For a man in Tim’s position, flying commercial is silly. This is a practical change. Most CEOs with access to a corporate or lease jet will demand to use it. It speaks volumes that Tim hasn’t.
Musk is brilliant but he’s not shipping. If the 3 were hitting the streets at 20000 optimum quality units a month, he’d have it made. He’d be disrupting the entire industry. I’d say it’s a massive fail. By the time Tesla begins to ship in volume, the competition will be right on its heels.
Tim has handled riding the Saturn V Post-Jobs rocket. He hasn’t made any huge mistakes. This batterygait thing is dumb people looking for a way to cash in. To my mind, Apple admitted it because they genuinely felt it was a good engineering decision. The fail was not putting an added option on the Low Power Mode screen, “Time for a new battery. Would you prefer full performance and shorter battery life or...”
What I perceive in the Tim era is
Mild erosion in the functionality of some Apple Apps. Mainly, fashion over function choices. Things like KeyChain are literally a joke.
Significantly falling behind in AI. To me, Siri is still almost silly, especially compared to the competition. I truly understand why, but the market doesn’t care about security.
Slow to ship - HomeKit, All Macs, HomePod, Disruptive electric/self-driving car tech, etc.
Absence of bold new devices. All they’ve done is the watch.
All of the above smell like a lack of courage and senior VP ass kicking, which is what allows process to overtake content. 2018 better be a good year.
iOS will already tell you that your battery needs servicing. And if you look carefully at the problem Apple was trying to solve then your message would actually read:
“Time for a new battery. Would you prefer full performance or would you prefer your phone to shut down unexpectedly at some undefined point in the future?”
The rest of your post sounds like the opinion of someone who perhaps doesn’t understand product engineering and volume manufacturing, but it is, of course an opinion you’re entitled to.
Have to fix this wording. It needs to be “Time for a new battery. Would you prefer lower performance or would you prefer your phone to shut down unexpectedly at some undefined point in the future?”
Flying commercial is much safer than using a corporate jet. Do they take that into account?
And that $93,000 figure is probably per hour of flying, not a total for the whole year.
CEO’s are regularly under personal risk of being kidnapped, subject to violence and terrorist attacks, and so forth. People generally don’t talk about it, but companies like Apple and CEO’s like Cook receive numerous threats.
This is just a matter of personal safety. And par for the course. Most Fortune 500 CEOs get this perk. Nothing much to see here.
The cost Apple will absorb is like me getting a Starbucks coffee...I was surprised to find out he had not been doing this already really. Although Tim lacks some of the qualities I like in a leader (things Jobs and Musk have) there probably are not too many people that can direct a huge global powerhouse with such discipline. He is not perfect. But pretty damn good.
There’s a big difference between Musk and Cook. Cook can actually ship products. You may call Elon Musk a visionary but as a businessman he sucks. Tesla is losing money hand over fist. Musk promises the Moon (and Mars) but it’s only talk. How long has he been promising the yet to be delivered Model 3? Now he’s promising a pickup truck and an over the road tractor. He talks a good line but can’t deliver the goods. He wants to go to Mars but can’t get an astronaut off the ground yet. Everything with Musk is always years out. It’s coming... it’s coming. Oh, and what about the Home Battery he’s been promising for years?
You are insane. Why would a profitable company buy a company that consums money? Why would you hire a mentally (permanently) incapacitated person to be a vp of eng? Today’s Woz is about hype of the past, but mentally (after an accident) he is not up to the job....
As for the private air travel and personal security just take a look at some of the posts in these forums. There’s raging hatred of the rich being stirred up by the left wing media, the European socialists who post here, and the Democratic party. Class warfare is being promoted as the solution. Kill the rich and eat their children. There’s tremendous Apple hatred from the right wing too because of Apple’s stance on social issues. Lately the Drudge Report has been zeroing in on articles that put Apple in a negative light so it wouldn’t surprise me if some nut job from the left or right decided to try and get Cook. He’s rich, he’s gay, he’s an activist, the perfect target for some enraged zealot.
Maybe 2 sophomores at a Midwestern cow college are "leftists" who hate Apple. 60 years of activism tells me science, an appreciation of sci-tech, takes precedence over weenie anarchism any day.
Elon Musk definitely has a style of leadership similar to Steve Jobs; and also something Tim Cook falls short at; and also leaves many things desired.
Secondly, I don't think people truly realized the impact Wozniak had on Apple; Jobs and Wozniak remained friends following all the terrible things that persuaded Wozniak to leave.
Believing Musk could run Apple better than Cook shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Even with Jobs as CEO Apple couldn't have gotten to where it was without Cook.
But Cook's value and expertise isn't in leadership. Without Jobs as part of that team, Cook has turned Apple into a Wall Street addict, under control of primary stock holders.
Elon Musk definitely has a style of leadership similar to Steve Jobs; and also something Tim Cook falls short at; and also leaves many things desired.
Secondly, I don't think people truly realized the impact Wozniak had on Apple; Jobs and Wozniak remained friends following all the terrible things that persuaded Wozniak to leave.
Believing Musk could run Apple better than Cook shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Even with Jobs as CEO Apple couldn't have gotten to where it was without Cook.
Cook is a god damn good capitalistic-wallstreet kind of CEO for earning cash to his investors by milking his customers while Elon and Jobs where visionaries. I don't say Jobs didn't know how to milk his customer, but he was way different then Cook.
Right... You don't know WTF your talking about on Musk, Jobs or Cook, if anyone's "in the circus" by the way its musk who worries as much as trying to milk the next investor in one of his schemes as releasing an actual product that makes money. So, which side of that god damn equation is being a capitalist the bilking investors, or bilking clients?
Not to mention all the fracking schemes Jobs was running and the many many many fuckups he did (financially, ethically and in product design).
Cook has been essentially fully the CEO of Apple for the whole Iphone era with Jobs concentrating on product dev side of marketing for most of his tenure as "CEO". He's was also a pillar of the return of Apple to profitability in 1998; Jobs recruited him right away and then trusted him fully. The key to Jobs doing his thing for 12 years was Cooks enabling him to do so by controlling costs and building an unmatched supply line. You can't make great products if you're bankrupt and Jobs understood that and that's were Cook came in.
You must be kidding... Woz is so far behind the curve on technology that he couldn’t design a thing today... and he knows it too.
Well, I think Fusion-IO still a fantastic system. Wozniak had a role as Chief Scientist at the company that developed the concept and hardware before SanDisk bought the company. Now, the technology is seen in high-performance server systems sold by HP, IBM, and Appp... Oh wait, Apple doesn't have an enterprise server anymore...
Actually- Steve Jobs was paid 1$ so he could avoid paying the high end tax bracket. He was paid in stock options. A far lower tax bill.
The vast majority of the compensation that Mr. Jobs received after returning to Apple came in the form of RSUs, not stock options. (He was granted a large amount of stock options as CEO, but voluntarily canceled those. He was also granted a comparably small amount of stock options as a Director when he first came back to Apple. He eventually exercised those.)
The point in being compensated through RSUs rather than salary (or non-equity incentives) isn't to avoid taxation. They are treated the same for tax purposes. When RSUs vest, they are treated as ordinary income. Taxes are due on them, based on their market value at that point, whether they are sold or not. If the shares are held and the holder realizes gains from that point forward, those gains are treated as capital gains. But the same would be the case if they were paid cash and used it to buy shares.
When it comes to non-qualified stock options, more or less the same is true. The bargain element of a (non-qualified) stock option exercise (i.e. the market price at time of exercise minus the exercise price) is treated as ordinary income for tax purposes.
For those interested in what Mr. Jobs received as compensation in his second run at Apple: He received 840,000 (split-adjusted) shares for being a Director and 70 million (split-adjusted) shares for being CEO. He also received other compensation, most notably a private jet. He never sold any of those shares. When he died (at least, based on the last reporting we have before he died), he held nearly 39 million (split-adjusted) shares. Those included what was left after tax withholding from the 70.84 million which I just referred to and the 28 (split-adjusted) shares which he had held onto after he left Apple and still had when he returned. The latter was actually just 1 share, but it had split 4-1 by the time Mr. Jobs died and (would have, at least) split another 7-1 after he died.
Elon Musk definitely has a style of leadership similar to Steve Jobs; and also something Tim Cook falls short at; and also leaves many things desired.
Secondly, I don't think people truly realized the impact Wozniak had on Apple; Jobs and Wozniak remained friends following all the terrible things that persuaded Wozniak to leave.
Believing Musk could run Apple better than Cook shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Even with Jobs as CEO Apple couldn't have gotten to where it was without Cook.
But Cook's value and expertise isn't in leadership. Without Jobs as part of that team, Cook has turned Apple into a Wall Street addict, under control of primary stock holders.
Prove your crap cause facts don't back it buddy.
Only one I see as a Wall Street / investor slaves are the Musk the clown, Bezo and the circus at Google who will do anything to bump on their PE or suck some more money from the market.
Running a company that delivers 250 million devices in 200 countries is something that requires an expertise that Jobs did not have (and he's be the first to admit that). Apple got there and the reason it has not crashed and burned is because of people like Cook.
Flying commercial is much safer than using a corporate jet. Do they take that into account?
And that $93,000 figure is probably per hour of flying, not a total for the whole year.
The $93,000 would have been the costs incurred by Apple for Mr. Cook's personal air travel, not the costs incurred by Apple for all of his air travel. The costs for his personal air travel would be considered as part of his compensation. The costs for his other air travel would not.
As for the private air travel and personal security just take a look at some of the posts in these forums. There’s raging hatred of the rich being stirred up by the left wing media, the European socialists who post here, and the Democratic party. Class warfare is being promoted as the solution. Kill the rich and eat their children. There’s tremendous Apple hatred from the right wing too because of Apple’s stance on social issues. Lately the Drudge Report has been zeroing in on articles that put Apple in a negative light so it wouldn’t surprise me if some nut job from the left or right decided to try and get Cook. He’s rich, he’s gay, he’s an activist, the perfect target for some enraged zealot.
Right... False equivalency, the ethically bankrupt sacks of shits that just "borrowed" many trillion dollar from the US gov to give themselves tax cuts that supposedly will turn into productive assets and pay itself back (sic) have nothing to do with Cook at all.
You just pulled that out of your ass to try to make a belabored point. Don't even try.
As for "left" media. There is no such thing in the US. Even the most "left" leaning party or media in the US looks like a conservative think thank compared to anything similar in the rest of the world. If someone is to the left of you, it doesn't make it a left wing media. The center is also there buddy.
If being rich, when it is earned and not some multi-generational landed gentry with the support of the state with a zero sum game were everyone else loses, is perfectly fine. That's not what has happened with the discredited since the 1980s "tinkle down" policy mister orange turd and his cohorts has been advocating.
I'm perfectly fine with someone like Cook, getting as much money has he's due. As CEO's go, his pay actually matches his worth to the company unlike the many leaches that suck the US federal government dry like vampires while at the saying they "despise it".. You know, privatize profits nationalize risk....
As for the private air travel and personal security just take a look at some of the posts in these forums. There’s raging hatred of the rich being stirred up by the left wing media, the European socialists who post here, and the Democratic party. Class warfare is being promoted as the solution. Kill the rich and eat their children. There’s tremendous Apple hatred from the right wing too because of Apple’s stance on social issues.
Yes there are idiots on these forums spewing aggressive animosity toward Cook, mostly on the libertarian front, where junior capitalists talk like Tim Cook is wasting time and money not being 100% purely focused on capitalistic theory at every second of every day. I've not seen even these people make actual threats of violence (which is not only against the terms of this site but also not protected speech). But if you're seeing it elsewhere, well welcome to the internet where anonymity unleashes the worst of human behavior. Such people are not indicative of anything other than their own individual stupidity. Don't mistake them for any actual "movement". The actual movements to worry about are the nazis parading through towns trying to inspire hate and fear, and even those people aren't a majority (the bigger problem with them is the conservatives who refuse to step up against them, which is terribly unpatriotic, since the USA literally fought a war against nazis and their ideals).
Yes, there are people being hostile to corporatism, but that doesn't automatically make them "European socialists". Being opposed to corruption and corporatism actually makes people more likely to be patriotic, since corporatism is destroying the way of life that, for example the USA, supposedly stands for.
Calling out the democrat party in the same breath as "European socialists" just shows that it is you who's been getting hyperbolized media. The democrat party isn't remotely extreme left. It's not remotely anti-rich or anti-corporate. The democrat party leadership is fully embedded in the corporatism wrecking our economies (globally) and they are outright protective of them (why do you think the democrat party avoided Sanders so blatantly?). The democrat party might be mildly socially progressive, in comparison to the republican party, but that's mostly where the differences end. The duopoly parties both seek a type of control that borders on fascism, because it's really government for the corporations, by the corporations.
Your claim that the left-wing media is "stirring up hatred of the rich..." comes from the right wing media stirring up hate for anything that challenges it. Mainstream (and even independent media of any worth) with a liberal bias isn't spewing hate and division. Watch it sometime. If all you see is hate and division, maybe you're extremely insecure in regard to facts and reality. The tactic of extreme hyperbole and divisive commentary is almost entirely owned by the right's talking heads. If you only watch/listen to those people, you're going to have a hard time getting any sense of reality from their extreme presentations.
I think Tim Cook is performing adequately and I favor Apple keeping him as CEO for the foreseeable future.
I don't know the details of exactly how his compensation works, but I hope that it's smart enough that he isn't rewarded for a general rise in the stock market. Similarly, he shouldn't be punished for a decline in Apple stock that is related to an overall decline in the stock market.
Ideally, they would be trying to calculate Tim Cook's value added, and rewarding him for that. How is Apple performing relative to a relevant benchmark? I think that's the key.
There’s a big difference between Musk and Cook. Cook can actually ship products. You may call Elon Musk a visionary but as a businessman he sucks. Tesla is losing money hand over fist. Musk promises the Moon (and Mars) but it’s only talk. How long has he been promising the yet to be delivered Model 3? Now he’s promising a pickup truck and an over the road tractor. He talks a good line but can’t deliver the goods. He wants to go to Mars but can’t get an astronaut off the ground yet. Everything with Musk is always years out. It’s coming... it’s coming. Oh, and what about the Home Battery he’s been promising for years?
Musk strikes me as the kind of guy who starts a project in his garage and not finish it before moving to the next project, thus littering his garage with half-finished projects.
Many bash Cook for delayed product introduction (HomePod, iMac Pro, new Mac Pro, etc.), but it takes a well-run company to produce 50+ million of anything in consumer electronics per quarter, yet Apple do this with several models of flagship smartphones.
That is why the GMs, Fords, VAG, BMW, etc of the world will overtake Tesla in electric vehicle manufacturing. Musk underestimated the "backend" of product development.
BTW, I do wish Musk's solar roof/PowerWall "project" makes it. Musk is innovative, but he has to slow down and execute. Like Cook.
Comments
And that $93,000 figure is probably per hour of flying, not a total for the whole year.
This is just a matter of personal safety. And par for the course. Most Fortune 500 CEOs get this perk. Nothing much to see here.
There’s a big difference between Musk and Cook. Cook can actually ship products. You may call Elon Musk a visionary but as a businessman he sucks. Tesla is losing money hand over fist. Musk promises the Moon (and Mars) but it’s only talk. How long has he been promising the yet to be delivered Model 3? Now he’s promising a pickup truck and an over the road tractor. He talks a good line but can’t deliver the goods. He wants to go to Mars but can’t get an astronaut off the ground yet. Everything with Musk is always years out. It’s coming... it’s coming. Oh, and what about the Home Battery he’s been promising for years?
Right... You don't know WTF your talking about on Musk, Jobs or Cook, if anyone's "in the circus" by the way its musk who worries as much as trying to milk the next investor in one of his schemes as releasing an actual product that makes money. So, which side of that god damn equation is being a capitalist the bilking investors, or bilking clients?
Not to mention all the fracking schemes Jobs was running and the many many many fuckups he did (financially, ethically and in product design).
Cook has been essentially fully the CEO of Apple for the whole Iphone era with Jobs concentrating on product dev side of marketing for most of his tenure as "CEO".
He's was also a pillar of the return of Apple to profitability in 1998; Jobs recruited him right away and then trusted him fully.
The key to Jobs doing his thing for 12 years was Cooks enabling him to do so by controlling costs and building an unmatched supply line.
You can't make great products if you're bankrupt and Jobs understood that and that's were Cook came in.
The point in being compensated through RSUs rather than salary (or non-equity incentives) isn't to avoid taxation. They are treated the same for tax purposes. When RSUs vest, they are treated as ordinary income. Taxes are due on them, based on their market value at that point, whether they are sold or not. If the shares are held and the holder realizes gains from that point forward, those gains are treated as capital gains. But the same would be the case if they were paid cash and used it to buy shares.
