In 2010 CEO Steve Jobs retained his $1 annual salary and some 5.5 million shares of Apple stock as well. “Since rejoining the company in 1997, Mr. Jobs has not sold any of his shares of the Company’s stock,” the filing reads. “Mr. Jobs holds no unvested equity awards. The Company recognizes that Mr. Jobs’s level of stock ownership significantly aligns his interests with shareholders’ interests.”

COO Tim Cook earned $59.1 million for the fiscal year, thanks to a $5 million bonus and $52.3 million in stock awards. Quite a spike from the $1.64 million he earned in 2009, but well-deserved given his performance, particularly when he filled in for Jobs during his medical leave of absence.

Included in the proxy statement is a shareholder proposal asking Apple to adopt a CEO-succession-planning policy and appended beneath it is a strongly worded statement from the company opposing it. “The Company recognizes that a highly talented and experienced management team, not just the CEO, is critical to Apple’s success,” it reads. “Accordingly, the Board already implements many of the proposed actions and maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization. While the Board strongly supports the concept of succession planning, it recommends a vote against [the proposal].”

Why?

Evidently, the board feels a written succession plan would give Apple’s rivals unfair advantage by publicizing its objectives and plans. It also fears that identifying potential successors to Jobs would invite other companies to recruit those people away from Apple. Finally, the board feels that its directors and Apple’s leadership can handle succession planning on their own. “The Company takes succession planning seriously, and the board has adopted a comprehensive process to ensure continuity and maintain the superior quality of its management team,” Apple said in the filing. “This process also allows flexibility to adjust to unanticipated changes in the market.”

Plus, Steve doesn’t like talking about it.

Now we have a full text of the actual rules, weighing in at a voluminous 194 heavily footnoted pages, which just became public on the FCC’s Web site. As with some of the other documents relating to this, I’ve uploaded this one to Scribd and embedded it below. This is the document that corporate lawyers, lawmakers and other policy wonks at think tanks and trade associations will be combing through in the coming weeks and months in hopes of either watering down or strengthening the rules, depending on your point of view. Others will be looking through this text for provisions they can challenge in court. And congressional Republicans have already promised to hold hearings next year and will probably try to find a way to legislate these rules out of existence.

FCC-10-201A1

Even those who are voting in favor are doing so holding their noses. Of the five voting members of the commission, only one, Democrat Michael Copps, had been considered remotely likely to vote with the two Republicans who had pledged to vote against it. When he announced he would vote in favor yesterday he said he was doing so with reservations.

Republicans, both on the commission and in Congress, sense an opportunity, the size of which you can discern by the size of the headlines topping the Drudge Report during the last few days. Genachowski is being portrayed in 80-point type as the villain “Julius Seizure” out to ruin the freewheeling Internet by shackling it with a list of bureaucratic rules and regulations. The irony is that the current proposal on the table is a dramatic step back from a far more ominous one: Immediately after losing a court case brought by the cable company Comcast over the extent of its legal authority to regulate the Internet, Genachowski considered reclassifying the Internet under the FCC’s Title II authority, which governs regulation of the phone system. This was an extreme response, thankfully abandoned, that would have certainly warranted the nickname. The current proposal is by no stretch of argument so extreme that it amounts to a seizure.

But rules they are, and no one likes new rules where none existed before, least of all multibillion dollar corporations like Comcast and Verizon. Having established in the courts that they have the right to control the use of certain applications that impact the performance of their network–or, more precisely, the fact that the FCC has no legal authority to tell them not to exercise such control–they’re now going to be required to disclose how and why they exercise such controls.

The rules allow for “reasonable network management” by service providers, which is a squishy phrase. Internet companies like Amazon and Skype, which aren’t service providers themselves, argue that the new rules are weak and don’t protect them from service providers that may “reasonably manage” their products and services out of existence. Get your stopwatches ready, because there will almost certainly be several lawsuits over what constitutes “reasonable network management.”

The scenario is easy to imagine: Embittered broadband customers band together in a class-action lawsuit complaining that their provider refuses to allow them to experience the latest video streaming or video chat application. They argue that the provider favors another inferior application that it happens to own. The provider argues that it’s only engaging in “reasonable network management” allowed under FCC rules, leaving judges to tease out what that means. Lawyers are probably already shining up their Ferragamos as they polish their legal briefs.

These cases are already appearing. Comcast and Level 3 Communications are sparring over the terms under which Comcast conveys to its customers video streaming traffic sent by Level 3 associated with its relationship with Netflix. Level 3 has turned to the FCC and the U.S. Department of Justice at a delicate time for Comcast: It wants federal approval for its takeover of NBC Universal, and wants it now.

