasion.

Jeffrey Katzenberg is a bonafide Hollywood movie mogul.

He was the chairman of Disney between 1984 and 1994 at which point he co-founded DreamWorks SKG with the other two namesakes: Steven Spielberg and David Geffen (of Geffen Records, the music industry mogul). His estimated net worth is a little shy of $1 billion. Katzenberg's protegé at Disney was Michael Eisner who succeeded Katzenberg in the role of Disney chairman. Katzenberg's focus was animated features and he pushed DreamWorks Animation to be an all-digital house.

For twenty years, Katzenberg was the executive producer of many of Hollywood's biggest animated features. G-rated animated features dominate the box office revenue charts and typically haul in big bucks in merchandise. Which do you think sold better? The Forrest Gump lunch box or the Little Mermaid lunch box?

He might be the guy with the Rolodex but it's a pretty good Rolodex. Katzenberg is definitely on the Hollywood A-list. He hasn't played second fiddle to anyone for over 35 years.

chadbag said:

Does anyone know if this is actual vested stock or new grants that have yet to vest?  (And what the vesting schedule is)

As mentioned by Carnegie, Cook receives both time-based and performance-based grants.

My guess -- based on Tim's public persona of fairness and equality -- is that his time-based grants are on the same vesting schedule as those of his line employees. In Silicon Valley, this has long meant 20% of the grant's shares vesting one year after the date of the grant followed by 2% additional vesting each month. Thus, to be 50% vested, it would take 1 year + 15 months. To be fully vested for that specific grant, it would take 1 year + 40 months = 4 years + 4 months.

Tim's sense of fairness shows up a bit in his $3 million salary. He is not playing that $1 annual salary game. He is still contributing to the regular social welfare pots: Social Security, Medicare, SDI, etc. plus other things like a pre-tax medical account ("cafeteria plan") and a long-term care policy. The rest of it is likely withheld for federal and state income taxes. I bet his actual bi-weekly pay stub is less than $50 net.

Silicon Valley has a nickname for these time-based grants; they are known as "golden handcuffs" because they incentivize the employees to remain with the company.

His performance based grants are probably described in the company's SEC filings. Note that these types of performance-based grants for senior executives don't automatically vest. They are reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors' compensation committee. Often, performance based grants are not fully granted if the company's performance falls short of the goals set in the grant. In this case, it is usually not an all-of-nothing deal and the compensation committee reduces the amount of awarded grant.

The Bloomberg figure would have to be that of exercised grants. An unexercised grant -- even if fully vested -- is still theoretical money. Cook -- like others in his category -- periodically exercise vested grants for the primary purpose of portfolio diversification. 

Of course, the IRS does not care about unvested, unexercised grants. The only figure that is truly important is the value of the exercised grant. That is the number that the IRS (and Franchise Tax Board for Tim) look at.

My guess is that Tim also donates some of his fully appreciated stock to charitable organizations. There is a considerable tax benefit to donating equities.

MplsP said:

Agreed - I'm sure Google will turn around and figure out a way around the blocking. So goes the game...

Actually, Google provides their very own Google Analytics blocking extension for Google Chrome based web browsers in the Chrome Web Store.

But feel free to spout off garbage about something you apparently know nothing about.

When you feel like taking a break, go visit the Chrome Web Store and search for "Google Analytics." You will find the first-party blocker extension there.

Note that there are third-party developers who have also written Google Analytics-blocking extensions, not just for Google Chrome but for other browsers such as Mozilla Firefox.

My guess is that a Pi-Hole can be configured to do the same. There are various filter list subscriptions that have done the same for almost as long as Google Analytics has been around.

Remember that blocking this type of web traffic is not a recent development. It dates back to the Nineties -- the Internet Junkbuster era. Blocking Google Analytics is nothing new.