Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter CEO Elon Musk saw his wealth plummet by $100 billion dollars this year, bringing his net worth to somewhere between $170 billion and $182 billion, according to estimates from Bloomberg and Forbes. That’s down from an estimated $340 billion in November 2021. The drop comes as Tesla shares decreased to a two-year low this week, reducing Musk’s wealth by about $8.6 billion in just one day.
Musk reportedly owns around a 15 percent stake in Tesla shares which has decreased by 58.03% year to date, according to Bloomberg. He sold nearly $15.5 billion of his Tesla stock to finance his purchase of Twitter earlier this month.
Tesla accounts for the bulk of Musk’s fortune but has faced revenue decreases due to the ongoing covid-19 restrictions in China and a recent recall of 300,000 Tesla vehicles due to faulty taillights in addition to soaring costs of materials. His net worth continued to take a hit after he acquired Twitter for $44 billion—the largest buyout of a technology company in history.
Musk also had to recently defend the near $56 billion payment package Tesla handed him years ago in court. Richard Tornetta, who owns some Tesla shares, filed the lawsuit back in 2019 claiming the Tesla board offered Musk an overly generous pay package even though he was spending only about half his time at the electric car maker. His new hobby as ‘Chief Twit’ has only amplified claims that he’s spreading himself too thin.
Despite the setbacks, Musk still remains the wealthiest person in the world, coming in above the runner-up, Bernard Arnault, by around $65 billion. Musk is not the only tech executive whose net worth has dropped this year, as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’, and Alphabet co-founder Larry Page have all also experienced significant financial setbacks according to Bloomberg.
It’s easy to tell workers that fun doesn’t have to cost money when you have lots of money, I dare say.Photo: Jerod Harris (Getty Images)
Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who leads one of the world’s richest companies, very likely does not want to talk about money to his employees while the Big Tech giant is in the midst of cutting costs and slowing hiring. But, since employees asked, he wants them to do one thing: stop equating “fun” with “money.”
Pichai’s comments, made during an all-hands meeting with the entire company earlier this week, came to light in a new report by CNBC, which obtained an audio recording of the meeting. At the meeting, which Pichai held in New York with a live audience of Googlers, employees asked the CEO why the company was “nickel-and-diming” them by restricting travel and cutting entertainment budgets and perks, especially at a time when the company had “record profits and huge cash reserves.”
In response, the Google chief said the company was simply “being a bit more responsible” amid one of the toughest macroeconomic situations of the past decade.
At another point in the meeting, Pichai spoke about how cost-cutting affected fun at work. He referenced the days when Google was “small and scrappy” in his attempt to justify changes to the company’s culture and perks.
“I remember when Google was small and scrappy,” Pichai said at the meeting, as reported by CNBC. “Fun didn’t always — we shouldn’t always equate fun with money. I think you can walk into a hard-working startup and people may be having fun and it shouldn’t always equate to money.”
G/O Media may get a commission
Alexa? Has an 8″ HD touchscreen which can let you watch shows, stream things, or even make video calls thanks to the 13 MP camera, you can also use it to control other smart devices in your home with ease, and even display photos if you want to as a digital photo frame.
The question about company perks is not without basis. For years, Big Tech employees at Google and elsewhere have benefited from mind-boggling perks, at least to us peasants. These include onsite massage therapists, cooking classes, at-home fitness, and art programs, according to the “Benefits” page on Google Careers.
It’s not clear whether any of these perks will go away, although some swag is going bye-bye. Google officials who spoke at the all-hands meeting did tell employees to expect smaller and more informal holiday and New Year celebrations, instructing them specifically to “try not to go over the top.”
Regarding the restrictions on travel, some Google employees pointed out that it was contradicting to tell workers they had to follow the company’s return-to-office policy but then also stress there was “no need to travel” or “connect in-person.” Back in April, Google announced that workers would have to be in its physical offices at least three days a week.
Pichai said that he understood that the new travel policy was not ideal. He explained that if seeing each other in person would help employees work better, they could do that at times.
