Apple CEO Tim Cook Could Earn Nearly $50 Million in Compensation This Year

[I7guy]

It doesn’t work. A thousand better potential candidates were never even considered because the privileged few born into the right families or inheriting these well-paid positions are the only people ever afforded the opportunity to prove their ability.

I stand by what I said. Anybody could do that job. Privilege precludes most people from ever receiving the opportunity to demonstrate it, creating the false perception that few others are capable.

Doesn’t really matter. Tim Cook is doing the job and will continue to do the job and have a total comp package based on Apples performance. One can argue against this until the cows come home but it’s not going to make any difference.

 

[Lioness~]

Doesn’t really matter. Tim Cook is doing the job and will continue to do the job and have a total comp package based on Apples performance. One can argue against this until the cows come home but it’s not going to make any difference.

One can argue what they think about Tim all day long, it doesn’t matter what personal opinion we have of the guy. He do an excellent job, and he have most of the apples on his side.

I don’t like the guy much, it doesn’t matter either. Steve picked the guy as his predecessor- end of story.
One day he will be replaced…..either of the board, or he will resign himself
Until then, I am enjoying my Apple devices, regardless who is the CEO.

 

[thettareddast]

It doesn’t work. A thousand better potential candidates were never even considered because the privileged few born into the right families or inheriting these well-paid positions are the only people ever afforded the opportunity to prove their ability.

What discriminated these non-privileged people against executive leadership?

That theyre gay, like Tim Cook? Or female, like Katherine Adams? Or foreign, like Johny Srouji?

Sometimes the hypothetical grievance committee is a bit much…

 

[xpxp2002]

What discriminated these non-privileged people against executive leadership?

That theyre gay, like Tim Cook? Or female, like Katherine Adams? Or foreign, like Johny Srouji?

Sometimes the hypothetical grievance committee is a bit much…

I never said anything about their gender, race, or orientation. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[thettareddast]

I never said anything about their gender, race, or orientation. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Okay, so gender, race, and orientation is not a problem.

You said thousands of people don't have the "privilege of the few born into right families" or received positions merely by inheritance.

That's pretty clear-cut. You're describing some sort of external injustice. What privilege did Tim Cook have born into a working class family in a small town in Alabama? Which of the Apple execs received their position through inheritance (i.e. nepotism), that took a spot of another deserving person?

***
The way the real world works is you have 12 years to distinguish yourself in school through grades. Then 4-8 years of college to distinguish yourself through theses/dissertations and interviews. Then years-to-decades in the workforce to distinguish yourself through projects, conduct, execution, (and politics too). Then you might get promoted to executive class.

For you say to dismiss Tim Cook with "anybody could do it" but "thousands potentially better...were never given the chance to prove their ability" is completely narrowsighted and unthoughtful.

It's like saying... yeah the world could have had 1000 Tom Bradys, but we dont know them because of poor luck and circumstances that they were never given the chance. Nevermind he has to start throwing a football from the age of 5, attend camps, play through high school and college, to eventually end up where he ends up.

Could there have been 500 Tom Bradys born out of Russia? Maybe. But given the extremely long path and sequential successes required for Tim Cook and Tom Brady to land where they did, the statistical chances that someone else wouldve passed through all those same and hurdles is 0.0000000001%.

It took TONS of things to happen correctly, instead of a single instance of luck.

 

[Scoob Redux]

Please explain how you think it works.

Lets say you work in a donut shop. Its own by a guy. You have an agreement for the cost of your labor. You do the labor, the shop retains the profit — and as the guy owns the shop, he keeps the profit.

Is that obscene?

yes

Literally millions of people own Apple stock. Apple employees perform their labor. The company retains the profit. When they issue dividend, they explicitly give those profits back to their stock holders, ie their owners. When they buyback, they explicitly give it to some owners (the sellers), and implicitly to all the other owners (by raise of value).

Is that obscene?

yes

Is that different from above example?

