8 ms·

> Bebop, a company Google acquired last year for $380 Million > When Google decided to bring Diane Greene on full time to run Google Cloud, they had to purchas

> Bebop, a company Google acquired last year for $380 Million > When Google decided to bring Diane Greene on full time to run Google Cloud, they had to purchase her company in order to facilitate that Well, that's an expensive hire.

mandeepj 9y ago
I think it already paid off. She on-boarded Snap, Apple and Netflix Edit - I am impressed with Diane Greene. She donated all of her take from acquisition of her company - http://www.businessinsider.com/diane-green-donates-150m-to-charity-2016-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/diane-green-donates-150m-to-c...
- bilbo0s 9y ago
  Does Netflix use Google Cloud? Or do they just support it with Security Monkey?
  - Zach_the_Lizard 9y ago
    I thought Netflix was mostly or exclusively in AWS. Could certainly be wrong though.
    - kahnpro 9y ago
      Pretty sure they don't serve the actual video from AWS. And now considering the competition from Amazon Prime, I doubt it will move there in the future.
  - tylerlh 9y ago
    The majority of Netflix infrastructure runs on AWS, sans content delivery AFAIK. The transition to AWS was completed a little over a year ago and took several years to do.[0] [0]: https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/completing-the-netflix-cloud-migration https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/completing-the-net...
- verst 9y ago
  Correction: She didn't onboard Snap. Maybe you meant Spotify? Source: I worked with Snap when I was on the Google Cloud Platform team in 2012/2013.
  - illumin8 9y ago
    She got them to sign a significant multi-year $1B+ commitment - if that isn't a win, I don't know what is.
    - raverbashing 9y ago
      How do you spend 1Bi in hosting costs? That's mind-blowing
      - jldugger 9y ago
        Well, first you sign a multiyear agreement. Lets call it 5 years. Now you only need to find a way to spend $200m a year on a service that purports to discard your videos pretty damn fast. How do you do that? I figure a mix of bandwidth, storage, and personal targeting ad-tech. Most folks using cloud vendors are upset at the outbound traffic cost, so that probably costs a pretty penny. Especially when CDN and caching layers are pointless.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
kajecounterhack 9y ago
Fwiw ~3.15 Levandowskis
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dmoy 9y ago
She donated all of her share ($150m) to charity to boot.
- Denzel 9y ago
  For an extra $30MM in tax write-offs... because clearly she stands to make more taxable income than the $150MM in stock she donated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10844592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10844592.
  - dantiberian 9y ago
    I don't quite understand the idea of tax dodging a smaller tax bill by donating a larger amount of money? She had $150mm in stock, and donated it all, avoiding a tax bill of $30mm? If she had paid the tax bill, she would have had net $120mm, but after donating it, she had net $0mm? There must be something I'm missing here. I've seen these kinds of schemes discussed before, but don't understand how they would work.
    - Denzel 9y ago
      TL;DR It looks like she donated $150MM when in actuality she only donated $37.5MM Can you imagine the optics of an active board member, of a multi-billion dollar company, profiting from said company -- she's on the board of -- buying the company she runs? Good grief that reeks. She understood she couldn't take that money in good conscience. So, she got out in front of the optics for a small fee by "donating to charity." (I mean look at the comments here applauding her for donating her shares.) When you donate $150MM in stock, not only do you dodge the $30MM capital-gains tax (at a 20% tax rate), you receive a tax write-off for the full market value of the stock when you donated: $150MM in this case. Which means, in any year, she can take $150MM in income taxed at say 55%, and pay $0 in taxes on it. Much better than the $82.5MM she'd originally owe. And it makes tax planning a lot easier -- you don't have to worry about timing. All in all: $120MM net - $82.5MM write-off = $37.5MM total cost to her for shares she didn't even want -- for good reason. Understand that I don't care. But I would've been more impressed if she had donated those shares to her employees...

mandeepj 9y ago

I think it already paid off. She on-boarded Snap, Apple and Netflix Edit - I am impressed with Diane Greene. She donated all of her take from acquisition of her company - http://www.businessinsider.com/diane-green-donates-150m-to-charity-2016-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/diane-green-donates-150m-to-c...

bilbo0s 9y ago
Does Netflix use Google Cloud? Or do they just support it with Security Monkey?
- Zach_the_Lizard 9y ago
  I thought Netflix was mostly or exclusively in AWS. Could certainly be wrong though.
  - kahnpro 9y ago
    Pretty sure they don't serve the actual video from AWS. And now considering the competition from Amazon Prime, I doubt it will move there in the future.
- tylerlh 9y ago
  The majority of Netflix infrastructure runs on AWS, sans content delivery AFAIK. The transition to AWS was completed a little over a year ago and took several years to do.[0] [0]: https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/completing-the-netflix-cloud-migration https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/completing-the-net...
verst 9y ago
Correction: She didn't onboard Snap. Maybe you meant Spotify? Source: I worked with Snap when I was on the Google Cloud Platform team in 2012/2013.
- illumin8 9y ago
  She got them to sign a significant multi-year $1B+ commitment - if that isn't a win, I don't know what is.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    How do you spend 1Bi in hosting costs? That's mind-blowing
    - jldugger 9y ago
      Well, first you sign a multiyear agreement. Lets call it 5 years. Now you only need to find a way to spend $200m a year on a service that purports to discard your videos pretty damn fast. How do you do that? I figure a mix of bandwidth, storage, and personal targeting ad-tech. Most folks using cloud vendors are upset at the outbound traffic cost, so that probably costs a pretty penny. Especially when CDN and caching layers are pointless.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

kajecounterhack 9y ago

Fwiw ~3.15 Levandowskis

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dmoy 9y ago

She donated all of her share ($150m) to charity to boot.

Denzel 9y ago
For an extra $30MM in tax write-offs... because clearly she stands to make more taxable income than the $150MM in stock she donated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10844592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10844592.
- dantiberian 9y ago
  I don't quite understand the idea of tax dodging a smaller tax bill by donating a larger amount of money? She had $150mm in stock, and donated it all, avoiding a tax bill of $30mm? If she had paid the tax bill, she would have had net $120mm, but after donating it, she had net $0mm? There must be something I'm missing here. I've seen these kinds of schemes discussed before, but don't understand how they would work.
  - Denzel 9y ago
    TL;DR It looks like she donated $150MM when in actuality she only donated $37.5MM Can you imagine the optics of an active board member, of a multi-billion dollar company, profiting from said company -- she's on the board of -- buying the company she runs? Good grief that reeks. She understood she couldn't take that money in good conscience. So, she got out in front of the optics for a small fee by "donating to charity." (I mean look at the comments here applauding her for donating her shares.) When you donate $150MM in stock, not only do you dodge the $30MM capital-gains tax (at a 20% tax rate), you receive a tax write-off for the full market value of the stock when you donated: $150MM in this case. Which means, in any year, she can take $150MM in income taxed at say 55%, and pay $0 in taxes on it. Much better than the $82.5MM she'd originally owe. And it makes tax planning a lot easier -- you don't have to worry about timing. All in all: $120MM net - $82.5MM write-off = $37.5MM total cost to her for shares she didn't even want -- for good reason. Understand that I don't care. But I would've been more impressed if she had donated those shares to her employees...