x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Home
  • News
  • Apple's chief executive Tim Cook is the best paid CEO of 2011

Apple's chief executive Tim Cook is the best paid CEO of 2011

Posted: , by Victor H.

Tags:

Apple's chief executive Tim Cook is the best paid CEO of 2011
Apple’s chief executive officer Tim Cook has one of the toughest jobs in tech by being the successor to Steve Jobs. So far, he’s done a tremendous job from what we can see, with Apple stock soaring in value, but don’t worry - he’s well reimbursed for that. In 2011, Cook was the best paid chief executive by a huge margin with a yearly salary of $378 million. To put things in perspective, the runner-up, Oracle’s Larry Ellison has a yearly remuneration of $76 million in both shares and bonuses. Very interestingly, another person to make it in the top five is Motorola Mobility CEO (now, former CEO) Sanjay Jha with a whopping $46.6 million.

Virtually all of that money comes from stock - one million Apple shares, to be exact. Don’t rush into conclusion about what he can do with the money, though. The Apple CEO cannot sell half of them in the next five years, and the other half by 2021, so this will keep Cook tied to the performance of Apple. 

The base salary of Cook is much less than that at a mere $900,000 and bonuses of almost as much. Among other things, Steve Jobs was also known for his salary of $1 per year, so comparatively Tim Cook is earning much more money.

source: WSJ

59 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 22 May 2012, 10:26 5

2. JeffdaBeat (unregistered)


I would only imagine so...Steve Jobs pretty much made him his heir apparent during his second tenure with the company. I figure Apple wanted to do anything it could to keep him around. Still, I'm having a big problem with how well these CEOs are paid compared to their underlings. Not just Apple, but with most business. I keep thinking these guys make more in one year than I'd spend my entire life. Imagine how many jobs could be created if they didn't have to be richer than God. If they took a salary that will make them well off, but that was realistic for one human to live comfortably without being ridiculous...but I'm sure thinking like that makes me a communist...

posted on 22 May 2012, 10:33 5

3. jmoita2 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)


They follow Gordon Gecko's motto... "Greed is good".
I believe these creatures are to today's world what the royalty of Europe was in the 17th century. They want to own everything, have all the gold,control the universe itself. And the peasants??? Let them eat cake!!!

posted on 22 May 2012, 10:37 5

4. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)


No that does not make you a communist, just a reasonable human being. Honestly, any reasonable person coule live comfortably the rest of their life on a fraction of what he got paid, stock options or not. That goes for many CEOs. The sad part is, there are CEOs and former CEOs of other companies that ran their companies into the ground, and STILL got a huge paycheck.

I'm not saying people should be getting handouts with the money, but that money could go to paying many honest workers a decent wage, making it beneficial to ALL.

That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth....

posted on 22 May 2012, 10:46 2

7. JeffdaBeat (unregistered)


That I agree with. I remember when Sprint got rid of Gary Foresee as their CEO. He got paid millions just to leave. I think that was my first sticker shock moment of seeing just how ridiculous these people are getting paid. Granted, I do think the more important your position is, the more you should be paid...but when you're richer than God (phrase I use when you make more than you and your family could spend in a lifetime)...it's just ridiculous. No there shouldn't be hand outs, but imagine if you as a CEO made 2 million a year. What would the other 20 million buy in terms of jobs. I've seen some make 60 to 100 million. What if you paid your employees more. Chances are, they will stay in their jobs and with their companies for the rest of their lives because "What's better than what we got here?" But it seems like that's a thought that went away with the early to mid 20th century...

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:15 1

20. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


i dont care what they get paid as a CEO as long as its in line with what the company makes. If the company is profiting a million a year.. or worse.. losing money, the CEO shouldnt be making 7 figure paychecks. On the other hand what would be appropriate for a company like apple? Cooke ISNT getting paid what they said up top. He gets 900k a year, and he gets to have the OPTION to pull stocks for money after 5 years or so.
But what would be appropriate? They have more money than the US Gov. By the same ratio, Cook could be getting paid like 150 million a year in true pay checks and the company wouldnt blink.