If you think yes, tell me who you work for, and explain how its different.

why would my employment be any different?

People who own things are entitled to the profits of said things. Crazy, right?

Yes.

Good news: if you want to own Apple, its available to you in the public market. Elitist?

I understand how you would have these opinions. The owners have controlled the media and the education system for decades now, and they use sophisticated propaganda to "train" the masses to actually defend an incredibly unfair "system" that they call "capitalism". As far as the "agreement for the cost of your labor", workers do not have any power to demand fair wages - the system is designed so that the owners will exploit their work and just sit back and reap the profits. Somehow, they've convinced much of the working class that this is reasonable - the majority of workers work for the owners, and the owners take the bulk of the spoils. I've even seen people defend Cook's (and other CEOs') pay. They say "Look how much he/she did for their company, they deserve it". The fact is, the owners do NOTHING. Managing some accounting books and the other typical C-suite "duties" is insignificant, and any talking head can do it. The real labor is done by the working class, yet most struggle to get by and don't have adequate health care or education. Within that context, yes, it is obscene that Cook takes $50M from the working class.

 

[Scoob Redux]

There aren't many people like Tim Cook capable of managing a trillion-dollar company, much less manage it well, which is why he is able to command the salary that he does.

Probably one of the funniest (and saddest) of the many myths propagated by the elite class to keep the proletariat in line. Yes, there are TONS of people who could do what Cook (and many executives) do. The real work is done by the workers. Managing the books and taking the money to the bank are not magical, mystical jobs that only the anointed elite can do.

 

[Scoob Redux]

The way the real world works is you have 12 years to distinguish yourself in school through grades. Then 4-8 years of college to distinguish yourself through theses/dissertations and interviews. Then years-to-decades in the workforce to distinguish yourself through projects, conduct, execution, (and politics too). Then you might get promoted to executive class.

Perfect description of the elitist myth that "you, too, can be rich if you just work hard". Unfortunately, ultra wealth is a very private club, and NO workers are getting in.

For you say to dismiss Tim Cook with "anybody could do it" but "thousands potentially better...were never given the chance to prove their ability" is completely narrowsighted and unthoughtful.
...

the statistical chances that someone else wouldve passed through all those same and hurdles is 0.0000000001%.

It took TONS of things to happen correctly, instead of a single instance of luck.

Nope. Pure luck. You're ignoring the fact that it could be ANY talking head in Cook's place. Yes, he had a specific path getting there, but it could have been any other elite climbing the ranks of a corporation - there's tons of them. So, yeah, let's say your 0.0000000001% of Cook being there is accurate...there's still a 100% chance that SOME random elite capitalist would be in that position. Doesn't matter a bit whether it's Cook or someone else.

 

[Abazigal]

Probably one of the funniest (and saddest) of the many myths propagated by the elite class to keep the proletariat in line. Yes, there are TONS of people who could do what Cook (and many executives) do. The real work is done by the workers. Managing the books and taking the money to the bank are not magical, mystical jobs that only the anointed elite can do.

I would like to share a story.

Once upon a time, I had a bad case of hives, which my GP doctor couldn't resolve. Visited him a couple of times (because his clinic was the nearest to my house), got prescribed a bunch of medication, nothing. I then visited another doctor situated further away. His service was more expensive, but he was good. He took one look at my skin, prescribed me a bottle of Antihistamines, and my skin got better within weeks. Subsequently, I have gone back to visit him for any serious skin ailments that my family would have. It's more inconvenient to get to him, it costs more, and I will pay because I know he can get the problem solved.

The medication is nothing special that only the second doctor can access, but it became apparent that not every doctor had the expertise and the experience to be able to accurately diagnose a patient's illness and then prescribe the right medication that will resolve the issue. That's what I am paying for. Not the medication (which is probably a few cents at most), but his time and expertise.

