back to article Apple supremo Tim Cook's pay packet slashed 99% in 2012

Apple boss Tim Cook took a 99 per cent pay cut in 2012 - the year his firm's maps crapp confused iPhone fanbois and rival Android dominated the mobile market. The chief executive took home a paltry $4.17m in salary and a non-equity bonus, according to paperwork just filed with US financial regulator the SEC, down from the $ …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Sean Timarco Baggaley
    FAIL

    Shark. Jumped.

    I've known this moment was coming for a some time now, but...

    "Apple boss Tim Cook took a 99 per cent pay cut in 2012 - the year his firm's maps crapp confused iPhone fanbois and rival Android dominated the mobile market."

    Seriously? How old is this writer? Six?

    The Register used to have standards. Low standards, granted, but standards nevertheless. You used to be better than this, but the site has degenerated increasingly into tiresome link-bait trolling bullshit of no worth. My time is valuable to me and I really don't appreciate having it wasted.

    Does anyone know of a decent technology news site that actually hires grown-ups who can write without insulting half their readership, instead of childish YouTube comments posters?

    1. eSeM

      Re: Shark. Jumped.

      That is a pretty fair comment to anyone that isn't an IFanboi and is in typical Reg style.

      Tim Cook is pretty lucky he still has a job.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Shark. Jumped.

        Erm, look at the profits made. Marketshare counts for nothing if you can't make any money.

        If you had 100% marketshare (unlikely) and couldn't make profits what would you do? ramp up the price until you did make a profit, which is instant monopoly abuse investigation.

        Android may have a large marketshare, but Google is already under investigation for monopoly abuse and therefore has to tread carefully in mobile. They can't ramp up licence fees without either damaging their market or getting investigated.

        Apple are raking it in.

        1. Mark .

          Re: Shark. Jumped.

          Who cares. Never in the most heated Windows vs Linux/etc debate did an MS fan go "But look at how much money Bill Gates has". No one cares (unless you're a shareholder).

          But if we're looking at what people are buying, it's market share.

          "They can't ramp up licence fees without either damaging their market or getting investigated."

          Which is a good thing! Why on earth, as an Android user, should I be wishing that Google suddenly be able to make things more expensive?

      2. Sean Timarco Baggaley

        Re: Shark. Jumped.

        I've been reading The Register since around 2000-ish. This is indeed a "typical" today, but ten years ago, this site had a lot less blatant childish trolling and cheap link-bait. It used to have some bloody standards and even writers who could write without using childish insults.

        Contrary to popular belief, some of us Apple customers are not IT-illterate newbies. I've been programming computers since the early '80s. I can code in Z80 and 680x0, developed published games in the late '80s and early '90s, (including graphics and animations), and know a number of other, higher-level, programming languages, including plenty I've mercifully managed to forget – like Forth and COBOL. I've built and maintained entire Windows-based networks, with dozens of PCs that I bought as components and assembled single-handed. I'm not some ignorant sandal-wearing cult follower. Steve Jobs may have had serious personality issues, but so did Spike Milligan and I don't think any less of his work either.

        Tim Cook's stock options situation was known about at the time he took over from his predecessor, so this article is not even remotely "news". It's also perfectly normal in any other company, so why single out Apple? Do you think anyone in Google's top management tier is being paid any less? Do you think Apple is the only company that offers stock options to its company leaders?

        "Fanboi", "cult of Apple", "iFans", etc. are just as childish and tiresome as the unfashionable "M$" and "Microsucks". None of these – not even "fandroid" – have any place in the bloody articles.

        In the comments, fine, but not in the articles themselves. I don't want to read articles written by people who clearly belong on YouTube, writing the comments.

        So, I'll ask again: is there a decent tech news site on the internet that is aimed at people with an IQ above that of a cabbage?

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge
          Pint

          @Sean Timarco Baggaley

          You know what man? The article was fine. The tone was fine. It was sarcastic and trolly and excellent. Apple folks get trolled on this one, Linux folks somewhere else...I think I've trolled the Microsoft dudes more than a few times myself.