Its true there are some jack asses out there that make bad headlines for the rest of the CEOs, but the reality is that to become a CEO you either had to put your entire life on the line financially and emotionally to start up a business and make something of it, which entitles you to make as much as your company can afford (which many small start up CEOs make less than their employees.).... OR you had to go to school to get a masters degree which takes a lot of time and money.. then work your way up. People dont start as CEOs. They work their way up. It takes time.

All I hear when people cry about CEO pay is jealousy. The vast vast vast majority of them had to make a lot of right and hard decisions and sacrifices in their life to get that high on the totem pole. Most of them work regular 80+ hour weeks. And every decision they make has thousands of people's lives on the line. That is an extremely high stress job. Ever watch how fast a president ages in his first term from the stress? Thats what happens to many CEOs.

You always get paid better to work with your mind than your back. Thats life.

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:21 6

22. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)


You complain about Foxconn worker pay, but are ok with CEO's making obscene salaries.

Can you stay consistent with anything you say?

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:28 1

26. JeffdaBeat (unregistered)


I agree that CEO's jobs are far more than sit on the top and let other people make most of the decisions for you. I think that tends to be the general public's thought on what it takes to be a CEO. And yes, they should be paid well to do what they do. When folks talk about how much politicians make, I counter it with how their decisions effect a population of 300 million people. They should be paid a lot for what they do. CEO's another executives are the same.

But at what point does that payment become excessive and ridiculous? I think that's what bothers me. I'm not saying a person shouldn't be well off. Hell, if you work that hard, you shouldn't have to worry about anything financially for the rest of your life. Even if you didn't build the company up and you're occupying the seat...a lot of responsibility, both direct and indirect, falls on your shoulders. But being paid more money than you or even your descendants could spend in a life time is just kind of ridiculous. I saw a chart detailing the difference in pay that CEO's got relative to their underlings years ago and today...CEO's pay have sky rocketed while their employees stayed the same given inflation. Does one person really need that much money? Couldn't the company use it to reward their employees while still paying their CEO's well?

I dunno...I think that was the one thing that bothered me about working for AT&T. Year after year, they worked tirelessly to find a way to make it harder for us to hit our quota and to lower the actual payout of that quota. And we worked damned hard to keep the face of the company, even as AT&T spit on their customers with terrible customer service and, quite honestly, a terrible network. But De La Vega as well as Stephenson got hefty checks regardless. Yes, the leader should get more...but at what point is it just ridiculous?

posted on 22 May 2012, 13:19

32. itiswhatitis (Posts: 422; Member since: 23 Jan 2012)


No pay's ridiculous,there always a backstage dramas as to why they get that much, that common think it's just 'ridiculous'!

posted on 22 May 2012, 13:43

35. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


the only thing I can say about CEO pay is if someone doesn't like how much they get paid then figure out what it takes to be CEO, BECOME ONE, and then lower your pay. its easy as hell to bitch about it but when push comes to shove, if you can wiggle a few extra million in YOUR contract negotiations, you would.

I disagree with huge pay outs to CEOs that leave a company in the red and run with a golden parachute but in all honesty its part of the contract that both the CEO and the company agreed to. if the company tried to renig on that contract then they would open. up themselves to huge lawsuits and be in even worse shape.
the only way to change it is to change contract negotiations ..which is going to take a long time to filter through.

there is no reason Sanjay got 40x more than Cook, other than the fact that his contract required fulfillment for him to walk out the door.

pay discrepancy is pretty wide.. no doubt. but that change has to come from within the company, not from the government gun.
as the media continues to play the "evil CEO" card over and over to convince people that the free market is bad and government is the answer, they are hurting their own arguements from too much scrutiny. its putting a lot of pressure on many companies to clean up their act themselves. it just takes time.

posted on 22 May 2012, 11:32

14. akshaye.shenoi (Posts: 24; Member since: 16 Apr 2012)


I bet if tomorrow you start earning that much you won't give a rat's a** about what you just said. I mean, sure you'll hate this comment now, but isn't that the reality?

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:03 1

18. jmoita2 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)


No, the reality is that some of us, although surprising to you do actually care about the rest of the humans in this little blue planet. I for instance would still live a comfortable life while actively using the endless millions of dollars to feed starving little children in Africa. Why, is there something wrong with that???