It's the same thing here. Yes, there are undoubtedly tons of talented people working at Apple, but put a thousand engineers and programmers into a room. O doubt they would be able to come up with the next iPhone or Apple Watch without someone at the top setting the direction. How would they even agree on which features mattered more than others? Do you think Apple products could work so well together without leadership coordinating amongst the various teams?

All I can say is, when I look at the massive number of "Apple should ..." suggestions put forth by this forum (and numerous other self-styled pundits elsewhere) over the years, and how they have gone on to be proven categorically wrong time and time again, it sure doesn't feel like running Apple is such an easy job. I think in the very least, Apple leadership deserves credit for having the courage to say a firm "no" when it comes to hopping on the bandwagon of many a tech trend that ended up not going anywhere.

And then you look at the state of the other tech giants today. Apple's competition is clearly getting weaker by the day. Samsung remains rudderless from a product vision perspective. Google continues to prioritise technology over design, resulting in software features that seem compelling on paper, but then fail to gain traction and end up getting discontinued. Amazon bet wrong on Alexa and Echo. Microsoft's Surface line has failed to gain traction with the mass consumer market. Facebook's metaverse bet is going nowhere, coupled with massive earnings drop due to ATT. Spotify has not been able to prevent Apple from gaining critical mass in developed countries where subscriber revenue holds more weight. Everyone's media darlings, Netflix and Disney+, are feeling the weight of increased competition in the video streaming space. And if you want to blame these issues on poor leadership, then I feel it's only fair that strong leadership at Apple be credited for the success it currently enjoys.

There may well be someone else out there who might be more capable than Tim Cook while also be willing to work for a lot less. Thing is - a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. That mythical someone hasn't stepped forward and for all we know, he never might. What we do have, right in front of us, is a man whom I feel has done an admirable job of leading Apple for the last decade.

I feel there is some truth to the myth. At least, I have seen enough of the harm done by poor management and leadership to know the value of getting and retaining good leaders, and if the system has to pay more to achieve this, then so be it.

 

[I7guy]

Probably one of the funniest (and saddest) of the many myths propagated by the elite class to keep the proletariat in line. Yes, there are TONS of people who could do what Cook (and many executives) do. The real work is done by the workers. Managing the books and taking the money to the bank are not magical, mystical jobs that only the anointed elite can do.

A "worker" has no skin in the game other than their own compensation. They bear none of the risk of the owners who built the factory, pay to keep the lights on and worry about revenue. If they fail, they lose their jobs but the owners of the business won't go under.

Now with a publicly traded corporation it's a bit different, but it's Tim Cook on behalf of the directors that carries the risk of shareholders. If Tim Cook fails the owners of the company will feel the effects. Tim Cook isn't the only person capable of running apple. But where are these thousands of people who the board feels are ready to take the helm when Tim Cook no longer leads the company? Since the management team are just "talking heads". The reality is that there are likely only a handful of people the board trusts to run the company when a succession occurs and I would be surprised if a plan wasn't already in place.

You will continue to believe a monkey can run Apple and that is your prerogative.

 

[Abazigal]

Perfect description of the elitist myth that "you, too, can be rich if you just work hard". Unfortunately, ultra wealth is a very private club, and NO workers are getting in.

And I am not even remotely bitter about it.

 

[ericwn]

yes

yes

why would my employment be any different?

Yes.

I understand how you would have these opinions. The owners have controlled the media and the education system for decades now, and they use sophisticated propaganda to "train" the masses to actually defend an incredibly unfair "system" that they call "capitalism". As far as the "agreement for the cost of your labor", workers do not have any power to demand fair wages - the system is designed so that the owners will exploit their work and just sit back and reap the profits. Somehow, they've convinced much of the working class that this is reasonable - the majority of workers work for the owners, and the owners take the bulk of the spoils. I've even seen people defend Cook's (and other CEOs') pay. They say "Look how much he/she did for their company, they deserve it". The fact is, the owners do NOTHING. Managing some accounting books and the other typical C-suite "duties" is insignificant, and any talking head can do it. The real labor is done by the working class, yet most struggle to get by and don't have adequate health care or education. Within that context, yes, it is obscene that Cook takes $50M from the working class.