The FCC’s new rules, rightly or wrongly, make Comcast and companies like it more vulnerable to similar threats by regulators in response to actions taken in their own reasonable self-interest. Until today, this sort of dispute between companies would normally be worked out by negotiators in private, not regulators on the public dime. No matter whose side you tend to favor, the prospect of government gumming up the work with endless busywork isn’t a happy side effect.

The rules themselves may also be challenged. There’s still a huge question–as FCC commissioners Meredith Atwell Baker and Robert McDowell have both argued in recent newspaper op-eds (one in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the other in today’s Washington Post)– about the FCC’s legal authority over the Internet. House Republicans are already making noise about jumping into the policy fray, and another court challenge is probably likely.

The one overarching mission concerning the Internet that the FCC can undertake with some measure of agreement is that of widening the availability of the network to places it doesn’t adequately reach and to people who don’t have broadband access for economic or other reasons. In an age where so much of daily public business–from applying for a job to becoming an informed voter in the presidential election–all but requires a broadband link, far too many remote and rural areas are the victim of market forces where the investment to build infrastructure in sparsely populated areas outweighs the potential for a reasonable return.

Genachowski has argued that by adapting the Universal Service Fund (which helped the telephone network penetrate these same underserved areas) for broadband, providers could get this otherwise impossible job accomplished. Extending broadband availability was one of President Obama’s campaign promises, but the $7.8 billion in federal stimulus funds awarded under the auspices of the National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service have not and will not make a significant dent in the problem.

Why not focus on what is clearly the more important problem and without question in the national interest, and leave the finer points of how service providers and Web companies carry content to sort themselves out? Like it or not, a new, more legally complicated Internet is here.

The All Things Digital readership has spoken: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was wrong in declaring that the Apple iPad was not mobile.

In fact, 1,671 takers of a survey BoomTown ginned up on the subject using SurveyMonkey disagreed with him 85.1 percent to 14.9 percent.

The larger number picked the answer– “No, Mark needs to get out more!”–when asked: “Was Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg correct in asserting last week that the Apple iPad is not mobile?”

The smaller number agreed with the statement, “Yes, Mark is a visionary!”

Well, he actually is, but not about this debate.

A week ago, BoomTown wrote a post titled “Dear Zuck: The Apple iPad Is Mobile (So Sorry!),” countering Zuckerberg’s sudden statement at a recent press event that the popular tablet device was not.

As I wrote about what the kingpin of the social networking giant said:

Ben Parr of Mashable asked a question everyone has been speculating about recently–whether and when there would be an iPad app for Facebook coming.

A fumbling “no comment” would have worked fine, but the real Zuckerberg seemed to have decided to channel the clever Aaron Sorkin-ish repartee of the fictional Zuckerberg in the movie “The Social Network.”

“It’s not mobile…it is a computer,” he said flatly.

“I think Apple would disagree with you,” noted Parr.

“Well, sorry,” Zuckerberg spat out, his voice dripping with the kind of sarcasm that only a super-nerdy Silicon Valley engineer can pull off properly.

I disagreed, noting:

The iPad is a computer, because that is technically true, even though that makes a smartphone a computer too. (And, now that I think of it, my car is a computer.)

But actual civilians don’t make these kinds of distinctions and, if one spends any time watching consumers use tablets, mobile is entirely how they think of it.

The post got a lot of comments, and tweets on Twitter too, so I thought I would post a survey so that everyone could cast their own vote.

Here it is below again, with the results under it (click on full screen to make it ginormous):

SurveySummary_11092010

[Photo from CafePress, and thanks to SurveyMonkey for calling our survey a "smart, savvy, and even downright sexy" embed.]

That’s not much of a surprise, given the relentless marketing campaign by the makers of “The Social Network,” which opened wide last Friday. It has garnered terrific critical acclaim.

Still, BoomTown was quite surprised to see a mention of the film on one of my favorite celebrity sites, TMZ.com.

Of course, because it is gossip-saturated, TMZ featured it as one of its naughty regular features called “Who’d You Rather?”

As in…well, you get the point.

This time they pitted Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg against the Winklevoss twins in a “Facebook Fight.”

“As part of the movie ‘The Social Network,’ twin brothers Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss claim their Harvard [University] classmate Mark Zuckerberg stole their idea and created what is now this little website called Facebook,” TMZ wrote.

Also surprising, as you can see from the screenshot above, given what hunks of dudeness the Winklevii clearly are, is that Zuckerberg seems to be attracting one-third of the votes compared with their two-thirds.

And since there are two of them, the billionaire social networking wunderkind could be considered tied with the brothers!