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:39 1

29. gallitoking (Posts: 4684; Member since: 17 May 2011)


people have been feeding starving kids in Africa and they keep having more kids... I guess none of you see a pattern there.. but good intentionss though

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:41

30. jmoita2 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)


You are the perfect poster child for the urgent need for birth control.

posted on 22 May 2012, 17:12

42. Whateverman (Posts: 3196; Member since: 17 May 2009)


What the heck does that mean? Please clarify.

posted on 22 May 2012, 18:39 1

46. gallitoking (Posts: 4684; Member since: 17 May 2011)


jmoita things helps his concious feeding kids from Africa for years and starving kids is on the rise...because they keep having kids.. if he truly wants to help.. educated their parents to not have more kids if they live in poverty,... that in the long run will help them than raising one child and that child will multiply once the it reaches its teenage years..

posted on 22 May 2012, 19:49 2

48. Whateverman (Posts: 3196; Member since: 17 May 2009)


G-king...you're my guy, but that is the silliest thing I've seen here on PA. Youre basically saying instead of feeding hungry people, we should tell their parents to stop f*cking??? Do you really think that's the answer? Has that worked here in the US...no it hasn't. People are going to love each other and even make love no matter what their financial status may be. Telling people to "keep it in your pants" isn't going to stop world hunger and you know that. I don't even know why you would type something like that!

And what's so wrong about people being and wanting other people to be humane to one another? Why are so many people here so offended with the concept of humanity?

posted on 22 May 2012, 13:30

33. akshaye.shenoi (Posts: 24; Member since: 16 Apr 2012)


Ohh so you're a humanitarian?
Tell me, what have you done so far for humanity?
And according to you, billionaires shouldn't exist. They shouldn't get what they've worked hard for? You may never know he must have donated a lot to charity. This is just ridiculous. You can't call a person bad just coz he's earning a lot.

posted on 22 May 2012, 13:44 1

37. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)


A billion dollars is far more than any one human being should ever need, even going generations down the family line.

Also, I saw nothing there saying Cook is a bad person, just that his pay is excessive, which I agree with. We all have our opinions, and one of the best things about the U.S. and other countries that allow free speech is that we can talk, disagree, and life goes on.

posted on 22 May 2012, 21:20 1

54. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6422; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)


He's no humanitarian. he's a ZOMBIE like all others. He think CEOs deserve millions of dollars and doesn't realize he's giving his money to Appple and the CEO

posted on 22 May 2012, 14:08 1

38. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


99% of tje money you "giveto the poor and starving" in Africa actually ends up in the hands of warlords who just buy more guns to kill people with. unless your directly handing out money, your not making a positive impact..

didn't you ever wonder how a warlord of an area that is so dirt poor that they don't colletively have a dollar.. yet the warlord quickly becomes super rich? from collecting all your donations to the poor..

posted on 22 May 2012, 11:59

17. ZEUS.the.thunder.god (unregistered)


well said bro..

posted on 22 May 2012, 10:40 2

5. darktranquillity (Posts: 284; Member since: 28 Feb 2012)


Why not when there's people who are ready to pay abnormaly foolish price for the products.

posted on 22 May 2012, 10:46 2

8. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


yea, i was gonna mention that Cook didnt actually get paid any of that. Thats all long term stock that he cant sell. One bad year can wipe that out. He gets paid less than a million straight salary, which for a company that makes as much as it does, is pennies.

posted on 22 May 2012, 11:10 1

11. jmoita2 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)


Oh, poor baby Cook. I feel so sorry for him.

posted on 22 May 2012, 11:37 1

15. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)


remix, I usually agree with you but not this time. The article says, he can't sell half before 5 years are up, but half is currently worth $189 million....... So, he can sell enough to get paid more money than he needs the rest of his life right now. Oh poor baby he is so underpaid!*sarcasm drips and puddles on the floor*

I'm sure his job isn't easy, but really, how much money do you truly need other than to say "I'M F'N RICH!"?