“If you haven’t seen your team in a while and it’ll help your work by getting together in person, I think you can do that,” the Google chief stated. “I think that’s why we are not saying no to travel, we are giving discretion to teams.”
Notably, Google officials said that the company did not plan to make any changes when it came to employee raises, equity, and bonuses, pointing out that they would continue to pay employees at “the top end of the market so we can be competitive.”
Pichai echoed the sentiment and said the company was “committed” to taking care of employees. That likely includes its highest earning executives, which in 2021 earned a total compensation of between at least $14 million and more than $28 million, according to parent company Alphabet’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Pichai’s total compensation was $6.3 million last year.
The Google chief did not respond to employee questions about whether the company would cut executive compensation.
Gizmodo reached out to Google for comment on Saturday but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
The three men currently under investigation: media magnate David Geffen, Fox co-founder Barry Diller and Alexander von FürstenbergPhoto: Matt Winkelmeyer, Bruce Glikas & Donato Sardella (Getty Images)
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that three men—Fox co-founder Barry Diller, Reggie Miller-hating socialite Alexander von Furstenberg and music magnate David Geffen—are currently under two separate federal investigations over suspicions insider trading was involved in their purchase of millions of dollars of Activision shares just before the company’s purchase by Microsoft.
The allegations are centred on the trio’s purchase of $108 million in Activision Blizzard shares only days before the Microsoft sale was announced in January. Following the deal, those same shares are now worth approximately $168 million, making the three men a quick profit of $60 million.
The timing of the deal, the sums involved and one of the men’s personal connection to Activision Blizzard (more on that in a minute) are certainly suspicious. As a result, the Justice Department is “investigating whether any of the options trades violated insider-trading laws”, while the Securities and Exchange Commission “is separately conducting a civil insider-trading investigation”.
Of the three men Barry Diller is the central figure here, as he served alongside Activision CEO Bobby Kotick on the board of Coca-Cola. Or at least he did until Kotick recently “stepped down” from that role in the wake of historic allegations of abuse and harassment at Activision Blizzard. The two weren’t just occasional colleagues, either; Diller has called Kotick a “a long time friend”.
Diller is then in turn also very close friends with Geffen, while Diller is married to von Furstenberg’s mother, so you can see why the SEC and Justice Department have both decided to investigate the deals. And aren’t exactly having to work overtime to put the pieces together on the trio’s connections.
Speaking with the WSJ about the report, Diller said on record that “It was simply a lucky bet. We acted on no information of any kind from anyone. It is one of those coincidences”, while von Furstenberg told the paper he had been “buying Activision stock prior to that and the thought was that Activision at some point would either go private, or would be acquired at some point”.
In the era of the Great Resignation and a tighter labor market, it’s common sense to have companies review and increase the benefits they offer their workers, especially when that company is the most valuable one in the world.
Well, it seems like the lightbulb has gone off at Apple, according to a new Bloomberg report published on Friday. The outlet reported that the tech giant was providing raises of between 2% and 10% to its U.S. retail workers, including salespeople, Genius Bar tech support staff, and some hourly employees. Not all employees will receive a pay bump, Bloomberg reported. Apple began informing stores and individual employees of the news this week, meaning that not everyone affected has been informed yet.
The raises will purportedly go into effect this month, according to Bloomberg. Notably, these pay bumps are separate from Apple’s annual wage revisions and wage increases, which are generally carried out in October. If true, the changes are yet another example of Apple’s response the job market’s shifting reality, as well as a possible attempt to address complaints from retail workers. The company has roughly 270 retail stores in the U.S.
Sources with knowledge of the matter who spoke to Bloomberg stated that the wage increases targeted employees who worked at Apple Stores before the pandemic started in 2020. In addition, the raises aim to put the wages of staffers with more seniority on par with newer employees.
Gizmodo reached out to Apple on Saturday to confirm the news about pay raises but did not hear back by the time of publication. We’ll update this article if someone gets back to us.