What nonsense.

 

[ericwn]

Perfect description of the elitist myth that "you, too, can be rich if you just work hard". Unfortunately, ultra wealth is a very private club, and NO workers are getting in.



Nope. Pure luck. You're ignoring the fact that it could be ANY talking head in Cook's place. Yes, he had a specific path getting there, but it could have been any other elite climbing the ranks of a corporation - there's tons of them. So, yeah, let's say your 0.0000000001% of Cook being there is accurate...there's still a 100% chance that SOME random elite capitalist would be in that position. Doesn't matter a bit whether it's Cook or someone else.

Armchair coaching about capitalism. Is there a school break somewhere?

 

[thettareddast]

As far as the "agreement for the cost of your labor", workers do not have any power to demand fair wages - the system is designed so that the owners will exploit their work and just sit back and reap the profits. Somehow, they've convinced much of the working class that this is reasonable - the majority of workers work for the owners, and the owners take the bulk of the spoils. I've even seen people defend Cook's (and other CEOs') pay. They say "Look how much he/she did for their company, they deserve it". The fact is, the owners do NOTHING. Managing some accounting books and the other typical C-suite "duties" is insignificant, and any talking head can do it. The real labor is done by the working class, yet most struggle to get by and don't have adequate health care or education. Within that context, yes, it is obscene that Cook takes $50M from the working class.

LMAO. Ive interviews company for jobs and turned down their offers. Ive interviews applicants for jobs and theyve turned down my offers.

We have the determination to these terms, not outside parties.

Feel free to seek migration to the few societies operating outside of capitalist framework and see how that works out for you. Or maybe just read a few books on history.

 

[thettareddast]

Armchair coaching about capitalism. Is there a school break somewhere?

I dont think hes ever been in school with that with level of naivete and ignorance

 

[thettareddast]

Perfect description of the elitist myth that "you, too, can be rich if you just work hard". Unfortunately, ultra wealth is a very private club, and NO workers are getting in.



Nope. Pure luck. You're ignoring the fact that it could be ANY talking head in Cook's place. Yes, he had a specific path getting there, but it could have been any other elite climbing the ranks of a corporation - there's tons of them. So, yeah, let's say your 0.0000000001% of Cook being there is accurate...there's still a 100% chance that SOME random elite capitalist would be in that position. Doesn't matter a bit whether it's Cook or someone else.

You dont have the entitlement to be “ultra wealth”. You have the opportunity.

If we gave you the opportunity to attend auburn, could you have completed an engineering degree?

and if we gave you a job at ibm, could you have outshined 1000 peers to make director?

and could you have gained admittance to duke business school?

and outcompeted everyone at compaq? and gained steve jobs attention? and streamlined supply chains? and on and on.

stop trivializing other peoples accomplishment because of your personal lack of merit.

you are posting on a website built for profit. you are using a phone or computer built for profit. these things exist because we allow people to venture into enterprise to build things that compete for and fulfill consumer demand.

if you have nothing of value to offer to society, its not societys failure. go live in the woods, free of our “elitism”.

 

[compwiz1202]

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.

For a person making PA Min Wage ($7.25), they would have to work 24/7 for 787+ years to make that $50M :'(

 

[thettareddast]

For a person making PA Min Wage ($7.25), they would have to work 24/7 for 787+ years to make that $50M :'(

So?

Cook leads the enterprise that makes things that literally millions of people around the world value.

What does the PA employee provide to them?

You want to get paid? Bring something to the table.

Want to dictate how much Cook gets paid? Buy stock and get voting rights. Dont want to feed his salary? Dont buy his products. You have that prerogative.

Want to feed the PA employee? Make a donation. Otherwise, what they get paid is literally none of your business.

 

[Abazigal]

I'm so sick of these Apple shills anymore!!! What is wrong with them?!?!

