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.
Tim Cook's Pay Was $1.5 Million Less in 2016 as Apple Missed its Own Performance Targets
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's interesting, people want to blame Cook for everything they feel is wrong with Apple, while denying him credit for what has gone right for Apple.
I agree, but being an end user and not a large stock holder or investor in Apple is where the problem lies. IMHO Tim Cook has not made any major strides in the traditional computer market. Tim's genius was in tightening, streaminling and gutting MacOS, MacPros, and MacBook Pro, then pushing iOS and it's devices hard. Advantage was profits for Apple, but no advantage for long time Apple users. Tim is taking away a MacOS future more and more every year. That's great for Apples bottom line and their pile of cash. Point being. His benefit was greatest for the power of the company and the money it made for their investors, not for traditional computer users.
As a ceo he gets all the credit. I'm not denying him anything. I'm just having a hard time seeing what good credit I should give him. Maybe for privacy fight against FBI, but it is unclear what is the real reason Apple did that.
Fifehundered or fivehundered?
[doublepost=1484063669][/doublepost]
But in Porter's view this will not be a sustainable advantage. Now they're rich, but there will comee a day that they will regret their choices.
You were the one calling for criticism in the beginning if you recollect. I'm happy with my new MBP and also have a couple of dongles for those moment when I actually do need to connect something. But don't ask for people to complain if you do not want them to
You were the one calling for criticism in the beginning if you recollect. I'm happy with my new MBP and also have a couple of dongles for those moment when I actually do need to connect something. But don't ask for people to complain if you do not want them to
Wrong. I was not "calling for criticism."
I said in another post, no matter which of the three choices available to Apple; i.e. supplying a USB C cable, supplying a USB A cable, or supplying both cables, there would be a group of people who would whine about the decision.
My view is for a buyer of a 2016 MBP to take responsibility and simply purchase a $4 adapter if needed.
Perhaps is this the only way they will listen that the core group that brought apple back, which they forgot about in capturing the fickle mainstream, is not happy with the direction they are taking with their products.
Even if it's the literal drop in the bucket.
Even if it's the literal drop in the bucket.
USB C is the future and the new MacBooks are future proof, if you need this use older ports get a dongle. You'd find yourself complaining if they'd packed it with USB A ports and 2 years from now you have to buy dongles to use with newer accessories and peripherals. 3rd party companies are heavily supporting this and are already releasing tons of USB C products.
[doublepost=1484108340][/doublepost]
Because it makes sense. Apple makes money from having 3rd parties license lightning for 3rd party products and Apple is slowly moving most of their devices to less rely on physical tethers. They also want you to do wireless backups and use their own services on the phone. There is no real need for anyone to connect their iPhone to their macs anymore.
Because what went right has everything to do with Jobs whilst what went wrong has everything to do with Cook
So, deleting the port used my 99.9999% of people and devices right now is somehow future proof? You have a very odd definition.
Anyway, 30+ years of buying computers and I can tell you there is no such thing as future proof. I can tell you plenty of stories about "future proof" machines that were nothing but money wasters though.
And why do you seem to think it can only have 0 USB-A ports or all USB-A ports? Every non-Mac laptop over $1000 has both USB-A and USB-C. As every decent computer in 2016 and 2017 should.
That's the issue right and wrong and who takes credit for what. what went "wrong" has everything to do where jobs left things where cook is working with a 2017 consumer mentality. What went "right" is a Similar thought, where cook is expanding on it.
Steve Jobs had left a winning formula in place.The formula assured long term profitability and ultimate user satisfaction with less bugs and fragmentation . Timmy messed with it.Sure he earned short term gains but at the cost of long term ones and upset the balance
It's very common to rewrite history. Happens around here all of the time.
I am a satisfied customer and like the product line and am buying the products. Timmy tweaked the "winning" formula. The past is the past.
His tweaking led to the following
1.Lowest op margin in 7 years
2.First decline in iPhone sales
3.iPad sales tanked
4.Production cut and pay cuts
His tweaking also let to Apple becoming the most valuable Company with record breaking quarter after record breaking quarter. iPad sales tanked due to jobs short-sideness, imo.
Steve gets credit for what's right because it's everything he left in motion.
Timmy gets credit for what's wrong because he hasn't actually changed anything from what Steve left him except sizes and deleting pre-existing features to make higher margins and more profits on accessories to restore his deleted features. Everything wrong at Apple is because they've done almost nothing for the past 5 years. Except brag about Timmy's clogged pipeline.
Apple is a tech company. What was good 5 years ago is crap today.
I give Timmy credit for what he did. Grew the revenues, grew the user base, etc. if cook didn't do anything neither did jobs and I see jobs left Tim with somewhat of a mess with the iPads and iOS.
Something all CEOs do including Nadella.No biggie. What Jobs did was something out of this world
iPads were breaking sales records when Steve was in charge.So were iPhones. But now both are tanking under Timmy.I'd say the problem lies with Timmy.
Last edited:
Over-aggrandization is happening here. That is something all CEOs do including Tim; right?
Jobs left a disaster in the ipads for Tim, imo. jobs didn't really think that through. But again I'll repeat the headliner.
Apple Set to Earn $1 Trillion in Revenue From iOS Ecosystem By Middle of 2017
Nonsense. It's a myth that there is a real "market" for CEO talent or compensation.
This summarizes the argument reasonably well:
"Considerable research shows that today’s high level of executive compensation has created an enormous societal gap between the top earners in the country and the rest of the population. Compensation has become so high that it significantly affects the profitability of even relatively large corporations. Perhaps less frequently noted are the pay plans that provide such a big performance incentive for individuals that they can lead people to take risky and even illegal actions in order to make their pay -for-performance compensation plans pay off.
The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.
...
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market." http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardl...rds-not-the-market-are-to-blame/#728784f37c3a
Exactly. The market for CEOs dictates pay. Those who set the pay choose to increase it. I never said the CEOs would leave, or fail if they left, etc. I said the market of CEO positions and candidates dictates pricing and it does. The article proves that. It's poorly written because of the flawed logic.