          But you know what, the guy you are pissing on is a kernel programmer who uses Macs, Linux and so forth. He's a good guy personally, and a fantastic writer. More to the point, he knows his readership quite well and his successful troll was successful.

          This is The Register. We take the piss out of everything. You got hurt feelers? Zero fucks given. It's not that any of us particularly hate Apple/Microsoft/Linux/Google/Whatever, but that we are pragmatic jaded types that distrust everyone equally and enjoy watching commenters squirm.

          The article got the information across and it made you blow up in the comments. I'd say that's mission accomplished.

          Have a beer and chill out.

          1. Chris007
            Trollface

            Re: @Sean Timarco Baggaley

            Thanks trevor - said what I was about to.

            You just missed the boo hoo, stop crying Sean comment ;-)

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge
              Pint

              Re: @Sean Timarco Baggaley

              STB has been around long enough to know better. I am going to chalk this up to "Other things in his life making him more irritable than normal." When that happens - to you, to me, to him - it comes out in the comments. His comments were unnecessary and way over the top, but they clearly represent something that bugs him.

              Fair enough.

              The Register walks a fine line between "irreverent humour" which is what defines it and maintaining some semblance of professionalism. In this particular instance, Chris was not over the top. He coloured in within the lines and didn't deserve to be pooped on.

              By the same token, there's no need for any of us to pile on STB and make whatever bee is in his diapers even more angry. Instead, how about we try this:

              STB; your comments were over the top and out of character for you. It seems something might be bugging you that has nothing at all to do with this article. How can your fellow commenttards help?

              If nothing else, here's another beer icon for STB: I hope he takes the time to have one or two IRL.

          2. SuccessCase

            Re: @Sean Timarco Baggaley

            You know what man, if you work for the Register perhaps you should listen to your readers/customers. It's traditional that you should have a big advantage in terms of audience sympathy because the audience tend to be loyal to the website not the commenters (like the audience is loyal to the comic on stage, not the heckler). But STB has been up voted more than he has been down voted and your patronising reply perfectly illustrates why the Register is falling way behind it's peers and languishing in the Web's backwaters. Consider why it is you never score a hit on Tech-Meme. Consider why it is your foray into video crashed and burned (hint, sark only works when the author is a faceless name writing sark - the moment it is presented by a face and the sark is personalised, it fails appears nasty unless it is genuinely funny).

            "But you know what, the guy you are pissing on is a kernel programmer who uses Macs, Linux and so forth. He's a good guy personally, and a fantastic writer. More to the point, he knows his readership quite well and his successful troll was successful."

            I'm sure he is a good guy personally, but if it is a deliberate policy to troll, don't be surprised when the stick prodding gets a response. I would suggest, as STM's comment has been up voted so much, perhaps this time the fantastic writer hasn't written such a fantastic piece (it won't happen every time) and perhaps the Reg could benefit from addressing audience feedback instead of mining the satirical seem quite so aggressively. It's laudable to defend a friend, but lacks professionalism to publicly patronise and attack a customer like you have. If the tone has turned ill tempered, as your reply makes it seem to be, and you admit to deliberate trolling, who's to blame?

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: @Sean Timarco Baggaley

              @Succcesscase The Register has over 7 million readers. there are a few hundred commenters who comment enough to even make bronze.

              No, I don't - and won't - take the disvruntled voice of some text to tell me how to do my job. I'll take the aggregate of those voices; are they overall positive about the site are not? And not just comments. Emails to tbe author, survey statistics, and most impotantly of all...do the readershil numbers keep growing?

              Guess how representative one - or even a hundred - whingy commenttards are.

              1. SuccessCase

                Re: @Sean Timarco Baggaley

                Trevor. Just one question. Did you train at the Alan Partridge school of Satire ?

