We're all curious about lots of things Apple and lots of 'fascinating' people. Again, seriously, so what? I am totally failing to understand your reply.
How could an article (it was not clear which one he was referring to, btw) reveal more than it knows?! Am I missing something?
If you understand that people are curious by nature then why do you feel that one is entitled because they state that they'd like to know about her role at Apple. I'd love to have an expose on her and don't expect for anyone to assume I am "owed" that simply for desiring it.
If you understand that people are curious by nature then why do you feel that one is entitled because they state that they'd like to know about her role at Apple. I'd love to have an expose on her and don't expect for anyone to assume I am "owed" that simply for desiring it.
Sorry for the 'add' after you posted, but what does the fact that she may or may not be paid $75 million have to do with anything? What was its relevance, if not sound like he feels he's entitled to know since he apparently thinks she's paid a lot?
Sorry for the 'add' after you posted, but what does the fact that she may or may not be paid $75 million have to do with anything? What was its relevance, if not sound like he feels he's entitled to know since he apparently thinks she's paid a lot?
Ah, you're hung up on his reference of the amount, just as the OP is probably hung up on the amount, which exceeded that of Tim Cook's pay for the year. I'm surely projected with the following comment, but I don't believe the OP implied that she didn't deserve it, but is simply fascinated by the amount and is curious what she could possibly be doing to warrant that sort of annual salary (which I've already stated I don't think is a salary, but a one time payout as part of her hire and having to drop her Burberry shares). I'm absolutely curious about her role in the company and hope we get to see her on stage in June detailing the success of ?Watch in fashion, the new Apple Stores, or anything else in which she was a key player.
Ah, you're hung up on his reference of the amount, just as the OP is probably hung up on the amount, which exceeded that of Tim Cook's pay for the year. I'm surely projected with the following comment, but I don't believe the OP implied that she didn't deserve it, but is simply fascinated by the amount and is curious what she could possibly be doing to warrant that sort of annual salary (which I've already stated I don't think is a salary, but a one time payout as part of her hire and having to drop her Burberry shares). I'm absolutely curious about her role in the company and hope we get to see her on stage in June detailing the success of ?Watch in fashion, the new Apple Stores, or anything else in which she was a key player.
I am 'hung up' on nothing. You thought that he didn't sound like he was demanding or entitled. I simply pointed out -- in response to that -- three things in his post that to me conveyed that tone.
This lone statement makes me think you have zero understanding of the subject at hand. Or perhaps you are just completely indifferent and just don't notice the difference when shopping at different stores?
From parking, to interacting with employees, to finding items, to testing items, to checking out, the lighting, the music, the store layout, etc. - these are all part of the shopping experience. And just about every store is different. It doesn't matter what is being sold, be it technology or fashion; how the customer feels while in your store is the thing they experience. And that is what Angela was good at, regardless of your attempt to belittle her accomplishments and proficiencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by proline
Tim Cook has never really given any "reasons why" he failed Apple by hiring Browett. Saying "he wasn't a good fit for the culture" is just corporate BS. Sure, we can make educated guess like his electronics retailing experience, but we'll never really know why he went with Browett
This is what I love about the Internet, everyone's an armchair quarterback and they just love to jump on the pessimist bandwagon when someone makes a mistake. First of all, Tim saying, "he wasn't a good fit for the culture" is extremely insightful when talking about a company that values their corporate culture more than anything else. It makes perfect sense and does not come off as corporate BS. The only person that would even think such a thing is someone that does not know or follow Apple.
Second, John Browett was successful in his prior position at Dixons, and instrumental in turning around their horrible customer service. Dixons is a far larger retail chain than Apple's stores and his ability to up the quality of customer service is completely inline with Apple's interests in expanding their retail experience while retaining their level of service. This is why he was hired by Tim Cook. However, it was painfully obvious that Browett was not able to acclimate himself to Apple's corporate culture as Tim cook had hoped, so he was fired.
I am 'hung up' on nothing. You thought that he didn't sound like he was demanding or entitled. I simply pointed out -- in response to that -- three things in his post that to me conveyed that tone.
Btw, what is 'OP'?
1) OP is the original poster.
2) I see the statement of what she made last year as a qualification of his curiousity. If you're only familiar with a new VP making $73 MM with the performing CEO only making $9 MM wouldn't that make you curious? It sure as hell made me more curoious.
