Tim Cook's Pay Was $1.5 Million Less in 2016 as Apple Missed its Own Performance Targets

[Rogifan]

He's great as COO...not CEO. If he wants to play "maximize profit" that's what COO would do. CEO has to be balanced in all areas...not one sided.

Every executive officer of a for profit corporation is about maximizing profits. But building great products and maximizing profits are not mutually exclusive. The idea that if you're concerned about wan you can't be concerned about the other is nonsense.
[doublepost=1483774154][/doublepost]

Performance targets under Steve Jobs: The best products, customer experience
Performance targets under Tim Cook: More $$$

Source? And please give me an actual source not your opinion.

 

[zen]

This is actually quite interesting. Tim is a master accountant, and while lots of people don't like him or his management, it seemed safe to assume that so long as he was bringing in the profits (his sole job, basically), Apple was technically in good shape. Innovation and making great products is a VERY secondary goal.

But... missing their internal targets? It doesn't matter that the sums of money are still gargantuan, the CEO has actually underperformed. For accountants and shareholders, this is actually pretty bad news. Yes, we're still talking absurdly huge amounts of money, so there's bound to be some cognitive dissonance (how can this be considered a failure when they still generated XXXX million/billion in profit?), but from an accounting point of view, bad, bad news.

Question is, how many quarters/years can Tim go with missing targets before he is thrown out?

 

[Rogifan]

Yes you are right, but by the same measurement Steve Ballmer was a fantastic CEO for Microsoft. Under Ballmer's leadership Microsoft made money hand over fist like never before. But they lost out on mobile because he didn't have that vision, he just stuck to what made lots of money.

Quite honestly I think a lot of crap gets thrown at Steve Ballmer that should be thrown at Bill Gates. The whole Surface product line exists because of Ballmer and he's the one who said only Microsoft will really be able to challenge Apple in the hardware space. Last time I checked the tech press is quite impressed with Surface products (as are a lot of people here judging by the comments section any time a Surface story is posted to the front page). Also under Ballmer Microsoft made a big push into the cloud. I think it's unfair he gets dinged because Microsoft doesn't have a successful smartphone OS. They don't have one under Nadella and yet Microsoft stock is at record highs.

One could argue Steve Jobs didn't do a very good job of grooming leadership for Apple. He recommended Tim Cook replace him as CEO and outside of Angela Ahrendts every SVP was there during the Jobs era and many reported directly to him. Sure people say now it was a mistake to let Scott Forstall go but I think that's mostly because he was the one let go. Had Tim Cook let Eddy Cue or Phil Schiller go people would be saying they need to come back. I mean it's not like in 2012 people were singing Forstall's praises. I remember the Verge writing a piece titled 'It's Always 73 and Sunny in Cupertino' basically ripping Apple for how stagnant iOS was (including the UI design). I think back to the iPhone event where one of the tentpole features was Siri providing sports scores. If that was today people would be laughing Craig Federighi off the stage. Anyway as I've argued before if people are going to complain about current Apple leadership the one they need to blame is Steve Jobs. Or maybe Yukari Iwatani was right and Steve didn't properly set up Apple for after he was gone because his ego wouldn't be able to handle the company being successful without him.

 

[amegicfox]

apple hasn't updated macs in years and then there is the fiasco with the latest macbook and macbook pro - no battery, no ports, no power, crazy expensive

these people still get $22 million each and Tim $146 million

people could only dream to run a company this badly and still get paid millions no matter what

 

[Abazigal]

What's even more dire is smartphone marketshare is also approaching single digit like Steve Jobs warned while Cook and crew are painting a rosy picture and misleading small investors.

Single percentage market share ignores the inconvenient fact that it's still a huge number of iPhones sold in an absolute numerical sense. More than enough to sustain a thriving ecosystem.

Just ask any smartphone oem out there. Would they rather have Samsung's market share or Apple's profits? You can't put the iPhone on the same level as junk Android phones.