When it comes to non-qualified stock options, more or less the same is true. The bargain element of a (non-qualified) stock option exercise (i.e. the market price at time of exercise minus the exercise price) is treated as ordinary income for tax purposes.
For those interested in what Mr. Jobs received as compensation in his second run at Apple: He received 840,000 (split-adjusted) shares for being a Director and 70 million (split-adjusted) shares for being CEO. He also received other compensation, most notably a private jet. He never sold any of those shares. When he died (at least, based on the last reporting we have before he died), he held nearly 39 million (split-adjusted) shares. Those included what was left after tax withholding from the 70.84 million which I just referred to and the 28 (split-adjusted) shares which he had held onto after he left Apple and still had when he returned. The latter was actually just 1 share, but it had split 4-1 by the time Mr. Jobs died and (would have, at least) split another 7-1 after he died.
Only one I see as a Wall Street / investor slaves are the Musk the clown, Bezo and the circus at Google who will do anything to bump on their PE or suck some more money from the market.
Running a company that delivers 250 million devices in 200 countries is something that requires an expertise that Jobs did not have (and he's be the first to admit that). Apple got there and the reason it has not crashed and burned is because of people like Cook.
You just pulled that out of your ass to try to make a belabored point. Don't even try.
As for "left" media. There is no such thing in the US. Even the most "left" leaning party or media in the US looks like a conservative think thank compared to anything similar in the rest of the world. If someone is to the left of you, it doesn't make it a left wing media. The center is also there buddy.
If being rich, when it is earned and not some multi-generational landed gentry with the support of the state with a zero sum game were everyone else loses, is perfectly fine.
That's not what has happened with the discredited since the 1980s "tinkle down" policy mister orange turd and his cohorts has been advocating.
I'm perfectly fine with someone like Cook, getting as much money has he's due. As CEO's go, his pay actually matches his worth to the company unlike the many leaches that suck the US federal government dry like vampires while at the saying they "despise it".. You know, privatize profits nationalize risk....
Yes, there are people being hostile to corporatism, but that doesn't automatically make them "European socialists". Being opposed to corruption and corporatism actually makes people more likely to be patriotic, since corporatism is destroying the way of life that, for example the USA, supposedly stands for.
Calling out the democrat party in the same breath as "European socialists" just shows that it is you who's been getting hyperbolized media. The democrat party isn't remotely extreme left. It's not remotely anti-rich or anti-corporate. The democrat party leadership is fully embedded in the corporatism wrecking our economies (globally) and they are outright protective of them (why do you think the democrat party avoided Sanders so blatantly?). The democrat party might be mildly socially progressive, in comparison to the republican party, but that's mostly where the differences end. The duopoly parties both seek a type of control that borders on fascism, because it's really government for the corporations, by the corporations.
Your claim that the left-wing media is "stirring up hatred of the rich..." comes from the right wing media stirring up hate for anything that challenges it. Mainstream (and even independent media of any worth) with a liberal bias isn't spewing hate and division. Watch it sometime. If all you see is hate and division, maybe you're extremely insecure in regard to facts and reality. The tactic of extreme hyperbole and divisive commentary is almost entirely owned by the right's talking heads. If you only watch/listen to those people, you're going to have a hard time getting any sense of reality from their extreme presentations.
I don't know the details of exactly how his compensation works, but I hope that it's smart enough that he isn't rewarded for a general rise in the stock market. Similarly, he shouldn't be punished for a decline in Apple stock that is related to an overall decline in the stock market.
Ideally, they would be trying to calculate Tim Cook's value added, and rewarding him for that. How is Apple performing relative to a relevant benchmark? I think that's the key.
Many bash Cook for delayed product introduction (HomePod, iMac Pro, new Mac Pro, etc.), but it takes a well-run company to produce 50+ million of anything in consumer electronics per quarter, yet Apple do this with several models of flagship smartphones.
That is why the GMs, Fords, VAG, BMW, etc of the world will overtake Tesla in electric vehicle manufacturing. Musk underestimated the "backend" of product development.
BTW, I do wish Musk's solar roof/PowerWall "project" makes it. Musk is innovative, but he has to slow down and execute. Like Cook.