2) I see the statement of what she made last year as a qualification of his curiousity. If you're only familiar with a new VP making $73 MM with the performing CEO only making $9 MM wouldn't that make you curious? It sure as hell made me more curoious.
As has been pointed out by others above, she's not making $73M (or $75M, or whatever). That was an upfront payment to compensate her for giving her up the Burberry stock she had, plus (perhaps) a signing bonus. Her annual salary is much smaller than that.*
That would be like saying Tim Cook "makes $400M" (since that is the value of unvested stock and options that Apple gave him at the time he became CEO after Jobs's death, if I recall right; it could have been a bit higher than that).
You're comparing apples and oranges.
*Add: According to this, her annual salary is $3.35M.
As has been pointed out by others above, she's not making $73M (or $75M, or whatever). If you're only familiar with a new VP making $73 MM with the performing CEO only making $9 MM wouldn't that make you curious? It sure as hell made me more curoious.
Well first of all as pointed out earlier Ahrendts doesn't earn $75M a year, so jameskatt2 clearly needs some education on how Apple handles compensation, since he obviously doesn't understand it.
That said, you could still make a case for Ahrendts earning at that level. Let me see, HOW much does Apple's retail empire earn in profits each year? Let's give Ahrendts an imaginary bonus of five percent of that amount. I'd bet it would be more than $75M a year.
I always find it amusing that we think Apple executives are overpaid, but think nothing about giving somebody who just runs around a court dribbling a basketball for a living that kind of money ...
Keeping a low profile is right. We hear all about how much money she made from the Apple deal, but yet we hear next to nothing about what she actually does at Apple. Is she some kind of PR figurehead that gives credence to the gold Apple Watch, and nothing more?
Keeping a low profile is right. We hear all about how much money she made from the Apple deal, but yet we hear next to nothing about what she actually does at Apple. Is she some kind of PR figurehead that gives credence to the gold Apple Watch, and nothing more?
Another weird post on the topic that sounds self-entitled.
If you are any other stakeholder (e.g., customer, supplier, creditor, etc.), Apple (as with any other company) is not required to tell you anything at all about any officer of the company.
So was hiring Browett "talent recognizes talent" or "greatness recognizes greatness"? Was Jobs hiring Isaacson to write his bio even though he can't keep his facts straight "talent recognizes talent" or "greatness recognizes greatness"?
The fact is that being great doesn't make you immune to mistakes- great people screw up all the time. That's OK. And arguing that this or that decision made by Cook was wrong does not necessarily make someone a troll. Hopefully Ahrendts works out. We'll see after the Apple Watch. Taking 75 million for doing nothing aside from leaving a job selling clothes suggest arrogance, which is a justifiable cause for skepticism. Sculley did not need 75 million to give up the sugar-water business, and he stuck around and grew sales by a factor of 10. We'll see what she does.
Yeah but she had to give up her stocks and benefits earned at her previous employer. Apple is just compensating her for previous earnings that she lost as a result of her leaving her employer to join Apple....not to mention the risk involved.
I cant help but to think that this wouldnt even be an issue if she was a man. People always seem to do the most when blacks and women are put in powerful positions that pay well.
It doesn't matter what is being sold, be it technology or fashion
Actually it does. Ron Johnson showed that very well. There is no universally successful "customer experience" that you can drop into any industry, even ones you have little understanding of, and succeed. The product is absolutely critical as it affects things like the amount of emotion the customer puts into the decision, the amount of time they will spend on it, the way they want to shop for it, etc. The product can steer one retail chain into a vastly different place from another. MacDonald's deliberate painted their stores in hostile colors (clashing orange and red) in order to get people moving as quickly as possible. Other products require the exact opposite approach. Ahrendts has no "experience" formula from fashion that she can drop into electronics, and the hubris of past success will be a hazard for her. Even things like 'customer service' mean totally different things depending on the product. Ahrendts may well adapt and succeed, but there's no way of knowing that yet.
This is what I love about the Internet, everyone's an armchair quarterback and they just love to jump on the pessimist bandwagon when someone makes a mistake. First of all, Tim saying, "he wasn't a good fit for the culture" is extremely insightful when talking about a company that values their corporate culture more than anything else. It makes perfect sense and does not come off as corporate BS. The only person that would even think such a thing is someone that does not know or follow Apple.