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge
                  Trollface

                  @SuccessCase

                  Actually, I trained at The Register school of irreverent humour. Having been - like STB - a reader since 2000. Satire is something else altogether. 7+ million readers and for every single article some number of them are disgruntled?

                  Colour me shocked.

                  But it was 6.6M last year, so I'll keep hanging out under my bridge and demanding a tithe for my personal satisfaction of those who pass.

                  Weeping, wot?

          3. toadwarrior

            Re: @Sean Timarco Baggaley

            Taking the piss is only good if it doesn't sound like is coming from someone with severe brain damage. I think the fact that on the rare occasion someone links to the reg on slash dot or reddit that a lot of comments are made about the poor writing or journalism says a lot. When people hold sites like kotaku in higher regard then you're doing something wrong.

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: @Sean Timarco Baggaley

              "When people hold sites like kotaku in higher regard then you're doing something wrong."

              Disagree entirely. If 500 people hold kotaku in higher regard, but 7 million hold The Register in higher regard, then those 500 people aren't relevant. The issue isn't that people are pissy and want things their way, but which people, how many, how relevant are those people and - most critically - how relevant are those people to advertisers.

              You can't please everyone all the time. So carve out a niche and try to make a profit from those you can please. You're doing it right if you can make money in your niche and show growth.

              Well guess what...

              1. snarf
                Thumb Up

                Re: @Sean Timarco Baggaley

                Wow Trevor, great attitude. So as long as the balance of opinion is positive, any criticism is irrelevant? As long as you're pleasing your advertisers who gives a damn?

                Nice.

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge
                  Mushroom

                  @snarf

                  Did I say "any criticism is irrelevant?" No, I said "you can't please everyone, so don't even try." If you try to please everyone you will go mad. There is no one tone, no one attitude no one anything that will please everyone. Make a concession over here to this one very loud – but ultimately very small – group of people and you end up irritating this other group over there.

                  Believe it or not, people come to The Register for the snark. They come to it for the trolly headlines, the satire and the pisstaking. It's The Register's schtick. There are other websites out there that try for a very neutral, never inflammatory, try oh-so-desperately to make everyone happy tone. There are pro-Apple, and pro-Microsoft; pro-Google and even pro-Oracle blogs. There are sites that treat science reporting properly and those that don't. There are sites that publish opinion columns and those that refuse to.

                  In short; there is no shortage of diversity in the tech reporting world. This means that the people who read The Register do so because they want to read The Register. We aren't talking about an organisation abusing a monopoly on information distribution to push an agenda here. We are talking about people demanding that MSNBC tech the controversy because they like the tone and word choice Fox News uses to discuss climate change better instead of just changing the fucking channel.

                  Do I think The Register is perfect? No. I think that the science reporting in particular has some truly appalling representation here and I make a deliberate choice to read Ars Technica to cover those topics instead. By the same token, I read The Register for tech news instead of Ars because I like the snark and the pisstaking that El Reg throws on things.

                  I prefer the cynical, jaded and even trolly take that the writers and subs alike at El Reg have. I don't like the careful avoidance of controversy that permeates Ars Technica's technical writing, nor the vacuous ass-kissing that magically appears right before a major product launch.

                  More to the point, if and when I feel that I have an opinion to express regarding the quality, style or tone of the content on The Register I take the time to write a reasonably polite explanation of my views, provide examples and rationale. I send it in and hope that the brass take it into consideration. Most of the time, my comments are ignored – after all, my beliefs regarding things like science reporting obviously aren't doing The Register much harm – and so I do what I always have done: break up where I source my information.

                  The opinions of readers matter…but the opinions of readers only really matter in aggregate. You aren't important. Get over it. Shockingly, neither am I, nor is any one individual or group of readers. Fucking astonishing, eh?

                  Criticism – objective analysis of something with evidence to back it up – is always good.

                  Complaining – subjective whinging about how the information is presented in a manner that offends the sensibilities of a small group of individuals – is worthless.