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:21

23. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


"The Apple CEO cannot sell half of them in the next five years, and the other half by 2021, so this will keep Cook tied to the performance of Apple. "

He cant sell a single stock for the first 5 years. Being "worth" something and having that money in the bank are not the same things. Im worth well into 6 figures with all my property and other stuff, but my bank account sure as heck doesnt reflect it.

Overpaid/underpaid is subjective. Apple makes more money than everyone yet their CEO gets paid 1/40th of what motorola's CEO got paid, and Moto is running in the red.

dont fall into the trap of pay jealousy, because thats what your reply is.
How much money would it take for you to have to put up with steve job's insanity day in and day out and kiss his butt soo long and so hard that he named you CEO? I'd say thats worth more than 900k a year.

BTW,
Steve-o paid himself BILLIONS in stocks to keep his taxes low. His 1 dollar paycheck wasnt for the good of the company, it was to avoid paying nearly 40% in taxes, which is what cook is going to be paying on his million a year.

posted on 22 May 2012, 13:37

34. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)


First of all, don't assume you know that my post is "pay jealousy", because you don't know me at all, so you can't possibly know what perspective I am writing from.

Second, as another poster has put it, some of us do actually care about other people and would put a significant amount of money to good works, such as helping education, etc., once we have enough money to be secure. I for one do not need to drive a Bentley, Mercedes, or some other expensive car, own multiple houses in exclusive locations, or any such extravagance to be happy. So many of our issues today come from the ME ME ME mentality most of our society have now, IMO.

Third, I wouldn't have put up with Steve Job's insanity, because quite honestly, it would not be worth it to me. It might be to you, but not to me.

Careful what you assume my friend.

posted on 22 May 2012, 10:59 7

9. kabukijoe (Posts: 67; Member since: 06 Mar 2010)


Disgusting... Nobody, I repeat NOBODY needs to make that much money. I don't care about who you are, what you do or who you work for.

posted on 22 May 2012, 11:07 1

10. Republican (Posts: 99; Member since: 05 Apr 2012)


Actually, I think he is underpaid. Thank God such giants of industry priviledge us with their existence. Proof the Free markets, without interference from big government create wealth.

posted on 22 May 2012, 11:39 3

16. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)


Underpaid? Seriously? Please tell me how creating the vast majority of the wealth in such a small number of people is helpful to ANYONE but those that are rich? Again, I don't advocate handouts to anyone capable of working a job, but this pay structure for CEOs is just crazy.

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:07 1

19. Republican (Posts: 99; Member since: 05 Apr 2012)


But of course it is beneficial and created jobs. You for one could always be his gardner, or butler.

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:23 3

24. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)


Android south I agree with you.

Republicans are blasting this propaganda that filthy rich people create jobs which is untrue.

posted on 22 May 2012, 14:17

40. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


any time taco agrees with you, you have a 90% chance of being wrong.

trying to champion what YOU Think people need to have based on YOUR view of the world is wrong. freedom is choice, reward and conciquence. conformity to your view is a dictatorship. people will always have more or less than their neighbors.
the ONLY equality is the equality of choices and living with them

CEOS don't "luck" into their spots any more than a drug addict is "unlucky " when he is homeless. your life Is the culmination of your choices.
being free doesn't mean financial equality, in fact its the opposite. being free means you get to chose how yourblife goes.. good and bad.

posted on 22 May 2012, 14:53

41. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)


If I peddle "my opinion" as a fact, then I can be wrong. When it comes to opinions, there is no right or wrong viewpoint. You can disagree with me all day long, that in itself does not make me wrong and you right.

I believe that most CEO pay across the board is excessive, you do not. So be it. We can agree to disagree. So many times, the CEOs carry the praise or the blame for good times and bad times. In my opinion, the good times are largely because of the little guys below them that keep the wheels greased and turning, not the guy steering. The guy or gal steering doesn't matter if the wheels are locked up, if you get my meaning.

I'm not saying we all deserve the same thing, far from it. Its the wildly huge disparity between the top and the bottom is where my problem with the system is. You should get what you earn.