This is awfully defensive. Every company that's ever fired someone ever has said they weren't a good fit. It's just normal corporate speak. Google "wasn't a good fit" and you'll find every coach, every CEO, etc. who has ever been fired. Obviously Browett wasn't a good fit, neither was Forestall, neither was anyone else who they fired. What Cook will never tell you is how he was deceived into thinking he was a good fit, or what attributes Browett has that made him a bad fit.
Quote:
Second, John Browett was successful in his prior position at Dixons, and instrumental in turning around their horrible customer service. Dixons is a far larger retail chain than Apple's stores and his ability to up the quality of customer service is completely inline with Apple's interests in expanding their retail experience while retaining their level of service. This is why he was hired by Tim Cook. However, it was painfully obvious that Browett was not able to acclimate himself to Apple's corporate culture as Tim cook had hoped, so he was fired.
Now here's you're just plain wrong. Dixons has less revenue than Apple retail and far, far less profit. It is not larger and never will be. I also guess you haven't lived in the UK. I have. Browett didn't turn around Dixons horrible customer service. He worsened it. He achieved temporary financial success via cost control, nothing more.
If someone offered me a $76 million salary package, I'd sort of 'click' with them too. At the very least it would show that they understood me.
1) There are certainly pros to her position at Apple (otherwise she wouldn't have taken it), but she did have to step down from being a CEO to an SVP position at Apple. Also, as previously mentioned several times in this thread, a good part of that compensation package was to counter what she'd be losing by leaving Burberry (presumably before some maturity date).
2) BF voted your post up which should be an indicator of something.
The $75m didn't vest all at once, it is spread out until 2018, so she will have to prove her mettle in order to get the whole lot. This article provides an interesting context, as well as information on the vesting schedule:
There is a very interesting quote from her in the article: 'As the New Yorker put it recently, one of her tasks is to make wearable technology chic — “more Burberry, less Borg.” '
The $75m didn't vest all at once, it is spread out until 2018, so she will have to prove her mettle in order to get the whole lot.
Yes. Ahrendts coming to Apple involved a lot of money, but it didn't amount to a huge increase in future compensation compared to what she could have expected from Burberry's. Apple's financial incentive package was a necessary hurdle to make her whole and remove one of the big potential downsides. On the minus side for her, she was giving up a job she clearly loved and was great at. She was giving up a CEO spot to go back reporting to someone else instead of directly to a board. She was uprooting her family from an incredibly comfortable life in London at a critical age for her children. The plus side? The joy of an immense challenge and opportunity to have a measurable new accomplishment on a global scale. Her job is Cinderella's slipper in the sense that Ahrendts already personified Apple's culture before she first set foot through the front door. Think about Ahrendts' background and skill set and you may be looking in the longer term at the ideal successor to Cook as CEO.
Comments
If you understand that people are curious by nature then why do you feel that one is entitled because they state that they'd like to know about her role at Apple. I'd love to have an expose on her and don't expect for anyone to assume I am "owed" that simply for desiring it.
If you understand that people are curious by nature then why do you feel that one is entitled because they state that they'd like to know about her role at Apple. I'd love to have an expose on her and don't expect for anyone to assume I am "owed" that simply for desiring it.
Sorry for the 'add' after you posted, but what does the fact that she may or may not be paid $75 million have to do with anything? What was its relevance, if not sound like he feels he's entitled to know since he apparently thinks she's paid a lot?
Ah, you're hung up on his reference of the amount, just as the OP is probably hung up on the amount, which exceeded that of Tim Cook's pay for the year. I'm surely projected with the following comment, but I don't believe the OP implied that she didn't deserve it, but is simply fascinated by the amount and is curious what she could possibly be doing to warrant that sort of annual salary (which I've already stated I don't think is a salary, but a one time payout as part of her hire and having to drop her Burberry shares). I'm absolutely curious about her role in the company and hope we get to see her on stage in June detailing the success of ?Watch in fashion, the new Apple Stores, or anything else in which she was a key player.
Ah, you're hung up on his reference of the amount, just as the OP is probably hung up on the amount, which exceeded that of Tim Cook's pay for the year. I'm surely projected with the following comment, but I don't believe the OP implied that she didn't deserve it, but is simply fascinated by the amount and is curious what she could possibly be doing to warrant that sort of annual salary (which I've already stated I don't think is a salary, but a one time payout as part of her hire and having to drop her Burberry shares). I'm absolutely curious about her role in the company and hope we get to see her on stage in June detailing the success of ?Watch in fashion, the new Apple Stores, or anything else in which she was a key player.