 

[maflynn]

He's great as COO...not CEO. If he wants to play "maximize profit" that's what COO would do. CEO has to be balanced in all areas...not one sided.

I'm not denying that he's a great manager but he needs to be a leader which he's not. Given the lifecycle of Apple's products Apple needs a leader, innovator, someone to have a vision beyond a thinner phone/laptop/ipad

 

[Bacillus]

The 8Mio bonus can be decomposed as:
$ 1M for lack of desktop Macs
$ 1M for iPhone 7, iPad Pro, MacBook Pro mehpgrades
$ 1M for ToolBar idiosyncrasy
$ 1M for killing overall functionality (headphone jack/MagSafe)
$ 1M for 2016 button cell battery award
$ 1M for missed Airpod deadline
$ 1M for looking like a vagabond with Donald Trump (still campaigning for Hillary ?)
$ 1M for concealing other $130 Mio compensation in shares and options (from tax authorities)
The $130M options were awarded for introduction of The WatchBand as new product category and The Pipeline - a vibrant new marketing methodology

Time/Life nomination "Idiot of the Year" under consideration

 

[JGRE]

Steve left his cancer untreated for a long time because he was too busy with Apple and didn't take it seriously enough at first.
[doublepost=1483745989][/doublepost]

Well Apple doesn't seem to be developing new hardware these days, so I'd say he doesn't do a whole lot.

Anyways, after 6 years he is still the subject of the day for many Apple fans, TC will be forgotten the same day he retires.
[doublepost=1483788209][/doublepost]

It's hilarious how many people here with no business sense or acumen think they can run Apple better than Tim Cook.

No, it is actually not. It is about the man you want to be: money makers versus visionair, it is a choice.

 

[CE3]

I think Tim has done a decent job considering the shoes he had to fill.

I'm sure Steve Jobs wanted to leave Apple in good hands, but I also think it's possible that he didn't want the next CEO to eclipse his legacy.

Steve Jobs was a lot of things, and an egomaniac was one of them.

 

[pmau]

I think Tim has done a decent job considering the shoes he had to fill.

I respectfully disagree. Here is why:
Steve had assembled a great team of people who knew how to innovate and create.
Of course you heard complaints about Steve, because creative people have vastly different opinions about their focus and ideas.

The only thing Tim Cook really needed to do, was let people continue on their own ideas.

I have no idea how he actually manages people, but I'm absolutely certain his metric about a good product was the availability of the cheapest components possible.

This includes keeping the iPhone design, sourcing the cheapest GPU's, the smallest batteries and so on.

Steve took risks that DID fail, but people always forget that.
Tim plays it really really safe, and he is probably adored by major shareholders and partners.
He is predictable.

We have come a Long Way when Dell and Lenovo suddenly become interesting.
Since 2006, I have never visited online stores from Dell, HP or Lenovo.
Right now, I look at Apples store and constantly keep configuring competitor offerings.

I'm not happy with all of them, including Apples.

I will not forget Tim Cook, because he has started the trend of promising new releases.
Steve NEVER did that. He simply that the CURRENT model cannot be improved.

Tim says, the current model ist the BEST THEY COULD BUILD for a certain margin.
If you read that carefully, you understand the mindset.

I have always disagreed with the Apple is Doomed crowd.

Since the release of the MacBopok Pro's and the obvious abandonment of the MacPro and MacMini,
I know that I have to switch some day.

Apple will sell iPhones, Watches and Accessories.
But this is not the sector I want to spend my money on.

 

[Jim Lahey]

Perhaps not the place to ask this question, but as it keeps coming up, I will pose it now to those who keep complaining of ultimate cost cutting;

If Apple are such penny pinching morons, why do they still go to great effort and expense in making the insides of their devices just as well presented as the outside?