That said, how many people, be they CEOs, athletes, etc., TRULY earn hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars?

posted on 22 May 2012, 17:23

43. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


extremely few earn anywhere near that. most CEOs are lucky if they hit 6 digits on a regular basis.

people do get exactly what they are worth. when you got hired you sign on at a certain payscale for the job. if you don't like your payscale get a better skill set to get a better job. its that easy. I want to make as much or more than I used to make, so I'm back in school working my butt off to learn an entirely new career feild. from business to medicine because I see where the waves are headed.

like you mentioned, CEOs take the blame and Get the reward. how many CEOs do u know that have been in the same company for over 10 years that are nor founders? when things go bad, the CEO gets the ax.
brain always pays more than brawn. the Guy coordinating and steering the ship will always get paid more than the guys keeping it moving. those guys are responsible for their little part.. the captain is responsible for the whole thing.

posted on 22 May 2012, 17:43

44. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)


I'd have to research it but I'd be surprised if 90% or more of the Fortune 500 hit anything below 100k a year in salary. Beyond the salary, so many of them get perks we could only wish for. Health benefits, travel, vacation, and salary I'm sure for most if not all of the Fortune 500 probably exceed 250k.

If someone is willing to pay whatever, then fine, take it if you wish when the money gets that high. You and I just have a different view of what being a good steward to the society you live in is.

For me, I think a lot of it is so many people feel entitled to quite a bit that they should earn, and don't appreciate what they have compared to many others in our society.

I don't have a lot, but I have more than many people do, and I appreciate it. If I made the money a lot of these guys make, I would live well but also try and affect(effect?) the world around me in a positive way.

Just some food for thought: How many top executives could cut their salaries and potentially save multiple jobs within their company? I'd be willing to bet it's more than you think.

I'm off my soapbox. I've said my piece. We will just have to disagree on this topic Remix.

Cheers.

posted on 22 May 2012, 20:25

49. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


the fortune 500 is not the vast majority of CEO's, and thats what the problem is. When you say "CEO", people have this vision of some lazy golfing all day, stepping on the little guy, dont care about anything but himself and his pile of money, type of guy. And thats far from the truth. There are hundreds of thousands of CEO's in the country. the fortune 500 is the top 1% of CEOs. They are not representative of the majority any more than Bill gates is representative of poor african tribal people.

How many could? Actually, the vast majority DO. CEOs of small businesses regularly pay themselves less than some of their employees, if at all, to keep their business from falling appart.
That is the discrepancy between what the media has convinced the public what a "CEO" is, and the stark reality of what a CEO really is. The vast majority of CEO's are the first ones there in the mornings and the last ones to leave. They are small business owners who put their entire life on the line both personal and financial and work their ass off to get ahead. I spent nearly 10 years running businesses and supervising and came within a dog's hair of opening my own franchise. I spent years working along side REAL CEOs.

Sanjay, Jobs, Cook,.. they are the vast minority of CEOs.

posted on 23 May 2012, 11:37 1

55. poddey (Posts: 75; Member since: 22 Mar 2012)


I wasn't going to say anything because I agree with JeffdaBeat and androiddownsouth have said but reading your last comment above I feel I have to put in my two cents. I'm not here to say you are wrong. I just don't think you get what they are saying and I don't think you see the contradiction (for want of a better word) in the situation.

I don't know why you bring up your point about hardworking CEOs of small businesses who sacrifice their pay to keep their business afloat (nevermind where you got your source for this fact, though I'm inclined to agree with you because small businesses generally have a tough time surviving). It's nice of you to try to restore the bad name that CEOs have been getting in the media but that is not the point here and the CEOs who have brought tarnish to the CEO title in the media are not those from small businesses but those who head the multi-million/billion dollar companies - the ones who don't make up the vast majority of CEOs by number but who earn the vast majority of salaries paid to CEOs.

These 8, 9 and 10 digit earning individuals don't normally own the businesses they are in charge of like the CEOs of small business. Because of the huge salaries they earn, they don't have as much at stake as the small business owner CEO who has to keep working to make ends meet.

The point isn't that the millionaire CEOs don't work hard and don't deserve to be handsomely rewarded. I'm sure they do. The point is about excess...

