I don’t want anyone dancing like that running my company.
I want my CEO’s bat-s*** crazy, or stoic.
This land-locked freestyle move is concerning 🤔
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Could Earn Nearly $50 Million in Compensation This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I want my CEO’s bat-s*** crazy, or stoic.
This land-locked freestyle move is concerning 🤔
When you own a company or have enough shares of stock in it, you can run it as you wish or join the board.
It is not time for anyone to interfere in a very successful company with comments and ideas that really don't have a basis other than some idealogical vision.
Cook is doing just fine. Ask the owners what they think.
Why does anyone get to say how much money someone should or shouldn't have? And what's the limit? Who defines that, the government? You? And you don't have to have money to be greedy. Some of the greediest people I know just envy other people and resent their inability to spend money on w/e they want. Some of the kindest people I know are also some of the wealthiest and you wouldn't know it to look at them.
And I'm pretty sure everyone commenting on how much money someone shouldn't have — despite what they say — would never in a million years give 90% of it away if they won hundreds of millions in the lotto.
There may be 500 greedy Americans, but there might easily be 150 million lazy ones too. I'm not sure those are mutually exclusive.
Was it a multibillion dollar company before you got hired?
50 million for a guy who will make the company billions is a pretty good deal however one spins it.
To the people claiming they could do the job for less money, my question to them then is - are they confident of doing as good a job of running Apple as Tim Cook has done for the last decade?
Otherwise, if I pay you less, but you also generate way less value for me as a result, it’s still a net loss either way.
To the people claiming they could do the job for less money, my question to them then is - are they confident of doing as good a job of running Apple as Tim Cook has done for the last decade?
Otherwise, if I pay you less, but you also generate way less value for me as a result, it’s still a net loss either way.
The customers who invested in the purchase of gadgets that allegedly can be controlled by HomeKit …
Most people in that situation borrow against them and use the stock as collateral and the loan is pretty much un-taxable debt instead of income.
People seem to forget the popularity of Apple's products dictates it operate on a scale that requires it to be financially prudent. All the things you don't like about Tim Cook are what made the iMac, iPod, iPhone, etc. possible to begin with. Jobs was a great visionary, but running a hardware company in any direction other than into the ground was beyond his abilities. Likewise, since leaving Apple, Scott Forestall has yet to do anything remarkable, much less innovative, with the talent and spirit of Jobs he supposedly possesses.
i have a high pressure job and a $1M annual salary definitely beats what I make now
It’s performance based which few complaining about his salary would ever be able to accept. If the stock tanks for any reason, self caused or global meltdown he looses. And that money is not immediate it’s has to best over a number of years. So, if he leaves and someone else tanks the company’s stock price, he looses.It's also a great way to avoid being taxed at the ordinary income rate if certain conditions are met such.
He’s not paid $50m…. He is paid $3m which is very low for a CEO. The other $47m comes from him running the most valuable company in the world
I can’t think of many CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies that have a salary of $3m or less. It’s exactly how it should be, he runs the most valuable company in the world…and he is getting compensated through the stock price…the job of a CEO is to maximise shareholder wealth!
So by that logic, if all Apple sold was literal human feces, as long as they made record profits, became a trillion dollar company, and pleased shareholders, then that situation would be preferable to what Apple was while Steve Jobs was CEO.
My guess is that if Scott Forstall had been left in charge, we may have seen the exodus of numerous other executives from Phil Schiller to Jony Ive. Whatever you think of their contributions and their legacy, I doubt Apple could have survived the departure of so many key personnel at a time when it was its most vulnerable.
At the end of the day, Apple’s strength isn’t simply in making great products; it’s in producing them at scale and making them available to tens of millions of users right from day 1.
Maybe Tim Cook isn’t the CEO you wanted, but I believe that he is the CEO Apple needed at the time. A steady hand to weather the next ten years, as Apple’s challenges would prove to be political more than technological.
Coasting on the legacy of his predecessor is considered "doing as good a job"?
I would hardly call Tim Cook’s accomplishments “coasting”.
Tim Cook being COO during Steve Jobs' second coming was what kept the company afloat. I will die on that hill.
Having met tens of thousands of Americans working 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet. And knowing that over half the population are stuck in the same predicament makes it hard for me to believe there are 150 million lazy folks in the country.
That the top 10% holds over 40% of the wealth and the bottom 50% holds less than 2% speaks volumes.