In my personal opinion, the answer is that they don't penny pinch, and those who suggest that they do, are morons. I only have to spend ten seconds with any Apple product to realize that cutting corners is the very last thing I could ever accuse them of. Others will disagree of course

 

[CharlesShaw]

What if they gave Tim $0 if Apple didn't reach its goals?

Oh, how quickly great and innovative products would be flying out of Apple.

In 2015 we learned that he plans to donate his fortune to charities. I'm thinking he would be upset about the lost opportunity to help even more people.

 

[frankgrimes]

Quite honestly I think a lot of crap gets thrown at Steve Ballmer that should be thrown at Bill Gates. The whole Surface product line exists because of Ballmer and he's the one who said only Microsoft will really be able to challenge Apple in the hardware space. Last time I checked the tech press is quite impressed with Surface products (as are a lot of people here judging by the comments section any time a Surface story is posted to the front page). Also under Ballmer Microsoft made a big push into the cloud. I think it's unfair he gets dinged because Microsoft doesn't have a successful smartphone OS. They don't have one under Nadella and yet Microsoft stock is at record highs.

One could argue Steve Jobs didn't do a very good job of grooming leadership for Apple. He recommended Tim Cook replace him as CEO and outside of Angela Ahrendts every SVP was there during the Jobs era and many reported directly to him. Sure people say now it was a mistake to let Scott Forstall go but I think that's mostly because he was the one let go. Had Tim Cook let Eddy Cue or Phil Schiller go people would be saying they need to come back. I mean it's not like in 2012 people were singing Forstall's praises. I remember the Verge writing a piece titled 'It's Always 73 and Sunny in Cupertino' basically ripping Apple for how stagnant iOS was (including the UI design). I think back to the iPhone event where one of the tentpole features was Siri providing sports scores. If that was today people would be laughing Craig Federighi off the stage. Anyway as I've argued before if people are going to complain about current Apple leadership the one they need to blame is Steve Jobs. Or maybe Yukari Iwatani was right and Steve didn't properly set up Apple for after he was gone because his ego wouldn't be able to handle the company being successful without him.

Ballmer is also the guy responsible for Windows 8 known as Vista 2. It cost Microsoft billions of dollars. He also bought Nokia and then basically killed the brand another 7 billion write of.
Ballmer did exactly what Cook is doing right now, milking the customer and thinking they know it better of course at some point it had to backfire.
He also laughed at the IPhone and Android instead of looking at their strong points and incorporating it into his own mobile OS..I mean we are talking about MS here they should have been able to challenge Apple and Google with all their desktop and file system know how and yet Windows Mobile didn't even have the basic funcctions right. The last few years Ballmers salary was cut because he didn't meet the company goals despite revenue left and right...sounds familiar right? He had the huge task of following Bill Gates nobody could run MS like he did because it's Gates. Of course Ballmer wasn't the only one to blame that's why Sinovski was let go too.

That being said if a CEO is more concerned with profits and riding the hot product instead of pushing for the best possible product then the guy should be COO. Steve always had his target markets in mind and wouldn't let the 2 interfere..that's why he and Yves often clashed but at the end of the day Jobs had the final say. And I think this focus has been lost lately.

MS and their hololense will put even the Vive to shame and it looks like Apple is missing the VR, AR boat. The smartphone, tablet market is close to the saturation point and then what? Using the MacOS as second fiddle to IOs is a bad long-term decision, MS had to learn it the hard way maybe Apple under Cook needs too

 

[cics]

Angela made $23 million for what? Turning Apple into a fashion company? The watch that isn't selling as well?

Don't forget where it all started. Apple is a computer company, not a fashion brand. The two will not converge once computing power gathers pace again.

