3 ms·

Ask the shareholders. And since I am one I'll answer. I don't have a problem with this at all. $300M is about 1/1000 of the current market cap. The rewards are

Ask the shareholders. And since I am one I'll answer. I don't have a problem with this at all. $300M is about 1/1000 of the current market cap. The rewards are spread over 10 years. So 1/10000 per year to have a world class CEO running the company. Would I pay that? Gladly.

jbooth 15y ago
Give me a break, you don't think you could've gotten him cheaper? What's the difference between 580 million and, say, 200 million? It's funny money either way, and the person's quality of work is going to depend on other motivations.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Wow, people are apparently seriously offended by this. Y'all really don't think they could've gotten him for cheaper?
  - sunchild 15y ago
    If you think Apple is about getting things for cheaper, then you don't understand Apple AT ALL.
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    Again, what makes you think 'cheap' is how Apple wants to be perceived? Pay more, demand more, get more. Only idiots (or the truly broke) focus on cheap when they're standing in the spotlight. What you really want is value. And given that their stock didn't crater in what is, again, the most sensitive transition imaginable, their non-asshole savvy already paid for itself several times over in the last 48 hours alone. If you're going to cut corners, play lowball, or just or drive a hard bargain, fine. But be sure you're doing it in places where you can afford to lose he deal.
    - AnthonBerg 15y ago
      Or perhaps only idiots start hemorrhaging money just because they're in the spotlight ... ?
      - alexqgb 15y ago
        In general, perhaps, but in what way does that remark relate - in any way - to the actual situation?
        jbooth 15y ago
        The actual situation seems to be that they're throwing an absurd amount of this guy because they want it to look good. Look, I'm not an Apple investor and I haven't bought any apple products in the last couple years or so, I really don't care and it's not my business. But with my read on human nature, the guy would do the same exact job for 10 mil a year as he would for 58 mil a year.
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Right - because chiseling the incoming CEO is exactly what you want to be doing when the entire world is looking at you for signs of confidence. You've got a market cap that's a third of a trillion dollars, and THIS is how you handle the most sensitive transaction imaginable? Christ, what total lunacy. And what if Cook decided this is bullshit, and goes? Then what? That's right, total implosion. And for nothing. And by the way, since when is 'cheap' a part of anything that Apple does?
dan_manges 15y ago
I agree. I think pg's equity equation[1] is applicable here. If Tim Cook keeps Apple on the trajectory it's on now, Apple's shareholders will get a great return on this investment. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html

jbooth 15y ago

Give me a break, you don't think you could've gotten him cheaper? What's the difference between 580 million and, say, 200 million? It's funny money either way, and the person's quality of work is going to depend on other motivations.

jbooth 15y ago
Wow, people are apparently seriously offended by this. Y'all really don't think they could've gotten him for cheaper?
- sunchild 15y ago
  If you think Apple is about getting things for cheaper, then you don't understand Apple AT ALL.
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Again, what makes you think 'cheap' is how Apple wants to be perceived? Pay more, demand more, get more. Only idiots (or the truly broke) focus on cheap when they're standing in the spotlight. What you really want is value. And given that their stock didn't crater in what is, again, the most sensitive transition imaginable, their non-asshole savvy already paid for itself several times over in the last 48 hours alone. If you're going to cut corners, play lowball, or just or drive a hard bargain, fine. But be sure you're doing it in places where you can afford to lose he deal.
  - AnthonBerg 15y ago
    Or perhaps only idiots start hemorrhaging money just because they're in the spotlight ... ?
    - alexqgb 15y ago
      In general, perhaps, but in what way does that remark relate - in any way - to the actual situation?
      - jbooth 15y ago
        The actual situation seems to be that they're throwing an absurd amount of this guy because they want it to look good. Look, I'm not an Apple investor and I haven't bought any apple products in the last couple years or so, I really don't care and it's not my business. But with my read on human nature, the guy would do the same exact job for 10 mil a year as he would for 58 mil a year.
alexqgb 15y ago
Right - because chiseling the incoming CEO is exactly what you want to be doing when the entire world is looking at you for signs of confidence. You've got a market cap that's a third of a trillion dollars, and THIS is how you handle the most sensitive transaction imaginable? Christ, what total lunacy. And what if Cook decided this is bullshit, and goes? Then what? That's right, total implosion. And for nothing. And by the way, since when is 'cheap' a part of anything that Apple does?

dan_manges 15y ago

I agree. I think pg's equity equation[1] is applicable here. If Tim Cook keeps Apple on the trajectory it's on now, Apple's shareholders will get a great return on this investment. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html