Apple’s purported wage increases were reported just days after Bloomberg informed that the company would offer more benefits to both full-time and part-time retail employees. The changes, which Apple confirmed to other outlets, will provide double the amount of sick days available to workers and increase employees’ annual vacation days. Part-time employees will also be eligible for up to six paid vacation days for the first time and six weeks of paid parental leave.
Hot on the heels of announcing plans to head in a somewhat new direction over the next five years, Riot Games has expanded its Queue Dodge buyout program–normally available to new hires during the first six months of their employment–to all employees. In other words, employees who opt to leave the company right now–because they’re not on-board with the CEO’s stated vision, or for whatever reason–are being offered 25 percent of their annual salary, three months of subsidized health benefits, and other advantages, all throughout January.
Read More:Inside The Culture Of Sexism At Riot Games
All any worker—also known as a Rioter—needs to do to opt into this buyout program is quit. This can be for any reason, but the timing of the Queue Dodge’s expansion suggests it’s primarily intended as a way to weed out folks who don’t think a job with the new Riot is the right fit for them. In particular, Riot is asking people to sign onto the company’s new five-year plan, which CEO Nicolo Laurent outlined on January 11 in a very long blog post. Laurent talked about the company’s goals, its commitment to diversity and inclusion, and a restructuring that’s been taking place for a few years.
“We’re asking Rioters to commit to a Riot where everyone feels supported,” Laurent wrote on the company’s website. “Where ideas get productive feedback, where Rioters ask tough questions in ways that foster healthy dialogue, where we’re all learning and growing from diverse perspectives, and where we’re unapologetically and relentlessly focused on players.”
Speaking to Business Insider, Laurent gave some context for the expanded Queue Dodge while also explaining that the move will position Riot Games for success going forward. Laurent claimed the program’s not about thinning the herd.
“We’re trying to grow the business,” he told the publication. “We just want to make sure we have the right team of people who are highly motivated.”
Riot’s Queue Dodge buyout program, which takes its name from a term used to describe gamers that leave multiplayer lobbies before a match starts, has existed for quite some time, though it’s typically only available for new employees. Prior to this expansion, the program let Rioters walk away with 10 percent of their annual salary (up to $25,000) as opposed to the current 25 percent. It seems the expansion is temporary and only lasts until the end of January.
We’ve reached out to Riot Games for comment and will update if we hear back.
In addition to the three months of subsidized health benefits and 25 percent of their annual salary, Rioters who opt into the expanded Queue Dodge buyout program will remain eligible to earn a potential employee bonus in March.
Read More:Riot Games Reaches $100 Million Settlement in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Riot Games recently settled a gender discrimination lawsuit that was levied against the company back in 2018 for $100 million. To be honest, I find it a little strange that the company would compensate people who don’t jive with its outward stance on diversity and inclusion, but I also understand employees needing resources to continue looking for work in the temperamental industry that is video games should their last job not work out for whatever reason. It’s a double-edged sword, this Queue Dodge program, but I suppose I can say I’m all for it as long as those who stay on are actively committed to fixing the racism and sexism that has persisted at the developer for years.
Blue Origin has big plans for its own space station, a project called Orbital Reef that would be “mixed use business park” and the “premier commercial destination in low Earth orbit.” Sort of like a cruise ship that fits 10 people and doesn’t travel to multiple destinations. It’ll be a little smaller than the International Space Station, Blue Origin says, and would open for business between 2025 and 2030.
Ten people. That’s still higher than eight people, the total number of people Blue Origin has carried just beyond the minimum threshold of space before turning back around after a minute or so. That’s also far less than 1 trillion people, the number Jeff Bezos anticipates will eventually live in tremendous space colonies that he’s described as the off-world structure in Interstellar.