It's already happening. Look at this CES, Amazon is pushing really hard on Alexa, so hard that even Google with Assistant needs to catch up now. Siri is not even in the game. I really fear Apple will loose the next big leap in tech, could it be virtual assistants or AR...
[doublepost=1483793272][/doublepost]

Ballmer is also the guy responsible for Windows 8 known as Vista 2. It cost Microsoft billions of dollars. He also bought Nokia and then basically killed the brand another 7 billion write of.
Ballmer did exactly what Cook is doing right now, milking the customer and thinking they know it better of course at some point it had to backfire.
He also laughed at the IPhone and Android instead of looking at their strong points and incorporating it into his own mobile OS..I mean we are talking about MS here they should have been able to challenge Apple and Google with all their desktop and file system know how and yet Windows Mobile didn't even have the basic funcctions right. The last few years Ballmers salary was cut because he didn't meet the company goals despite revenue left and right...sounds familiar right? He had the huge task of following Bill Gates nobody could run MS like he did because it's Gates. Of course Ballmer wasn't the only one to blame that's why Sinovski was let go too.

That being said if a CEO is more concerned with profits and riding the hot product instead of pushing for the best possible product then the guy should be COO. Steve always had his target markets in mind and wouldn't let the 2 interfere..that's why he and Yves often clashed but at the end of the day Jobs had the final say. And I think this focus has been lost lately.

MS and their hololense will put even the Vive to shame and it looks like Apple is missing the VR, AR boat. The smartphone, tablet market is close to the saturation point and then what? Using the MacOS as second fiddle to IOs is a bad long-term decision, MS had to learn it the hard way maybe Apple under Cook needs too

Exactly. I fear this "lifestyle fashion" brand they are building will hit them badly in the long run. Looking at what's happening at CES now, Amazon is pushing Alexa so hard that even Google is struggling with Assistant in catching up now. Siri is not even playing the game.

AR is another beast. Google has Tango running, invested heavily in Magic Leap (that looks amazing), Microsoft has hololens.

 

[pmau]

I only have to spend ten seconds with any Apple product to realize that cutting corners is the very last thing I could ever accuse them of. Others will disagree of course

Great. If the inside is so beautifully designed, Apple should make it easy to access and exchange their beautifully fitting components with updated versions.

If it would be as important as you claim, people would buy M.2 SSD blades from Apple with Tim Cooks signature in platinum on them.

But, people do not care and Apple does not either.
Just try to open your beautifully designed product without breaking seals, ribbon cables, etc.

 

[Jim Lahey]

I didn't claim it was important though.

 

[scottmacd]

Apple's declining sales are no surprise. Apple's products, while still great, are starting to take on a "let's add some gimmicks and see if people take the bait" feel. The "Touch Bar" is an embarrassment and a perfect example. It will be gone in two years because it lacks the innovation that has defined Apple. Let's put something bright and shiny on an already existing product and see if people buy it. The biggest problem you are having right now, Apple, is that your products no longer distinguish themselves from the rest of the world. Rather than telling me how your products are thinner, brighter and lighter, TELL ME HOW THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE MY LIFE BETTER! When you came out with OSX, it got our attention because it was easier and more reliable than Win X (which just sucked at the time). Windows 10, while still sucky, is at least more stable, so that distinction has virtually disappeared. And everybody says "thinner, faster, lighter". So what! You aren't going to sell to your reliable base with technical specs.

Your next steps, Apple, are to:

1) Create OS-XI, which must be such a huge leap forward in terms of ease of use that it blows our socks off. Get rid of the screen and start interacting with me like another presence in the room. Anticipate my needs. Take care of yourself.

2) Give us a holographic interface (think Minority Report) that interacts with us on OUR terms, not yours.

3) Make your iWork products interoperate with the rest of the world, completely, seamlessly.

You've turned the computing world on it's ear several times throughout your storied history - resist the urge to peddle glitz just to make money. Focus on innovation, not piling ultimately useless features on top of otherwise great products.

We're waiting.

