Aura89:

Oculus is a company, not a singular person who realistically doesn't have any technology/IP/etc. To take it a different way, Intel is spending nearly 1/20th on a singular person, in comparison to facebook buying an entire company and completely new business ventures. To me, oculus is by far the better buy, even if it is risky, as any purchase of any company is inherently risky.

Not to argue, but, let's put that into perspective: Intel Market Cap is $235 thousand million+, or, $235,000,000,000+ and with a share price of $58+, this means that the slightest movement in the share price (in actuality) has a massive impact on the value of the shares and affects those who hold shares. Occulus was not even listed at the time, and didn't own anything but (frankly) niché IP that few cared about. VR is never a good bet for gaming/entertainment, as not even Half-Life 3 in full VR mode would interest most people anyway. See* half-life Alyx / StreamVR sales for proof of this (include ebay sell-offs in your research 🙂 ) And yet...FB bought it for the amount they did...this was a hugely over-inflated purchase...and kinda reminded me of the $20 headphones that Apple sell for $200+, with a "b" on the side...Dre made so much money from that deal, and, again, it was massively over-inflated pricing. Back to Intel $116m is a lot for a member of staff, no question, but in the grand scheme of things, the share price went from <$50 to <$59 in just a few days. That's NINE DOLLARS PER SHARE INCREASE. roughly, without checking the math too closely, this means it cost them 13 million shares, of, a total of issued stock being 6,000,000,000+ on stock that was decreasing in value, from 2015. So, that $116m did not actually cost them anything, it made them money. It makes sense to me, but beats and occulus does and did, not - those were more about tax write-offs than anything else, because if FB were serious about VR (for some crazy reason) MZ would have started from college doing that, not messing about with social networking for narcissists 🙂

I want a welcome package ?

Brasky:

A. LOL. What's your education and job history? Take about 4 minutes to read the wikipedia or whatever source you like to read this guy's bio and tell me who's more qualified between yourself and Gelsinger? B. Whoever told you that life / the real world was fair really set you up for failure and I'm sorry that you feel this way, but hopefully you'll be able to grow. C. Yep, Capitalism is the problem with the world. (sarcasm) You must work in academia to glorify such idealist visions of the world that have never and will never work in practice. D. It's insane that some dumbass like myself has to explain luck/life to other adults (I assume).

My job and education is none of your fucking business, and what has that got to do with him getting paid too much compared to everybody else in the company? I'M NOT LOOKING FOR HIS JOB You sound like some spoiled vested interest trying to justify the insane wages/stocks given to the 1%ers.

At least Gelsingers strength is his tech background (formerly CTO at Intel) vs Swans finance background. That I think gives him an advantage in charting a more effective long term direction of the company from a tech standpoint than Swan, which I believe is why he was highly sought after.

Don't see anything wrong with this. CEOs capable of successfully directing and leading huge companies like these are not a dime a dozen. So it's an employee's market if you want to call it that. Intel thought he was worth that cost and offered him a big incentive to pry him away from VMWare. Scarcity + demand drives up the price.