I am 'hung up' on nothing. You thought that he didn't sound like he was demanding or entitled. I simply pointed out -- in response to that -- three things in his post that to me conveyed that tone.
Btw, what is 'OP'?
"Customer retail experience" isn't a thing.
This lone statement makes me think you have zero understanding of the subject at hand. Or perhaps you are just completely indifferent and just don't notice the difference when shopping at different stores?
From parking, to interacting with employees, to finding items, to testing items, to checking out, the lighting, the music, the store layout, etc. - these are all part of the shopping experience. And just about every store is different. It doesn't matter what is being sold, be it technology or fashion; how the customer feels while in your store is the thing they experience. And that is what Angela was good at, regardless of your attempt to belittle her accomplishments and proficiencies.
Tim Cook has never really given any "reasons why" he failed Apple by hiring Browett. Saying "he wasn't a good fit for the culture" is just corporate BS. Sure, we can make educated guess like his electronics retailing experience, but we'll never really know why he went with Browett
This is what I love about the Internet, everyone's an armchair quarterback and they just love to jump on the pessimist bandwagon when someone makes a mistake. First of all, Tim saying, "he wasn't a good fit for the culture" is extremely insightful when talking about a company that values their corporate culture more than anything else. It makes perfect sense and does not come off as corporate BS. The only person that would even think such a thing is someone that does not know or follow Apple.
Second, John Browett was successful in his prior position at Dixons, and instrumental in turning around their horrible customer service. Dixons is a far larger retail chain than Apple's stores and his ability to up the quality of customer service is completely inline with Apple's interests in expanding their retail experience while retaining their level of service. This is why he was hired by Tim Cook. However, it was painfully obvious that Browett was not able to acclimate himself to Apple's corporate culture as Tim cook had hoped, so he was fired.
1) OP is the original poster.
2) I see the statement of what she made last year as a qualification of his curiousity. If you're only familiar with a new VP making $73 MM with the performing CEO only making $9 MM wouldn't that make you curious? It sure as hell made me more curoious.
2) I see the statement of what she made last year as a qualification of his curiousity. If you're only familiar with a new VP making $73 MM with the performing CEO only making $9 MM wouldn't that make you curious? It sure as hell made me more curoious.
As has been pointed out by others above, she's not making $73M (or $75M, or whatever). That was an upfront payment to compensate her for giving her up the Burberry stock she had, plus (perhaps) a signing bonus. Her annual salary is much smaller than that.*
That would be like saying Tim Cook "makes $400M" (since that is the value of unvested stock and options that Apple gave him at the time he became CEO after Jobs's death, if I recall right; it could have been a bit higher than that).
You're comparing apples and oranges.
*Add: According to this, her annual salary is $3.35M.
Right, which is what I stated at the beginning.
That said, you could still make a case for Ahrendts earning at that level. Let me see, HOW much does Apple's retail empire earn in profits each year? Let's give Ahrendts an imaginary bonus of five percent of that amount. I'd bet it would be more than $75M a year.
I always find it amusing that we think Apple executives are overpaid, but think nothing about giving somebody who just runs around a court dribbling a basketball for a living that kind of money ...
Keeping a low profile is right. We hear all about how much money she made from the Apple deal, but yet we hear next to nothing about what she actually does at Apple. Is she some kind of PR figurehead that gives credence to the gold Apple Watch, and nothing more?
Another weird post on the topic that sounds self-entitled.
If you're asking as an Apple shareholder, this is all you as an investor have a right to know: https://www.apple.com/pr/bios/angela-ahrendts.html
If you are any other stakeholder (e.g., customer, supplier, creditor, etc.), Apple (as with any other company) is not required to tell you anything at all about any officer of the company.
Oh man. I have to admit that one was pretty good. Lol
So was hiring Browett "talent recognizes talent" or "greatness recognizes greatness"? Was Jobs hiring Isaacson to write his bio even though he can't keep his facts straight "talent recognizes talent" or "greatness recognizes greatness"?
The fact is that being great doesn't make you immune to mistakes- great people screw up all the time. That's OK. And arguing that this or that decision made by Cook was wrong does not necessarily make someone a troll. Hopefully Ahrendts works out. We'll see after the Apple Watch. Taking 75 million for doing nothing aside from leaving a job selling clothes suggest arrogance, which is a justifiable cause for skepticism. Sculley did not need 75 million to give up the sugar-water business, and he stuck around and grew sales by a factor of 10. We'll see what she does.