Strive to be right, even if it may sound like we are always agreeing with Apple.

Often, too many people try to be contrarian for the sake of sounding contrary, even when they end up being dead wrong about Apple.

In summary, be right, not contrary.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Strive to be right, even if it may sound like we are always agreeing with Apple.

Often, too many people try to be contrarian for the sake of sounding contrary, even when they end up being dead wrong about Apple.

In summary, be right, not contrary.

Oh please. You were in a thread the other day completely dismissing Google and Amazon in AI and Smarthome despite them both being miles ahead of Apple in both areas.

 

[Abazigal]

Oh please. You were in a thread the other day completely dismissing Google and Amazon in AI and Smarthome despite them both being miles ahead of Apple in both areas.

Because as has been demonstrated numerous times, simply having a technological advantage is meaningless if the company in question can't package it into a compelling experience for the end user. That's why Google has shuttered so many products. That's why folding phones haven't quite taken off. That's why the echo is a glorified bluetooth speaker used primarily for playing music and setting timers, despite all the supposedly advancements Alexa has made over Siri. Great technology, but the companies don't seem to understand that people simply don't use them that way.

I can acknowledge that Google and Microsoft are ahead in one very specific aspect of generative AI and still argue that it will pose no significant threat to Apple's dominance in the long run. Just think - Google makes massive improvements to their search capabilities, and they still have to pay billions to Apple to keep search default in Safari. Microsoft brings co-pilot to Office, which I am using on my Mac anyways. Apple continues to work on implementing Ai in a manner that is more personal to their users (eg: crash / fall detection and ECG have been credited numerous times for saving lives).

One of the biggest mistakes that people continue to make is that they just treat Apple as any other company. But Apple does a lot of things differently, and if all you are doing is simply comparing Apple to everyone else and then go “Hey, Apple isn’t following what everyone else is doing, so I don’t think whatever Apple is doing is going to work”, I think they go down the wrong path.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Because as has been demonstrated numerous times, simply having a technological advantage is meaningless if the company in question can't package it into a compelling experience for the end user. That's why Google has shuttered so many products. That's why folding phones haven't quite taken off. That's why the echo is a glorified bluetooth speaker used primarily for playing music and setting timers, despite all the supposedly advancements Alexa has made over Siri. Great technology, but the companies don't seem to understand that people simply don't use them that way.

I can acknowledge that Google and Microsoft are ahead in one very specific aspect of generative AI and still argue that it will pose no significant threat to Apple's dominance in the long run. Just think - Google makes massive improvements to their search capabilities, and they still have to pay billions to Apple to keep search default in Safari. Microsoft brings co-pilot to Office, which I am using on my Mac anyways. Apple continues to work on implementing Ai in a manner that is more personal to their users (eg: crash / fall detection and ECG have been credited numerous times for saving lives).

One of the biggest mistakes that people continue to make is that they just treat Apple as any other company. But Apple does a lot of things differently, and if all you are doing is simply comparing Apple to everyone else and then go “Hey, Apple isn’t following what everyone else is doing, so I don’t think whatever Apple is doing is going to work”, I think they go down the wrong path.

Are you seriously suggesting that Amazon and Google don't have products and services that people want to use??!

The bold parts are absolutely bizarre.

Amazon and Google 100 + billion users per month between them "can't package it into a compelling experience for the end user"

It's great that the Apple Watch detected that some people had fallen over or experienced a cardiac event but its not all just glorified bluetooth speakers elsewhere

 

[Abazigal]

Are you seriously suggesting that Amazon and Google don't have products and services that people want to use??!

The bold parts are absolutely bizarre.

Amazon and Google 100 + billion users per month between them "can't package it into a compelling experience for the end user"

It's great that the Apple Watch detected that some people had fallen over or experienced a cardiac event but its not all just glorified bluetooth speakers elsewhere

I am saying that things like the Google graveyard exists for a reason.

