3 ms·

Yes, and he was already rich from previous money he made in Apple's early days. Just like Marissa Mayer was already rich from Google stock. Neither needed the

Yes, and he was already rich from previous money he made in Apple's early days. Just like Marissa Mayer was already rich from Google stock. Neither needed the money at all. Jobs knew that and didn't take any. Mayer for some reason took as much as possible.

prostoalex 10y ago
> Jobs knew that and didn't take any. His total grants from 1997 and until death amounted to 5.5 mln AAPL shares (one would have to multiple this number by 7 to account for 2014 stock split).
- shitgoose 10y ago
  right, they should pay Marissa with Yahoo (sorry, Altaba) stock. vesting in 3 years.
dbg31415 10y ago
Literally 3x what the average Fortune 500 CEO was paid. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/12/09/marissa-mayer-yahoo-divest/77039068/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/12/09/maris...
pgodzin 10y ago
> "For some reason" We don't need a narrative of sacrifice to glorify an exec with. She has a family, 100 different wealthy suitors if she were to look, and the board approved the compensation because they thought it was worth the risk of turning the company around. The reason was because she could and had to reason not to.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vidarh 10y ago
Jobs was paid in the form of the NeXT acquisition and the personal vindication of being brought back and turning things around. He was strongly personally invested. Mayer was brought into a company in a death spiral, that she had no strong personal investment in, presumably knowing very well that odds of failure were great and will likely affect her future opportunities (I'm sure she'll do fine, but I'm sure she'd have done better if she'd gone to a big success) How many people would take the Yahoo! CEO job without a significant risk premium over their market rate?
SkyMarshal 10y ago
Don't blame Marissa for simply accepting what the CEO market was willing to pay her. You and I and every single human being would do no different in her shoes. If you have a problem with it, blame the market for poor judgement in capital allocation.
- rapind 10y ago
  What? If you already have $100+ million in the bank it's a given you'd take a crap job just for more play money? The whole point of FU money (which she already had) is you get to make big decisions, like what you're going to spend the next 5 years doing, without worrying about personal financial impact.
EpicEng 10y ago
> for some reason I know, crazy, like what kind of person would accept that kind of money if offered? It really boggles the mind. Hell, I was offered a raise recently, but I told them no way. I won't play that game!
ProblemFactory 10y ago
> Neither needed the money at all. Jobs knew that and didn't take any. Mayer for some reason took as much as possible. Apple was a company that Jobs founded and got fired from. Coming back to "save" it would have been a very personal battle, and a way to prove people that fired him wrong. Why on earth would anyone want to do the same at Yahoo for free (and tie their personal reputation to the success or failure), even if they didn't need the money?

prostoalex 10y ago

> Jobs knew that and didn't take any. His total grants from 1997 and until death amounted to 5.5 mln AAPL shares (one would have to multiple this number by 7 to account for 2014 stock split).

shitgoose 10y ago
right, they should pay Marissa with Yahoo (sorry, Altaba) stock. vesting in 3 years.

dbg31415 10y ago

Literally 3x what the average Fortune 500 CEO was paid. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/12/09/marissa-mayer-yahoo-divest/77039068/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/12/09/maris...

pgodzin 10y ago

> "For some reason" We don't need a narrative of sacrifice to glorify an exec with. She has a family, 100 different wealthy suitors if she were to look, and the board approved the compensation because they thought it was worth the risk of turning the company around. The reason was because she could and had to reason not to.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vidarh 10y ago

Jobs was paid in the form of the NeXT acquisition and the personal vindication of being brought back and turning things around. He was strongly personally invested. Mayer was brought into a company in a death spiral, that she had no strong personal investment in, presumably knowing very well that odds of failure were great and will likely affect her future opportunities (I'm sure she'll do fine, but I'm sure she'd have done better if she'd gone to a big success) How many people would take the Yahoo! CEO job without a significant risk premium over their market rate?

SkyMarshal 10y ago

Don't blame Marissa for simply accepting what the CEO market was willing to pay her. You and I and every single human being would do no different in her shoes. If you have a problem with it, blame the market for poor judgement in capital allocation.

rapind 10y ago
What? If you already have $100+ million in the bank it's a given you'd take a crap job just for more play money? The whole point of FU money (which she already had) is you get to make big decisions, like what you're going to spend the next 5 years doing, without worrying about personal financial impact.

EpicEng 10y ago

> for some reason I know, crazy, like what kind of person would accept that kind of money if offered? It really boggles the mind. Hell, I was offered a raise recently, but I told them no way. I won't play that game!

ProblemFactory 10y ago

> Neither needed the money at all. Jobs knew that and didn't take any. Mayer for some reason took as much as possible. Apple was a company that Jobs founded and got fired from. Coming back to "save" it would have been a very personal battle, and a way to prove people that fired him wrong. Why on earth would anyone want to do the same at Yahoo for free (and tie their personal reputation to the success or failure), even if they didn't need the money?