To make it happen, Blue Origin is partnering with various companies—primarily Sierra Space, a space habitat corporation that’ll provide the Large Integrated Flexible Environment (LIFE) module, the human living quarters with three floors, beds, a kitchen, and an astro garden, as well as a spaceplane to shuttle passengers and cargo to and from Earth. Blue Origin would handle the launch system, utility systems, and core modules. Other parts are to be provided by Boeing, Redwire Space, and Genesis Engineering Solutions. Arizona State University will lead a “global consortium” of over 12 academic institutions, to advise on research and education.
The vaguely worded press release is a luxury tourism ad, promising “human-centered space architecture with world-class services and amenities that is inspiring, practical, and safe.” There will be, according to Brent Sherwood, senior vice president of Advanced Development Programs for Blue Origin, “a vibrant business ecosystem” that’ll generate “new discoveries, new products, new entertainments, and global awareness.”
In an email, Blue Origin declined to expand on what amenities or “new entertainments” entail. But a Sierra Space spokesperson elaborated: “We are creating a mixed-used business park. This means we are opening space business to new tenants and participants, creating a vibrant economy in space with new people living and working in space.” Target customers would include “manufacturing, space tourism, pharmaceuticals and any company who can see benefits of being in zero gravity,” the spokesperson said.
G/O Media may get a commission
They said that it’s to be determined whether researchers will get lower rates for tickets.
So, fine to ignore until it’s large enough that we can’t. For now, here’s a cool rendering:
The Black Widow lawsuit continues to rev up (sorry, not sorry).Image: Marvel Studios
The covid-19 pandemic has gone a long way in forcing Hollywood to change the way it looks at movie releases, for good or ill—and how adapting to that change doesn’t always work out amicably. As Disney continues to try and settle its ongoing legal battle with Marvel’s Black Widow star Scarlett Johansson behind closed doors, however, CEO Bob Chapek has spoken about how the case shows how the studio, and industry at large, needs to adapt to the times.
Deadline reports that Chapek publicly addressed the situation with Johansson—who is suing Disney for an alleged breach of her contract regarding the simultaneous release of Black Widow earlier this year at theaters and as part of Disney+’s “Premier Access” service—during Goldman Sachs’ 30th annual Communacopia Conference. But while Chapek wouldn’t directly name Johansson or even her lawsuit (one that, after disparaging it as a move trying to take advantage of a poor studio worth $122.18 billion during a global pandemic, the studio is now looking to settle privately), the CEO did acknowledge that the last few years have changed the way studios should be approaching deals with talent.
“We’re in a moment of time where films were envisioned under one understanding about what the world would be, because frankly it hadn’t changed much,” Chapek said. “Remember, those films were made three or four years ago; those deals were cut three or four years ago. Then they get launched in the middle of a global pandemic where that pandemic itself is accelerating a second dynamic, which is this changing consumer behavior. So we’re sort of putting a square peg in a round hole right now where we’ve got a deal conceived under a certain set of conditions, that actually results in a movie that is being released in a completely different set of conditions.”
Chapek’s right in that it goes beyond the impact the pandemic has had on Hollywood and the theater industry to show the pace at which moviemaking has changed—it’s not just hybrid releases that have come along, but the platforms those releases are happening on in the first place as well. Four years ago services like Disney+, HBO Max, Apple TV+, and Paramount+ were still all big ideas in the works, let alone services that would suddenly become the major debut platforms for tentpole blockbusters for the studios behind them. The move toward studio-owned streaming and the desire for audiences to stay at home to limit the spread of a deadly virus created a one-two punch that not even a force like the House of Mouse could’ve predicted and prepared for when deals for movies like Black Widow were first being drawn up.
But that’s only an excuse in that no one, Disney or otherwise, could’ve seen the state of 2020-2021 coming. It doesn’t excuse the way Disney went about first trying to address Johansson’s grievances, nor does it address what the studio’s going to be doing going forward in this new normal. But Chapek at least paid lip service to what should probably be a basic concept for Disney at this point: it should be doing right by the people who work for it. “Ultimately, we’ll think about that as we do our future talent deals and plan for that and make sure that’s incorporated. But right now we have this sort of middle position, where we’re trying to do right by the talent, I think the talent is trying to do right by us, and we’re just figuring out our way to bridge the gap,” Chapek concluded. “Ultimately we believe our talent is our most important asset, and we’ll continue to believe that, and as we always have, we’ll compensate them fairly per the terms of the contract that they agreed to us with.”
