Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Cuts Tim Cook's Pay After 2016 Performance Falls Short (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the damn-those-performance-reviews dept.

Apple cut CEO Tim Cook's 2016 pay after the iPhone maker missed its revenue and profit goals for the year. From a report on CNBC: Although Cook's annual salary went up by $1 million, he received $8.75 million in total compensation for the year, according to an SEC filing posted on Friday, down from the $10.28 million he received in 2015. Company executives received about 89.5 percent of their targeted annual incentives. The company said its annual sales were down nearly 4 percent, or $215.6 billion, from its target of $223.6 billion, and its operating income was down 0.5 percent from its target at $60 billion, according to the filing.Apple last year faced declining revenue as it grappled with the first prolonged slump in iPhone sales. The salary of some other executives were also trimmed.

9 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Not news until his salary is $0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thin will be in until he's removed as CEO. HP made their laptop 1.8mm thicker for a third more battery life in order to drive their 17" 4K monitor. Apple needs to do the same.

  2. But why? by jandersen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The question that never seems to get asked is: Why do these executives get these incredible salaries? Does anybody - apart from the tiny elite at the top - really think it is good value for money?

    1. Re:But why? by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's so "incredible" about a $9 million salary for the CEO of one of the most valuable companies anywhere?

      It's downright pedestrian compared to what many sports players get to throw a ball or make tackles, and it comes with a massively higher responsibility to boot.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    2. Re:But why? by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I'm no fan of the R's, not even a little bit, it's not just the R's that are the problem. The D's also want to keep the poor people in their place. Why do you think the D's candidate didn't win? If you think either party is going to help you, then you already have the strong delusion.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re: But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If anything the D's biggest problem this past election cycle is they are unwilling to tell the really big lies. Like, D's aren't willing to promise that all the manufacturing and buggy whip jobs are coming back, because obviously they can't. Technology is making those jobs go away and people need to adapt as best they can. For those who can't adapt, we need strong social safety nets in the form of unemployment welfare or basic income.

      Republitards want to gut all the social safety systems while making false promises about all the coal mining and assembly line jobs they are going to bring back.

      Funny how people are more willing to work as wage slaves in shitty jobs that destroy the environment than they are willing to just accept a little help from the government.

    4. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A subtle distinction, but you're paid what you're worth to the person paying you.

    5. Re:But why? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The question that never seems to get asked is: Why do these executives get these incredible salaries? Does anybody - apart from the tiny elite at the top - really think it is good value for money?

      That's not really the question. Steve Jobs was demonstrably worth hundreds of billions of dollars to Apple's shareholders.

      The real question is "why do these executives continue to get incredible salaries when they demonstrably do nothing for the company?"

      The issue is that they're being paid as if they're founders when, in fact, they're simply running a ship that someone else built and set out to sea. It's not the same job and nowhere near as difficult. Jobs took a company that was nearly bankrupt and turned it into the world's most valuable company. Unless Cook seriously steps up his game he either needs to be paid $100K/year for the job he's doing or replaced. If he's not replaced soon, Apple will likely be irreparably harmed.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
  3. At least it's something.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's face it... it's not as if replacing Jobs was going to be an easy task- it may have been impossible.

    That being said, Apple is not living up to the standard Jobs set. Maybe that's Cook's fault... maybe not. The recent products are lame. They've eviscerated their computer business. So if new products don't hit... it's not like they can fall back on the unfulfilled promise of OSX. They've been so successful with new consumer innovations, they've tossed away all the vertical markets they used to rule.

    This is a dangerous position. They shouldn't cut his pay- they should fire him and find someone to take over.

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re:At least it's something.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem was always that Jobs was a "visionary" who could direct the design process of the hardware and software while Cook was a numbers man whose expertise is the bottom line. When you want a new tech product you don't ask your accountant but this is essentially what is happening at Apple