Sweet justice after the slamming the Winklevii have been giving Zuckerberg in the media of late, even though they had signed a confidentiality agreement after their first $65 million settlement with him?

The Winklevii are trying to have that overturned and are inexplicably going for more, of course, which should keep the themes of the movie resonating for a while.

That will also be true if “The Social Network” garners some award nominations, especially the Oscar.

Also interesting will be to see if the movie will perform well this weekend or will drop off. It’s so far proved popular in the big cities on the coasts and in Silicon Valley, but now it has to go wide to make some real dough.

But, for sure, it will be on television eventually. Today, the FX cable network said it had bought the broadcast premiere rights to the movie.

In the regulatory equivalent of a surprise switcheroo, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had officially closed its investigation of the $750 million AdMob deal with Google (GOOG), which had been at risk over the past months, citing adequate competition in the mobile advertising market, especially from Apple (AAPL).

It was a 5-0 unanimous vote.

In a press release, the FTC said:

“The Commission said that although the combination of the two leading mobile advertising networks raised serious antitrust issues, the agency’s concerns ultimately were overshadowed by recent developments in the market, most notably a move by Apple Computer Inc.–the maker of the iPhone–to launch its own, competing mobile ad network.”

This comes after two days of arrogant and petty Apple-bashing by Google at its I/O conference in San Francisco this week by the search giant’s execs–including CEO Eric Schmidt.

Guess it’s time to send some love to Apple CEO Steve Jobs, Eric, given that his company’s entry into the market tipped the balance against what could have been a thorny investigation of Google by regulators!

Not that Google is out of the regulatory woods in Washington, D.C., by any means. Both the FTC and the Justice Department have been carefully scrutinizing the search giant as its power in the digital arena has grown, especially over antitrust and privacy concerns.

That federal attention is sure to continue.

Google was only saved from a preliminary injunction to stop the transaction this time because of recent moves by Apple in the mobile ad market.

Apple bought AdMob competitor Quattro Wireless in January and later announced its iAd mobile offering.

In addition, first pointed out by MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka, since Apple lost out to Google in its attempt to buy AdMob, the pair were facing a less-than-cooperative company whose iPhone has been one of AdMob’s key devices to place ads on.

Apple recently issued some new rules–thus far, unenforced–that could hurt AdMob’s ability to take advantage of the powerful iPhone smartphone platform.

Such growing rivalry is the main argument that Google and AdMob have been pushing, noting that the mobile ad business is still small and pointing to a recent survey that showed the combined entity had only 21 percent of the market.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt also took a much more aggressive stance recently on fighting the FTC if the deal was stopped, and sources said the agency was not keen to lose a legal battle over the issue.

Still, until recently, Google’s effort had not seemed to move the FTC, which has been asking for reaction to the deal from a range of sources, such as advertisers, even as Google has been soliciting official support from a number of tech sources.

In addition, lawmakers have been agitating for the FTC to act, and there has been intense lobbying by Microsoft (MSFT) and public interest groups.

The FTC is likely to catch some fire for not moving on Google.

AdMob was also caught in the crossfire, unable to move forward after Google forked over $750 million to buy it last fall.

The San Mateo, Calif.-based AdMob released a statement on the outcome: “We are extremely pleased with today’s decision from the Federal Trade Commission to clear Google’s acquisition of AdMob. Over the past six months we’ve received a great deal of support from across the mobile industry–and we deeply appreciate it. Our focus is now on working with the team at Google team to quickly close the deal.”

Here’s the official press release from the FTC, as well as blog posts from Google’s Susan Wojcicki and AdMob CEO Omar Hamoui on the development:

FTC Closes its Investigation of Google AdMob Deal After Thorough Review, Agency Finds Transaction Not Likely to Harm Competition

The Federal Trade Commission has closed its investigation of Google’s proposed acquisition of mobile advertising network company AdMob after thoroughly reviewing the deal and concluding that it is unlikely to harm competition in the emerging market for mobile advertising networks.

In a statement issued today, the Commission said that although the combination of the two leading mobile advertising networks raised serious antitrust issues, the agency’s concerns ultimately were overshadowed by recent developments in the market, most notably a move by Apple Computer Inc.–the maker of the iPhone–to launch its own, competing mobile ad network. In addition, a number of firms appear to be developing or acquiring smartphone platforms to better compete against Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android, and these firms would have a strong incentive to facilitate competition among mobile advertising networks.

“As a result of Apple’s entry (into the market), AdMob’s success to date on the iPhone platform is unlikely to be an accurate predictor of AdMob’s competitive significance going forward, whether AdMob is owned by Google or not,” the Commission’s statement explains.

The Commission stressed that mergers in fast-growing new markets like mobile advertising should get the same level of antitrust scrutiny as those in other markets. The statement goes on to note that, “Though we have determined not to take action today, the Commission will continue to monitor the mobile marketplace to ensure a competitive environment and to protect the interests of consumers.”

Mobile ad networks, such as those provided by Google and AdMob, sell advertising space for mobile publishers, who create applications and content for websites configured for mobile devices, primarily Apple’s iPhone and devices that run Google’s Android operating system. By “monetizing” mobile publishers’ content through the sale of advertising space, mobile ad networks play a vital role in fueling the rapid expansion of mobile applications and Internet content.

According to the FTC’s statement, evidence gathered by the agency raised important questions about the transaction. Google and AdMob have competed head-to-head for the past few years, with a notable increase in intensity during the past year. This competition has spurred innovation and allowed mobile publishers to keep a large share of the revenue generated from the sale of their ad space. The companies also have economies of scale that give them a major advantage over smaller rivals in the business, the statement says.

These concerns, however, were outweighed by recent evidence that Apple is poised to become a strong competitor in the mobile advertising market, the FTC’s statement says. Apple recently acquired Quattro Wireless and used it to launch its own iAd service. In addition, Apple can leverage its close relationships with application developers and users, its access to a large amount of proprietary user data, and its ownership of iPhone software development tools and control over the iPhone developers’ license agreement.

The Commission vote to close the investigation was 5-0.

Working with AdMob to move mobile advertising forward

5/21/2010 09:25:00 AM

Today, the Federal Trade Commission cleared our acquisition of AdMob, a mobile advertising start up. We’re excited to work with Omar Hamoui and his talented team at AdMob to develop new mobile advertising solutions for marketers, mobile app developers and mobile publishers.

The decision is great news for the mobile advertising ecosystem as a whole. This was reflected in the widespread industry support for our acquisition.

Throughout the FTC’s review process, it’s been clear that mobile advertising is growing rapidly.

As mobile phone usage increases, growth in mobile advertising is only going to accelerate. This benefits mobile developers and publishers who will get better advertising solutions, marketers who will find new ways to reach consumers, and users who will get better ads and more free content.

We’re very excited about the possibilities in this field. As an immediate matter, we’re now moving to close this acquisition in coming weeks. We’ll then start work right away on bringing AdMob’s and Google’s teams and products together. This industry is moving fast, and we’re excited to be part of the race!

Posted by Susan Wojcicki, Vice President of Product Management

AdMob Blog: Working with Google to move mobile advertising forward

May 21st, 2010

We are extremely pleased with the FTC’s decision today to clear Google’s acquisition of AdMob. Over the past six months we’ve received a great deal of support from across the mobile industry – and we deeply appreciate it.

We are excited to get to what’s next and to start working with Google to develop new products and services for our advertisers, developers, and publishers. We share a commitment to helping our customers navigate and take advantage of the mobile opportunity. Together, Google and AdMob will be able to bring a whole host of new products and capabilities to mobile advertising.

I have to pause to acknowledge the AdMob team. It takes a tremendous group to stay focused and remain productive during a process like this review. The Google deal was announced in November of last year. Rather than sit idle for six months, we’ve launched 15 new products, updated 11 more, and continued building a phenomenal business that is serving an ever growing base of customers. I couldn’t be more grateful for all this group has done.

We will now work with Google to close the deal. Once that happens, we will finally get to the fun part–connecting our teams and products to find ways to better serve our customers. Stay tuned.

Omar

That’s a 20 percent premium over the price Google originally announced it was paying for On2 in August, and Google (GOOG) says that’s the best it can do. On2 shareholders will get 15 cents in cash for every share in addition to the 60 cents worth of Google Class A stock offered in the original deal.

Will this appease On2′s dissident investors, who think the company is worth closer to $6 a share? We’ll know by Feb. 17, when the deal goes to a vote.

Google, of course, could easily pay much more to get the angry On2 contingent to shut up. And at this point, you have to wonder if the headaches associated with the deal are worth it–Google, remember, is valued at $192 billion.

But Google is in the midst of a lengthy shopping spree. And it certainly doesn’t want to revisit the price of every purchase it makes. Presumably, that’s why the company is playing hardball, or close to it, on this one.

Google’s (GOOG) bid represents a 57 percent premium over On2′s share price before the deal was announced on Aug. 5, but these shareholders claim the company and its video compression IP are worth more and argue that its board should have held out for a more lucrative offer. As one said during an August On2 earnings call, “We have the world class technology and we just sold it for just sixty cents.”