G/O Media may get a commission
I’d say maybe don’t say that your aggrieved movie stars have a “callous disregard” for the times in which we live is a good starting point for believing those stars are your most important asset, but then again, I’m not worth $122.18 billion, so what do I know.
Wondering where our RSS feed went? You can pick the new up one here.
Not two weeks ago, Ashley Gjøvik filed a complaint with the U.S. labor board charging her employer, Apple, with unlawful retaliation. She’d become too vocal, she said, about her experiences with sexism and concerns about safety in the workplace. The company wanted her stopped.
On Thursday, she was fired.
Gjøvik is one of two employees who filed charges against Apple last month with the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, alleging harassment and intimidation at the company. (The agency investigates all charges and prosecutes those it can substantiate.) The complaints follow a rare burst of employee activism at Apple, manifesting last month under the hashtag #AppleToo — an overt reference to 2017’s Me Too movement, which toppled powerful men long impervious to claims of misconduct.
The employees, who said they were out to expose patterns of discrimination and abuse within Apple, said it had flown under the radar for too long.
In a letter explaining Gjøvik’s firing, Apple accuses the (former) senior engineering program manager of disclosing “confidential product-related information,” adding that she’d also “failed to cooperate” during the “investigatory process.”
G/O Media may get a commission
Gjøvik, who has accused Apple publicly of ignoring harassment by a manager, and of subjecting her to hostile work conditions, said by phone that she knew no specifics about the “confidential information” she was accused of disclosing.
It was Apple, she said, that had disregarded her attempts to cooperate.
Company emails shared with Gizmodo show that Apple had reached out Gjøvik by email Thursday afternoon asking to “connect” with her “as soon as possible today.” “We’re looking into a sensitive Intellectual Property matter that we would like to speak with you about,” the first email she received read.
“Happy to help!” Gjøvik replied minutes later, with one caveat: She wanted to stick with email, “so we keep everything written please.”
Nearly an hour passed. When Apple did respond, it seemed to ignore Gjøvik’s request entirely—and her enthusiastic agreement to cooperate. “Since you have chosen not to participate in the discussion, we will move forward with the information that we have, and given the seriousness of these allegations, we are suspending your access to Apple systems,” the reply said.
Gjøvik reiterated, “As mentioned, I am definitely willing to participate in your investigation,” adding: “I offered to help via email to ensure we have a documented [record] of our conversations considering everything that’s currently going on with my investigation and my complaints to the government.”
Added Gjøvik: “I’d really like the opportunity to remedy any actual issues. Please let me know what the issues are so I can make a good faith attempt at that.” If the company continued to speak only vaguely of accusations against her, she wrote, she’d consider it further proof of retaliation.
Apple’s email responses then ceased. Hours later she was out of a job.
The termination letter, shared with Gizmodo, illuminated nothing. It repeated the same ambiguous charge and said she’d “failed to cooperate and to provide accurate and complete information during the Apple investigatory process.”
An inquiry to Apple got no response. In a statement to the Verge, however, the company said it would not address any “specific employee matters.”
Speaking by phone, Gjøvik’s voice cracked up several times. “Apple has been my favorite company since I was a little girl. It was [my] dream to work for them,” she said. “Even though I had a terrible experience, I feel like I did really good work. It feels like a betrayal that they’ve treated me this way.”
Gjøvik said, still, she was not surprised. Since she began raising concerns about workplace safety in March—her office was built on a superfund site that requires special permits due to prior contamination from hazardous waste—she’d been bracing for the blowback.
“I wasn’t going to be quiet or slink away. I was going to stand up for myself and my fellow employees,” Gjøvik said. “I was going to expose the systemic problems I identified. I was going to organize with employees. I was going to demand internal and public accountability of the biggest company in the world.”
