Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So has Mandella... but I don't recall him being compensated with the equivalent of the average lifetime earnings of 100 Americans for three months of work >_>

Well that wasn't what Mandela desired, so silly to make that comparison. If he had wanted to make mega-millions once Apartheid crashed he certainly had that opportunity. (BTW if you want to tribute the man, start with spelling his name correctly (one "l," not two).

As for being compensated above average Americans, Tim Cook isn't average. If he was he would not be Apple CEO. Contrary to what the OWS want to believe, pay and compensation is not usually dolled out willy nilly. Apple could have completely imploded when Jobs left his post, but it did not because Cook's shoes are big enough for the job. You can't just pick up someone like that in the mail room or even in middle management.
 
It's more difficult, sure.. but it isn't several orders of magnitude more difficult. I have to admit the way people like you deify the work of people like Cook is fairly amusing... what they do isn't all that difficult; you just need to be intelligent, diligent, and well-versed in your area of expertise.

There are hundreds of thousands (likely millions) of Americans who could do what Tim does.


And then he put down the crack pipe and realized he made no sense :)

Executive talent like Tm Cook are not out there by the thousands. This is unequivocally not true....period!
 
As they say, "You can't take it with you." -- so in the big picture, why be so concerned that someone else amassed so much wealth? It's not like because Tim Cook has XX million dollars, that money must come directly out of what YOU were supposed to earn, since he's sitting on so much and there's no more to be circulated.

The reason people are concerned about the growing wealth imbalance is that wealth leads to power. It isn't that Cook (and from what I know I like this guy, so this could be any very rich guy) has taken money away, it is now that he is very rich he has become more powerful. The rich have more power in politics (they can hire lobbyists) and they have more power in the market (they can outbid me for goods and services). This isn't the end of the world or even of democracy, but it does effect my and your day to day life. Sometimes in obvious ways. For example, I'd like to have a nice apartment that overlooks Central Park in New York City. I cannot have that because the rich can out bid me for that item. They haven't "taken" this away from me in some sort of immoral way, but I cannot have that thing. This is a pretty good example because 40 years ago when there was less wealth disparity a guy like me (I'm fairly successful) could have bought such an apartment. But those days are over, the 1% is a lot richer than they were 40 years ago. Real estate is the best example of this, but it happens in other markets when you try to compete with the very well to do. The middle class really can't compete and this is different than it was in America 40 years ago.
 
RSUs are worth the current stock price at offer date

When Apple awarded the stock options to Tim, they were purchased and set aside at the current market price at the time. Steve and Tim's phenomenal work since 2008 rose the value of the stock to today's value.
Average stock price for AAPL in 2008 was ~$140/shr; today its worth $415, a 3x fold increase in value.
Love it or hate it, American publicly traded companies reward high level executives with stock options to encourage them to hang around and raise the value of the company. Tim clearly is doing that and I wouldn't fault him for it.
If you have a beef with how much he gets, talk to the board.
 
not as idiotic as those politicians who tell us to work til your 70 year old and then die while they give themselves perks and what not from our money
 
Ballmer has not increased shareholder value in a manner expected of a Microsoft CEO.

Microsoft 5-year stock performance vs. Nasdaq index (Source: Yahoo! Finance)

Note that the Microsoft board of directors has withheld some compensation from Ballmer, specifically citing his lack of execution in the mobile industry.

Ballmer was a great hatchet man for Bill Gates, but he clearly is not as successful in increasing shareholder value as his former boss.

hmmm weird

http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-board-gives-ballmer-slight-bump-in-salary-bonus
 
When Apple awarded the stock options to Tim, they were purchased and set aside at the current market price at the time. Steve and Tim's phenomenal work since 2008 rose the value of the stock to today's value.
Average stock price for AAPL in 2008 was ~$140/shr; today its worth $415, a 3x fold increase in value.
Love it or hate it, American publicly traded companies reward high level executives with stock options to encourage them to hang around and raise the value of the company. Tim clearly is doing that and I wouldn't fault him for it.
If you have a beef with how much he gets, talk to the board.

They weren't stock options. This was a GRANT. And i don't believe they were "purchased and set aside". Either way, they used $400,000,000 in cash to purchase them or they diluted the shareholders.


And if anyone thinks regular shareholders, as opposed to the institutional shareholders, have ANY chance of affecting Apple's compensation board or anything else at a corporate level, they are woefully naive.
 
Money well earned!

Tim Cook has a hard job. He has Steve's reputation to live up to, while he nevertheless has to find his own management style, and he is entrusted, in part, with maintaining the success of one of the worlds largest and most successful corporations.

Someone made a comment about there being 1 in 10000 people who could do this. Perhaps one might make an argument that there's 1 in 10000 people who, when they're first born, might have the raw potential to spend decades in school and business to learn to do this job. But far far fewer actually go through the necessary training and experience. Instead, those people go through training and experience in other fields, and so they're capable of doing things that Tim Cook is not, even if he was born with the raw potential.

I know a professor at Ohio State who is like a clone of Steve Jobs. Seriously. All the same personality quirks, same intelligence and wit and impatience and sometimes grating personality. But instead of founding Apple, he was one of the earliest major contributors to the discipline of Cognitive Ergonomics. He's brilliant at it. But I would not recommend that Apple hire him as a replacement CEO. Besides the fact that he contributes best to the world continuing in his own area, he simply lacks the expertise (in business and other things) necessary to run a company like Apple. He may behave like Steve Jobs, think like Steve Jobs, and even a little bit look like Steve Jobs, but he is NOT Steve Jobs.

One in some tens of thousands of people may have the same basic cognitive style as Tim Cook, but only Tim Cook was the right person in the right places at the right times. No one else has the SAME experience, and exceedingly few other people in the world have comparable experience such that they could trivially fill his role.

Certainly not any of the people HP has hired to be CEO in the past several years. :) (To be fair, all of them were hamstrung by HP's messed up corporate culture, but a really great leader with the right passion might have been able to bust through some of that.)

The next several years will demonstrate whether or not Tim Cook can keep things going as well as they have in the past. But Steve Jobs liked very few people, and those he did like, he liked for good reason. And he really liked Tim Cook.
 
and I'm sure many of you would say Steve Ballmer doesn't deserve the money he gets

If he did a good job, he would deserve it. When he slates everything publicly and makes a fool of him, less so. I'd like to think he knows his stuff and works hard, otherwise he wouldnt still be CEO. That said, I hate him and always have. IMO he's one of the primary reasons Microsoft have become so hated. That said, it does seem that he's recently become a little more...open. With the recent projects coming from the labs of Redmond, MS is actually starting to look pretty useful:

The Kinect technology (a much more advanced version was shown in a video that MS has in their labs - it looks quite simply mind blowing).

Windows Phone 7 (not very popular, but very radical even for Microsoft).

Windows 8 (again, very radical redevelopment + the adoption of ARM is a big thing).

The pickup of IE releases and the public acknowledgment that IE6 is hurting the internet.

The adoption of standards instead of the old 'we will do it OUR way and you WILL like it' that we saw previously.

I'm by no means a fan of Balmer or Microsoft, but they do seem to be listening and responding.
 
Ballmer has not increased shareholder value in a manner expected of a Microsoft CEO.

Microsoft 5-year stock performance vs. Nasdaq index (Source: Yahoo! Finance)

Note that the Microsoft board of directors has withheld some compensation from Ballmer, specifically citing his lack of execution in the mobile industry.

Ballmer was a great hatchet man for Bill Gates, but he clearly is not as successful in increasing shareholder value as his former boss.

Shareholder isn't the end-all-be-all. It's mainly created by Joe Analyst throwing a dart at a board and seeing if a company can hit it. I mean Adobe tried to maximize shareholder value by outsourcing all their development in 2005 and look where it got them. Microsoft earned over 20 BILLION in net profit last year. Microsoft has made more revenue under Balmer than they ever had under Gates.

Here's some numbers up to and including 2009. I was actually shocked myself.

MS, Apple and Google profits since 1985
 
And then he put down the crack pipe and realized he made no sense :)

Executive talent like Tm Cook are not out there by the thousands. This is unequivocally not true....period!

You all act like Steve interviewed every single American for the job and picked Cook. Steve just happened upon Cook like he could have countless other people. If Cook took a sick day on the day he was supposed to meet Steve, and Steve picked someone else to be his right hand man years ago, I bet Apple would still be as great as it is today.
 
You all act like Steve interviewed every single American for the job and picked Cook. Steve just happened upon Cook like he could have countless other people. If Cook took a sick day on the day he was supposed to meet Steve, and Steve picked someone else to be his right hand man years ago, I bet Apple would still be as great as it is today.

That may be true but the point is Tim Cook did not just walk off the street and Jobs said, "hey, I don't care about your resume, I'm going to take you under my wing and make you the next CEO." So place whoever you want on Tim Cook's career path, Steve still vetted them and they worked for years under Jobs tutelage and handled Apple well when Jobs was absent for months.

Keep in mind that Apple had lots of CEOs after Jobs was pushed out in '93 and each one of them did more to destroy Apple than the previous one. So, no, not just anyone can run Apple successfully. It's already been proven.
 
When Apple awarded the stock options to Tim, they were purchased and set aside at the current market price at the time. Steve and Tim's phenomenal work since 2008 rose the value of the stock to today's value.
Average stock price for AAPL in 2008 was ~$140/shr; today its worth $415, a 3x fold increase in value.
Love it or hate it, American publicly traded companies reward high level executives with stock options to encourage them to hang around and raise the value of the company. Tim clearly is doing that and I wouldn't fault him for it.
If you have a beef with how much he gets, talk to the board.

I would think that Apple's rise in value is more directly related to the basic iPhone design and iOS and that was in place before 2008 and the iPad was in the works. I think Apple's rise in value is due to adoption of the iPhone and the App infrastructure, that was all in place by 2008. If Cook and Jobs did some sort of fantastic work since 2008, I suspect we really haven't seen the result of that.

I think you can ask the question should Cook really be compensated more than the entire iOS programming team? Isn't apple success lately mainly just the basic iPhone design plus iOS? I don't know how many software programmers they have working on that but if Cook is going to be pulling down $100 million a year, I suspect it is getting pretty close to the total of what they pay the iPhone team (setting aside the top level guys like Ivy, of course).
 
Why do people get so worked up over executive pay? Like you wouldn't gladly accept multi-million dollar payouts from a company you worked your ass off to keep going?

Maybe we should just start paying everyone the same, no matter how hard they work.:rolleyes:
 
Maybe we should just start paying everyone the same, no matter how hard they work.:rolleyes:

Yeah, I think there's a name for that.... ;)

Although this is a ridiculous amount of money and more than any person needs, that's the way it goes in a capitalist society, so don't hate the player, hate the game!
 
so teachers don't work hard? by your logic they are being lazy since they don't make that much

Teachers don't own and run companies that yield millions of dollars in profit. That's their choice, and it's their choice to do what they do. I know public school teachers who live fine off of what they make and love what they do.
 
It's more difficult, sure.. but it isn't several orders of magnitude more difficult. I have to admit the way people like you deify the work of people like Cook is fairly amusing... what they do isn't all that difficult; you just need to be intelligent, diligent, and well-versed in your area of expertise.

There are hundreds of thousands (likely millions) of Americans who could do what Tim does.

yes which is why our collective finances are in great condition and we as a nation are prospering from our fiscal wisdom and we arent experiencing a ballooning deficit with no way out this side of a complete civilizational reboot..... wait.... aww crap.


cheers tim. well done.
 
It's CEO's like this in this country getting way overcompensated with millions and millions, that is crippling our ecomomy and country. There are so many more key people at Apple, that do a bang-up job daily, but will never be compensated a thousandth of what this guy is getting in one sha-bang.

I've always said, that whatever the CEO, COO, or CFO, or whomever is at the top of a corporation, if he gets a bonus of so many dollars, the lowest peon in the company should at least get a small % of what the CEO is awarded, as long as he/she is doing his/her job to the best of his/her ability as well. So if this top dog gets a $100 million bonus, the lowest peon on the totem pole at Apple should at least get a $500 bonus as well. Hell, maybe a $1000 bonus!

Overpaid CEO's and overpaid board of directors in this country are killing all of us!!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
Teachers don't own and run companies that yield millions of dollars in profit. That's their choice, and it's their choice to do what they do. I know public school teachers who live fine off of what they make and love what they do.

That is true. It is also true that we had teachers 40 years ago and CEOs of companies that made millions in profits as well. 40 years ago the CEO's compensation wasn't nearly as many multiples of the teachers compensation as it is now. Things have changed, lots of people don't think that this is for the better.
 
Honestly, the only stock grant that i find objectionable is the 1,000,000 shares. Giving the guy $400 Million bucks in shares, plus everything else, regardless of performance is unbelievable. That is a rediculous amout of money that comes right out of the pockets of the shareholders.

Careful. Remember he must still be CEO to collect. If he fails to deliver he should lose his job and won't get the grant.

FWIW
DLM
 
Wow.... the comments in this thread are proof that many Americans lack the intelligence to do Tim Cook's job....

1) People think this $100M in stock is for his last three months on the job.
--> WRONG -- it's stock that has been vesting since 2008

2) People think this is Tim Cook's regular paycheck
--> WRONG -- it's a stock bonus -- he won't get another one like this until another stock bonus he was given vests. We know he got one with a five and ten year vesting when he became CEO -- don't know if he has any others.

Finally, for some perspective. At the time the value of the stock was likely far less when the bonus with its 4-year vesting period was issued. Because of the value of the stock today it is worth a huge amount.

Tim toughed it out for the last four years, he benefited from the stock price going up in value. The guy paid his dues, let him enjoy his bonus. I am certain nobody on this thread would turn the money down even if they planned on donating a large portion of it to charity (which is something that Tim may well do).
 
Careful. Remember he must still be CEO to collect. If he fails to deliver he should lose his job and won't get the grant.

FWIW
DLM

Well $100 million has vested already, right? And you have heard that CEOs almost always get a sizable golden parachute if they are fired in a way that makes them lose out on non-vested compensation?

While technically you are right that he still needs to perform to get those grants over the next several years, you should not confuse this with the shares really being at risk. The price of the shares certainly is (I suspect Apple is going up and that this share grant is going to be worth more than $400 million), but it would be unusual for Cook to not end up with most of those shares vesting.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.