Killed by Google

Killed by Google is the open source list of dead Google products, services, and devices. It serves as a tribute and memorial of beloved services and products killed by Google.

killedbygoogle.com

That billions of people use Google search every month is no guarantee of automatic success of the next big thing either. Yes, their ads business has been very profitable, but that seems like a mixed blessing because it also means a very short attention span when it comes to other endeavours.

The problem with saying that Apple is behind on AI, is that the term has been so overused that it's practically meaningless and people are going to have to be more specific about what technology they are specifically referring to. In this context, you are referring to generative AI, which is really just a very small subset of the overall AI umbrella, and which is facing its own share of problems and controversy.

For all we know, chatGPT may well just be the flavour of the month, and people lose interest in it in a year or two after the buzz wears off and Google discontinues their own bard offering.

And well, if it also means that Apple is losing to Google when it comes to lying search engines and BS generators, is that really such a bad thing?

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I am saying that things like the Google graveyard exists for a reason.

Killed by Google

Killed by Google is the open source list of dead Google products, services, and devices. It serves as a tribute and memorial of beloved services and products killed by Google.

killedbygoogle.com

That billions of people use Google search every month is no guarantee of automatic success of the next big thing either. Yes, their ads business has been very profitable, but that seems like a mixed blessing because it also means a very short attention span when it comes to other endeavours.

The problem with saying that Apple is behind on AI, is that the term has been so overused that it's practically meaningless and people are going to have to be more specific about what technology they are specifically referring to. In this context, you are referring to generative AI, which is really just a very small subset of the overall AI umbrella, and which is facing its own share of problems and controversy.

For all we know, chatGPT may well just be the flavour of the month, and people lose interest in it in a year or two after the buzz wears off and Google discontinues their own bard offering.

And well, if it also means that Apple is losing to Google when it comes to lying search engines and BS generators, is that really such a bad thing?

What??! No more Google Fitstar Yoga ???

Search, Youtube, Android there are absolutely billions of people using these products. Same for Amazon.

Sure Google has quite a track record of killing products/services but many (most?) on that link are nothing products some of them are just APIs. Their core products are strong and well supported.

Apple do this too by the way, there are products in Apples lineup that just seem to exist on life support with very little effort made with them. Their entire smarthome offering (including Apple TV) is a bit of a joke, overpriced, underdeveloped and has very little market share. Amazon is losing money on Echo, sure but that have much bigger user base than Apple has in this space and it serves their wider play in the smarthome space where they are dominant. There is also no point in having a device that sells at at nice margin if nobody wants to buy it.

You've based your entire argument on focussing on the areas Apple are strong and ignoring the ones where they aren't. For any company that competes with Apple you do the opposite, ignoring their market leading products and services and focusing on minutiae. It's pure confirmation bias.

 

[I7guy]

What??! No more Google Fitstar Yoga ???

Search, Youtube, Android there are absolutely billions of people using these products. Same for Amazon.

Sure Google has quite a track record of killing products/services but many (most?) on that link are nothing products some of them are just APIs. Their core products are strong and well supported.

Apple do this too by the way, there are products in Apples lineup that just seem to exist on life support with very little effort made with them. Their entire smarthome offering (including Apple TV) is a bit of a joke, overpriced, underdeveloped and has very little market share. Amazon is losing money on Echo, sure but that have much bigger user base than Apple has in this space and it serves their wider play in the smarthome space where they are dominant. There is also no point in having a device that sells at at nice margin if nobody wants to buy it.

You've based your entire argument on focussing on the areas Apple are strong and ignoring the ones where they aren't. For any company that competes with Apple you do the opposite, ignoring their market leading products and services and focusing on minutiae. It's pure confirmation bias.

Not every product that apple produces has to sell hundreds of millions of units annually. The fact that allegedly “no-one” is buying HomePod, obviously apple doesn’t care. It’s a better product than the echo don’t care if the echo has more market share than the HomePod. Obviously apple doesn’t either.