Yeah but she had to give up her stocks and benefits earned at her previous employer. Apple is just compensating her for previous earnings that she lost as a result of her leaving her employer to join Apple....not to mention the risk involved.
I cant help but to think that this wouldnt even be an issue if she was a man. People always seem to do the most when blacks and women are put in powerful positions that pay well.
It doesn't matter what is being sold, be it technology or fashion
Actually it does. Ron Johnson showed that very well. There is no universally successful "customer experience" that you can drop into any industry, even ones you have little understanding of, and succeed. The product is absolutely critical as it affects things like the amount of emotion the customer puts into the decision, the amount of time they will spend on it, the way they want to shop for it, etc. The product can steer one retail chain into a vastly different place from another. MacDonald's deliberate painted their stores in hostile colors (clashing orange and red) in order to get people moving as quickly as possible. Other products require the exact opposite approach. Ahrendts has no "experience" formula from fashion that she can drop into electronics, and the hubris of past success will be a hazard for her. Even things like 'customer service' mean totally different things depending on the product. Ahrendts may well adapt and succeed, but there's no way of knowing that yet.
This is what I love about the Internet, everyone's an armchair quarterback and they just love to jump on the pessimist bandwagon when someone makes a mistake. First of all, Tim saying, "he wasn't a good fit for the culture" is extremely insightful when talking about a company that values their corporate culture more than anything else. It makes perfect sense and does not come off as corporate BS. The only person that would even think such a thing is someone that does not know or follow Apple.
This is awfully defensive. Every company that's ever fired someone ever has said they weren't a good fit. It's just normal corporate speak. Google "wasn't a good fit" and you'll find every coach, every CEO, etc. who has ever been fired. Obviously Browett wasn't a good fit, neither was Forestall, neither was anyone else who they fired. What Cook will never tell you is how he was deceived into thinking he was a good fit, or what attributes Browett has that made him a bad fit.
Second, John Browett was successful in his prior position at Dixons, and instrumental in turning around their horrible customer service. Dixons is a far larger retail chain than Apple's stores and his ability to up the quality of customer service is completely inline with Apple's interests in expanding their retail experience while retaining their level of service. This is why he was hired by Tim Cook. However, it was painfully obvious that Browett was not able to acclimate himself to Apple's corporate culture as Tim cook had hoped, so he was fired.
Now here's you're just plain wrong. Dixons has less revenue than Apple retail and far, far less profit. It is not larger and never will be. I also guess you haven't lived in the UK. I have. Browett didn't turn around Dixons horrible customer service. He worsened it. He achieved temporary financial success via cost control, nothing more.
If someone offered me a $76 million salary package, I'd sort of 'click' with them too. At the very least it would show that they understood me.
Starting today, you could be discriminated against in Indiana, because you use an Apple product, re: Tim Cook's sexual preference.
#boycottindiana
1) There are certainly pros to her position at Apple (otherwise she wouldn't have taken it), but she did have to step down from being a CEO to an SVP position at Apple. Also, as previously mentioned several times in this thread, a good part of that compensation package was to counter what she'd be losing by leaving Burberry (presumably before some maturity date).
2) BF voted your post up which should be an indicator of something.
The $75m didn't vest all at once, it is spread out until 2018, so she will have to prove her mettle in order to get the whole lot. This article provides an interesting context, as well as information on the vesting schedule:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/05/06/angela-ahrendts-gets-sizzling-68-million-welcome-at-apple-too-much/
There is a very interesting quote from her in the article: 'As the New Yorker put it recently, one of her tasks is to make wearable technology chic — “more Burberry, less Borg.” '
Yes. Ahrendts coming to Apple involved a lot of money, but it didn't amount to a huge increase in future compensation compared to what she could have expected from Burberry's. Apple's financial incentive package was a necessary hurdle to make her whole and remove one of the big potential downsides. On the minus side for her, she was giving up a job she clearly loved and was great at. She was giving up a CEO spot to go back reporting to someone else instead of directly to a board. She was uprooting her family from an incredibly comfortable life in London at a critical age for her children. The plus side? The joy of an immense challenge and opportunity to have a measurable new accomplishment on a global scale. Her job is Cinderella's slipper in the sense that Ahrendts already personified Apple's culture before she first set foot through the front door. Think about Ahrendts' background and skill set and you may be looking in the longer term at the ideal successor to Cook as CEO.