How does a CEO justify paying themselves 100 million say if their lowest paid employee is paid barely enough for them to be able to feed their family and put a roof over their head?

Millionaire CEOs are paid to make money for shareholders. How do they do that? More often than not I think you'll find these CEOs will sooner "restructure" the business, slashing jobs and restraining wage growth, and cut costs than by developing strategies to grow the business to increase profits. And who benefits from the increased profits then? The CEO does, who then proceeds to pay themself a large bonus.

Yes they are entitled to the bonus contractually. Sure. But they do so at the expense of others.

So they earn more money. But for what? If they are working as hard as you say when are they going to have time to spend to enjoy all those dollars? They don't. They just buy more stuff. More stuff that they don't really need but can buy just because they can. Luxury items exist only because the rich have more money than they know what to do with.

Remixfa the view you advocate that CEOs should be paid absolutely anything they are entitled to because their contract says so is capitalism gone wrong in the extreme where the only thing that matters is the furtherance of one's own wealth at whatever cost to others and the environment. The world would be a much better place if we spared a thought for others and looked after one another.

Wow... sorry about the long post.

posted on 23 May 2012, 13:01 1

59. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)


Could not have said it better poddey! That is exactly what I've been trying to say. Long post sure but if that isn't understood, not sure how else it can be stated.

posted on 23 May 2012, 12:36 1

57. jmoita2 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)


Bravo, well said poddey
remixfa...
I am going to send you a life size poster of him for your daily worship sessions. lol

posted on 22 May 2012, 20:39 1

51. TR0LL (banned) (Posts: 41; Member since: 20 May 2012)


True. Useless good for nothing getting paid
Millions for what? Dosnt design. Dosnt do jack s**te. Sits on
His arse.....

posted on 23 May 2012, 11:39 1

56. poddey (Posts: 75; Member since: 22 Mar 2012)


That made me laugh... lol

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:17 2

21. kabukijoe (Posts: 67; Member since: 06 Mar 2010)


Underpaid? You think that he should make more money to sit in an office playing mini golf all day and be on vacation 6 months out of the year living it up, meanwhile people with real jobs have to go bust their ass everyday and barely scrape by. Rather than outsourcing and underpaying workers or abolishing jobs altogether to maximize the salaries of the CEOs that demand millions per year; they could create more jobs that pay respectable salaries. It's not just Apple that does this, it's pretty much every corporation, Apple is now just the biggest offender. This kind of corporate greed is why the middle class is disappearing and also plays a big part of the economic crisis that we are in.

posted on 22 May 2012, 12:24 4

25. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)


I agree with you, but Apple isn't the biggest offender. All companies are doing this. Nike, Samsung, Microsoft etc.

posted on 22 May 2012, 11:25 1

12. tariqinifinityblade (Posts: 9; Member since: 01 Apr 2012)


apple products are great but no one deserves to be paid that much while other people are struggling to survive without homes or food.

posted on 22 May 2012, 11:29 2

13. Phullofphil (Posts: 801; Member since: 10 Feb 2009)


Well Steve got paid a dollar a year with the rest I assume on stocks and he had lots of money so I believe cook still gets paid alot yearly on the payouts on all the stock he owns.

posted on 22 May 2012, 13:04 2

31. tluv00 (Posts: 134; Member since: 18 Oct 2007)


"Apple’s chief executive officer Tim Cook has one of the toughest jobs in tech by being the successor to Steve Jobs."

BS. His job will become tough once the ideas and innovation he was left by Jobs runs out and he actually has to do something on his own.

posted on 22 May 2012, 13:44 2

36. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6422; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)


Why should we care how much CEO's gets paid? It's the developers and engineer that DOES ALL THE WORK their the ones should get paid in millions of dollars NOT CEO's.

posted on 22 May 2012, 18:51 2

47. gallitoking (Posts: 4684; Member since: 17 May 2011)


so why dont they then if it is so easy? ...

posted on 22 May 2012, 20:27

50. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


i rarely agree with you, but i do with this.. lol

posted on 22 May 2012, 20:41 1

52. TR0LL (banned) (Posts: 41; Member since: 20 May 2012)


Totally Agree.....
Tim cook good for nothingness....

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories