Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Tops Innovative Company List

This doesn't surprise me.I do have a dumb question though.

HOW does a CEO sell restricted stock and come out clean ?
It's obvious Jobs can't live on $1 a year.
 
Poor Steve!

$1/year = 8 cents/month = 0.3 cents/day = 0.007 cents/hour!

I'm starting a "Save Steve" campaign.
Who's with me?

Oh... wait...
 
The rankings are crazy. How did Nintendo rank so low for coming out with something so revolutionary in the home video game market?

Same with Merck and their cervical cancer drugs. They ranked nearly 50th, while companies who just stayed on course with everyone else ranked in single digits.


This ranking is just full of boundless stupidity.
 
ejbenjamin said:
...and worth every penny.
Click to expand...

As long as Apple's stock is performing well.

As a shareholder, received my proxy to vote for Board of Directors, stuff like that. There was a selection, get this, to consider a shareholder proposal if properly presented at the meeting!:D

That can conjure up a few things.

Anyway, a synopsis of a couple of shareholder proposals were "Option Dating Policy" you know, the stuff of news of late regarding backdating options crud... the proposal was a way of preventing it from happening again.

or

"Pay for Performance Standard" - which contained in the proposal words like defined financial performance criteria that can be benchmarked... and long term compensation should utilize defined financial and/or stock price performance... You know instead of like that Home Depot CEO that ran that company's stock price in the ground and left the company still expecting his millions!

Of course, Apple management deemed these as unworthy and how dare you even consider such a thing mentality and the directors recommended a vote "against" them.

I have no problem with anyone in the corporate world making as outrageous a salary as any of your "A-List" Hollywood actors/actresses. I would like to see both areas (entertainment world and business world) become compensated utilizing defined financial and/or stock price performance. Afterall people, it's our money! It's not the risk that is involved. My Apple stock can tank today, that I know. I just would hate to loose out while the ones in control of the company steer it aground and bail with a fortune. Same for movies, if you and your date go out for a show and with tickets, popcorn, candy, drink, you can spend a small fortune as compared to the millions the main "actors" and director and producers are getting. Whcih is fine when the product they are producing lives up to it's word of being entertaining! But why should they be compensated so highly if the movie is lame and does not meet up to it's standards of being entertaining. - ie. the "bizarre and clumsily plotted, "Gigli" is a mess. As for its stars, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez lack chemistry." (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gigli/about.php#consensus) IF I went to see that, I should have been given a full refund if I asked!
 
superdork said:
I wouldn't call a company that has released one hardware product for purchase so far this year innovative.
See here.
Click to expand...

That comment is neglecting the octo-core macs. But You also have to remember that the Delayed OS actually will delay the hardware. Apple
seldom adds support for new hardware to anything but the current OS, so
all the hardware that was scheduled for a post 10.5 release will be delayed until after 10.5 or by the time it takes to port the drivers and app support.
So I imagine that we'll be seeing a very busy end of the year from apple.
 
troubling

ejbenjamin said:
...and worth every penny.
Click to expand...


As a small investor, I find this very troubling. My porxy vote counts very little if at all, and the board of directors lack independent so far as I can tell. A CEO back in the days makes ~5 to 10 times an average employee makes, now it is well above 100X. This trend is very troubling and Apple is leading the way.

Cinch
 
If you read into the article, it becomes obvious that Steve Jobs did not receive any stock grants from Apple last year, or any pay beyond the $1 in salary, and that 100% of his "compensation" is appreciation of the value of stock he already holds. So as far as Apple stockholders are concerned, Jobs was paid far less than the advertised $646 million. In fact he was paid nothing.
 
Honestly, What the heck do you do with over $600 million? I mean, you would have to try REALLY hard to spend that much money. REALLY hard. Like, REALLY.
 
superdork said:
I wouldn't call a company that has released one hardware product for purchase so far this year innovative.
See here.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The iPhone hasn't been released or even touched by reviewers hands. Plus, the Apple TV wasn't the first attempt to do this. Years behind Windows Media Center, Apple TV debuted in the living room. Granted, Apple TV is a much better product (unless you want features like DVR recording or FM radio, which it completely lacks). But coming out with a better product is not innovative, it's business. So, using this logic, if Apple TV is trumped next year by WMC, then Microsoft is the most innovative? Hogwash.

Let's be realistic people, the iPod was invented years ago now. Time for new "innovation" like that, because THAT was remarkable.

For $177,000 per hour show us something amazing Steve, and not just as shareholders but as fans of :apple: .
 
I wonder how many schools you can build in 3rd World countries with 600m?

I'm not usually one for the re-distribution of wealth per se (we have enough of that here in particular!) but 600m? Gosh...that could provide a lot of people will water.

I often wonder how much I'd give away if I was worth that. I think, quite a lot.
 
dontmatter said:
No matter how you look at it, 646 million a year is absolutely absurd. ABSURD.
Click to expand...

One more time for the cheap seats: Steve Jobs did not earn $646 million last year. While we're at it, we might as well figure out how much his Disney stock holdings appreciated last year and call that his salary for serving on the board of directors.
 
dontmatter said:
No matter how you look at it, 646 million a year is absolutely absurd. ABSURD.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, this amount of money cannot possible be given to one citizen. It is sure to upset the lower class and could lead to revolt! This type of elitist behavior should be discouraged. I propose we nationalize his holdings.;) ;)
 
Simple fact is, Steve deserves every red cent of the money that he makes. Ford's CEO makes 28 million a quarter, how well is ford off financially? Steve took a company that was on the brink of oblivion, and through determination and brilliant leadership, made it one of the finest tech companies in the world. I wouldn't care if that were being paid in cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back