Her only wish, she said, was to make a “dent in the universe” of Apple’s employment and labor practices.
Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the failed blood testing startup Theranos, will reportedly accuse her ex-boyfriend and business partner of abuse during her upcoming criminal trial.
According to unsealed documents obtained by the Washington Post, Holmes plans to argue that the abuse—which allegedly included verbal abuse and coercive control—impeded her ability to make her own decisions.
Holmes’s attorneys introduced the allegations in December, when they alerted the judge to the possibility that Holmes might introduce evidence of intimate partner abuse she allegedly endured from ex Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani. In the document, Holmes said Balwani monitored her communications and movements, threw dangerous objects at her, and restricted her sleep. A later February filing from the defense suggests that Holmes—who has been charged with 10 counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud—will likely cite these allegations to explain “why she believed, relied on, and deferred to Mr. Balwani.” And other court documents raise the possibility of an expert witness who will explain “how Ms. Holmes’ relationship with Mr. Balwani was consistent with intimate partner abuse” in court. Balwani has denied the allegations through his lawyers.
Holmes’s much-anticipated trial is slated for next month, at a federal courthouse in San Jose, California, with jury selection starting on Tuesday. The legal trouble began for Holmes when Theranos was exposed as (allegedly!) a massive scam by reporters in 2015, prompting federal investigators to take action against the company. The following year, Holmes was temporarily banned from owning or operating a lab, and prominent corporate partners like Walgreens began severing ties with the company.
Holmes and Balwani were both indicted in June 2018, based on prosecutors’ findings that the pair had defrauded investors as well as doctors and patients. Originally, Holmes and Balwani were to be tried together, but the two later had their cases separated. Despite Balwani’s requests, Holmes will go first, meaning the public will first hear her accounts of his alleged abuse before he goes to court. But even if the jury in Holmes’s case believes she was abused by Balwani, it does not necessarily mean they will see it as a plausible explanation for her business decisions.
We like to dunk on Boston Dynamics here at The A.V. Club, whether it’s because their robots have decided to stop doing practical things and start dancing (like that’s going to be a good way to steal a job from a human) or because they’re trying to make their robots look cuteafter the NYPD tried to turn them into RoboCops, but we’ve gotta give them this: For once, they made a robot that actually seems kind of competent—and here we are, not even two weeks out from Judgment Day (and 24 years late).
As reported by The Verge, Boston Dynamics’ Atlas robot can now do parkour. It can climb and flip and run on a wall and do some dickish showboating when it lands a good jump, and that means it will be that much more efficient at jumping on human skulls when the Machine Wars start. We foolishly thought parkour would be the one thing that saves us, since parkour is/was something that only humans can do (unlike driving a car and walking, which robots are getting better and better at), but our brave human rebels will have a much harder time evading the Flesh Hunters of the future if they can’t climb on rooftops and do unnecessary flips or spins now.
The robots will need the natural energy that our bodies produce in order to power their batteries, so they’re not just going to slaughter us all, and these parkour robots will be useful when it comes to getting hard-to-reach humans who have climbed up to rooftops and are hiding in ferris wheels. Common sense suggests that it’s harder for robots to get to places that are high up, since their power cords are so short and the most common robot—the lowly, pathetic Roomba—doesn’t have legs at all, and that’s what makes this Atlas robot such a game changer.
How would you get away from this thing? Maybe kick out its legs, and then just start beating the shit out of it until you hit an important bit of wiring? Or just push it so hard that it falls down? Or… just walk kind of fast? You know, this thing doesn’t really seem like it would be too hard to kill, now that we think about it… but now that we’ve typed that, the computers will know that we think the Atlas is easy to kill, so we’re going to have to throw them off the trail with some clever human subterfuge. Oh no! We were wrong! (Wink.) This robot is so scary and good at parkour! It will surely kill us all! (Wink.) We’re very impressed by the Roomba and we don’t laugh at it behind its back! (Wink.)