 

[Rogifan]

Ballmer is also the guy responsible for Windows 8 known as Vista 2. It cost Microsoft billions of dollars. He also bought Nokia and then basically killed the brand another 7 billion write of.
Ballmer did exactly what Cook is doing right now, milking the customer and thinking they know it better of course at some point it had to backfire.
He also laughed at the IPhone and Android instead of looking at their strong points and incorporating it into his own mobile OS..I mean we are talking about MS here they should have been able to challenge Apple and Google with all their desktop and file system know how and yet Windows Mobile didn't even have the basic funcctions right. The last few years Ballmers salary was cut because he didn't meet the company goals despite revenue left and right...sounds familiar right? He had the huge task of following Bill Gates nobody could run MS like he did because it's Gates. Of course Ballmer wasn't the only one to blame that's why Sinovski was let go too.

That being said if a CEO is more concerned with profits and riding the hot product instead of pushing for the best possible product then the guy should be COO. Steve always had his target markets in mind and wouldn't let the 2 interfere..that's why he and Yves often clashed but at the end of the day Jobs had the final say. And I think this focus has been lost lately.

MS and their hololense will put even the Vive to shame and it looks like Apple is missing the VR, AR boat. The smartphone, tablet market is close to the saturation point and then what? Using the MacOS as second fiddle to IOs is a bad long-term decision, MS had to learn it the hard way maybe Apple under Cook needs too

It's funny, anything with Apple that's successful people still attribute to Jobs yet with Microsoft all the good stuff just miraculously happened when Nadella was made CEO. Such BS. Like I said Microsoft still doesn't have a mobile OS (or top selling smartphone) and yet the stock is at all time highs. Perhaps that's because Wall Street thinks there are other things (like the cloud) that are more important? And do people really think things like Office for iPad or Hololens only went into development after Ballmer left? Also, I seem to remember Google doing a disasterous deal with Motorola Mobility which the ended up being sold to Lenovo and then you have Nest, which as far as I can tell is a stagnant brand and Tony Fadell is no longer at Google. Should Larry Page be fired?

 

[citysnaps]

I respectfully disagree. Here is why:
Steve had assembled a great team of people who knew how to innovate and create.
Of course you heard complaints about Steve, because creative people have vastly different opinions about their focus and ideas.

The only thing Tim Cook really needed to do, was let people continue on their own ideas.

I have no idea how he actually manages people, but I'm absolutely certain his metric about a good product was the availability of the cheapest components possible.

This includes keeping the iPhone design, sourcing the cheapest GPU's, the smallest batteries and so on.

Steve took risks that DID fail, but people always forget that.
Tim plays it really really safe, and he is probably adored by major shareholders and partners.
He is predictable.

We have come a Long Way when Dell and Lenovo suddenly become interesting.
Since 2006, I have never visited online stores from Dell, HP or Lenovo.
Right now, I look at Apples store and constantly keep configuring competitor offerings.

I'm not happy with all of them, including Apples.

I will not forget Tim Cook, because he has started the trend of promising new releases.
Steve NEVER did that. He simply that the CURRENT model cannot be improved.

Tim says, the current model ist the BEST THEY COULD BUILD for a certain margin.
If you read that carefully, you understand the mindset.

I have always disagreed with the Apple is Doomed crowd.

Since the release of the MacBopok Pro's and the obvious abandonment of the MacPro and MacMini,
I know that I have to switch some day.

Apple will sell iPhones, Watches and Accessories.
But this is not the sector I want to spend my money on.

"Tim says, the current model ist the BEST THEY COULD BUILD for a certain margin.
If you read that carefully, you understand the mindset."

And Jobs "said" that as well. The MacBook Air he released is a great example with a single USB port, an anemic underpowered CPU (that ironically caused the MBA to overheat), 2 GB of ram, an 80 GB spinning hard disk, and a TN display... all for $1,799.

All of the iPhones he had built were designed with accompanying compromises, and more importantly highly priced, to hit their required 40% margins.