While it’s true that On2′s stock once traded as high as $3.99–back in 2007–that hasn’t been the case lately. And much as the company’s dissident shareholders would like to believe that Google’s demand of exclusivity in the negotiations and “no shop” provisions in the merger agreement prevented On2 from receiving competing buyout offers, that doesn’t seem to the case either. As On2 noted in a merger FAQ issued today, no other companies have inquired about a potential acquisition since the Google deal was announced. From that document:

Did the mid-cap sized publicly traded company in the semiconductor industry referenced in the proxy/prospectus that contacted On2 in late June 2009 express any interest in a transaction with On2 after the merger transaction with Google was announced?

No. On2 did, however, receive an email from such company following the announcement of the Google transaction in which company stated the following: “Congratulations on the transaction. Nice premium to market.”

Well, there you go.

Perhaps, then, On2 is not worth more than what Google proposes to pay for it. Obviously that’s the opinion of the company’s Board of Directors, which is literally begging shareholders to vote in favor of the merger. Said the board: “If the proposed merger with Google is not consummated, On2 may be forced to revert to a business model and strategy that are uncertain given On2’s size and limited resources and for which there can be no assurance On2 will ever achieve or sustain profitability.”

The cable provider is promoting a “Roll Over Or Get Tough” campaign, which asks consumers to…well, it doesn’t ask them to do anything, really. But there is a Web site where the company makes its case–its programming partners want more money, because that’s what they always want–and says that at some point, consumers will be able to “vote” on…something.

The thing is, the cable providers are at least half right: Cable programmers do want more money, because that’s what they always want. And now broadcasters like CBS (CBS) and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, which traditionally haven’t been paid for their programming–at least not officially–want money, too.

But boy oh boy, is it going to be hard to gin up sympathy for the cable guys. When’s the last time you felt anything remotely warm and fuzzy toward your local operator, which may well have an effective monopoly in your neighborhood, and certainly acts like someone who has a monopoly?

And in any case, it’s hard to see what consumers are expected to do here: Left to their own devices, they might well elect to pay for just a handful of cable channels they want instead of subscribing to dozens of ones they never, ever, watch. That might well drive down cable bills, dramatically. Which is why programmers and providers don’t want that to happen.

“I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation. I don’t think Barack Obama could run a major corporation. I don’t think Joe Biden could, either. But it is not the same as being the president or vice president of the United States. It is a fallacy to suggest that the country is like a company. To run a business, you have to have a lifetime of experience in business, but that’s not what Sarah Palin, John McCain, Barack Obama or Joe Biden are doing.”

– Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina

Her dreams of heading up the World Bank dashed, former Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) CEO Carly Fiorina, the architect of one of the worst tech mergers in history, has turned her attention to the U.S. Senate.

After months of speculation, Fiorina officially announced her candidacy today. She’ll run as a Republican against Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.). Of course, to do that, she must first win the Republican primary. Fiorina broke the news in an op-ed in the Orange County Register.

“Admittedly, I have not always been engaged in the electoral process, and I should have been,” she wrote. “For many years I felt disconnected from the decisions made in Washington and, to be honest, really didn’t think my vote mattered because I didn’t have a direct line of sight from my vote to a result. I realize that thinking was wrong.”

Reflecting on her personal history, Fiorina continues: “As I grew throughout my career, beginning as a secretary and eventually becoming a CEO, I saw how government impacted business. I learned more as a member of advisory boards at the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. I now understand, in a very real way, that the decisions made by the Senate impact every family and every business, of any size, in America. This is what motivates me to run for the U.S. Senate. And so today I am announcing my candidacy to serve the people of California as your next U.S. senator….Together we can turn things around.”

Together we can turn things around? Not if Fiorina’s performance at HP is any indication. Before she was forced out of the company by its board of directors, she was so at odds with the uniquely Californian “HP Way” that her corner office could have been powered solely by Bill Hewlett spinning in his grave.

UPDATE: Here’s another Fiorina op-ed from earlier this year in which she discusses executive pay. Unsurprisingly, she is against President Obama’s efforts to restore “common sense” to CEO compensation. And why wouldn’t she be? After all, she walked away from HP with a $21 million severance package.

UPDATE: For those of you just joining us over at CNet, the headline is a joke referring to HP’s ill-starred merger with Compaq.

According to three of its executives, its recent forays into ads that play along with its vocal, tech-savvy audience are making gains. One major push involves what the San Francisco company calls Digg Ads, which look like the articles that Digg users submit and vote to promote to the home page.

If they like the ad, they can vote it up, which increases the number of times it will appear. If they don’t, they can “bury” it.

Read the rest of this post on the original site