 

[Rogifan]

I'm not denying that he's a great manager but he needs to be a leader which he's not. Given the lifecycle of Apple's products Apple needs a leader, innovator, someone to have a vision beyond a thinner phone/laptop/ipad

Ah so Tim Cook has a vision then, just not one you agree with? What exactly did Steve Jobs innovate after Apple announced iPhone and multi touch to the world? Go back and watch the original MacBook Air launch...Steve's whole pitch revolved around the fact it was the worlds thinnest laptop. Specs were mediocre and it was very expensive. It seems people look at the past with rose colored glasses and nostalgia. And if Tim Cook is a great manager but not a great leader why did Steve Jobs recommend him for Apple's CEO? Did Steve not want a visionary leader running Apple after he was gone?

 

[Radon87000]

I think that's a positive. Ballmer took Microsoft where gates didn't.

And Satya Nadella took Microsoft where Ballmer didnt.But who invented the product which enabled both of them to take Microsoft to its goals?

 

[Jim Lahey]

Apple's declining sales are no surprise. Apple's products, while still great, are starting to take on a "let's add some gimmicks and see if people take the bait" feel. The "Touch Bar" is an embarrassment and a perfect example. It will be gone in two years because it lacks the innovation that has defined Apple. Let's put something bright and shiny on an already existing product and see if people buy it. The biggest problem you are having right now, Apple, is that your products no longer distinguish themselves from the rest of the world. Rather than telling me how your products are thinner, brighter and lighter, TELL ME HOW THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE MY LIFE BETTER! When you came out with OSX, it got our attention because it was easier and more reliable than Win X (which just sucked at the time). Windows 10, while still sucky, is at least more stable, so that distinction has virtually disappeared. And everybody says "thinner, faster, lighter". So what! You aren't going to sell to your reliable base with technical specs.

Your next steps, Apple, are to:

1) Create OS-XI, which must be such a huge leap forward in terms of ease of use that it blows our socks off. Get rid of the screen and start interacting with me like another presence in the room. Anticipate my needs. Take care of yourself.

2) Give us a holographic interface (think Minority Report) that interacts with us on OUR terms, not yours.

3) Make your iWork products interoperate with the rest of the world, completely, seamlessly.

You've turned the computing world on it's ear several times throughout your storied history - resist the urge to peddle glitz just to make money. Focus on innovation, not piling ultimately useless features on top of otherwise great products.

We're waiting.

HAHAHAHA! Hang on. Pause for breath. HAHAHAHAHA!

Jesus Christ open the front door.

 

[I7guy]

And Satya Nadella took Microsoft where Ballmer didnt.But who invented the product which enabled both of them to take Microsoft to its goals?

IMO, nadella is a run of the mill CEO, not impressed at all. Unlike Timmy who I like.

 

[Radon87000]

IMO, nadella is a run of the mill CEO, not impressed at all. Unlike Timmy who I like.

He is just like Tim Cook.Maybe a little more of a visionary considering he has showcased a vision of Windows on all devices and converting Windows 10 Mobile handsets into pocket computers through continuum.The issue was no one gave him a cash cow like the iPhone.Had Ballmer acted in time,Windows Phone would be on top and Nadella would have taken MS to great heights.He is now in the unfortunate position of managing the mess Ballmer left him in the form of a 1% market share in mobile and a saturated WIndows market.

 

[I7guy]

He is just like Tim Cook.Maybe a little more of a visionary considering he has showcased a vision of Windows on all devices and converting Windows 10 Mobile handsets into pocket computers through continuum.The issue was no one gave him a cash cow like the iPhone.Had Ballmer acted in time,Windows Phone would be on top and Nadella would have taken MS to great heights.He is now in the unfortunate position of managing the mess Ballmer left him in the form of a 1% market share in mobile and a saturated WIndows market.

No he is not "just like Tim Cook". He is not "out there", doesn't have the "flair", didn't bring Microsoft to the most valuable company. Timmy has a lot of innovation and some blockbusters under his belt. What did Nadella give us? Windows 10, that calls home?