                  "You don't share my personal biases" is all we ever hear from commenters. Linux fanboys decry what they see as pro-Microsoft/pro-opensource bias. Microsoft lovers decry what they see as a pro-opensource bias. Apple fanboys decry everything and everyone as against them.

                  Denliaists whine and complain whenever an article with actual science content emerges, and I complain whenever I see an article written by some twungle ending above the brainstem that either links to wattsup.com or uses 1998 as the start of a graph in a desperate attempt to cherry pick data.

                  Oh well.

                  I have written articles tearing Windows 8 a new one and gotten comments/emails from people angry about my pro-Microsoft bias. Figure that one out. I wrote an article about Apple in the Enterprise and had to put up with page after page of e-mails complaining that I was anti-Apple because I didn't praise Apple's native management tools as the be-all and end-all of the universe. So fuck those people with a lacquered bus. It's not like I threw a lab up and spent four months testing that shit or anything. Twunts.

                  So…your personal feelings? Your sad little prejudices and preconceptions? Zero fucks given. If someone has a valid criticism - that is a factual error or something that they can objectively prove with evidence - I think you'll find people more than willing to listen. (Well, in most cases.)

                  If, however, all you have is a bunch of bitching about style and tone and how other people who think more or less "just like you" prefer some other website's style/tone…I think you'll get a middle finger and some rolled eyes.

                  If you want your opinion heard, present it in a manner that will make a writer or editor give some fucks. Otherwise you aren't signal, you're noise.

                  Happy New Year,

                  --Some asshole writer on the interbutts.

                  1. Law
                    WTF?

                    Re: @snarf

                    El-Reg Feature request: Can you give us the ability to block/hide annoying trolls please? At minimum you could add some Troll Flag button that flags them up for moderation.

                    I used to love the comments sections, found them amusing and occasionally informative. These days there is still some of those traits here, but it is getting hidden behind a growing stench of trolls - the first thing I used to do is click on the comments section after reading an article to see what people thought, see alternative views, maybe even tips if it was a technical article. My opinion has been swayed by peoples arguments in the comments sections before. These days I normally avoid hitting the comments section if it's got a massive amount of posts already because you can almost always guarantee it is just the same trolls saying stuff for shock value, arguing with people for the sake of it, and it's normally the same arguments too.

                    Maybe I'm getting grumpy in my old age (30s), or maybe I'm maturing, or maybe I'm just too busy with a wife and kids these days to waste hours a week reading comments by trolls. who knows.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      @law

                      The very few "gold" posters have an "ignore" option. It seems to work okay; maybe the request to make is "roll that out to everyone?" There has been a lot of debate about it in the non-article forums.

                  2. snarf

                    Re: @snarf

                    @Trevor_Pott

                    Wow Trevor, great response. Is that how you respond to all criticism, with a disproportionate and offensive diatribe?

                    Nice.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      @snarf

                      No, that's how I respond to opinions that are worth less than the paper they aren't printed on. I am quite happy to have productive discussions regarding criticism.

                      1. snarf

                        Re: @snarf

                        You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that there is only one form of criticism, to whit objective. I humbly suggest looking the term up in the dictionary if you will persist in this semantic tomfoolery.

                        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                          @snarf

                          No, I am working under the assumption that the fact that you have a need for self aggrandisement and some pitiful need to feel important doesn't make your personal opinion have more value than mine own. I too am a reader of The Register. I have a different view than you do. Some people agree with you, but the majority of the (growing) readership doesn't.

                          So to put this more bluntly: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. Your opinion is one amongst many; as valid – or invalid – as my own. To attempt to cater to the opinions of the few-but-noisy is – as previously stated – madness.

                          So yes, criticism can only be taken to be objective analysis backed by evidence here. Subjective anything is nothing more than personal opinion and completely irrelevant.

                          You aren't a special snowflake. Deal with it.

                          1. snarf
                            Thumb Down

                            Re: @snarf

                            Some people agree with you, but the majority of the (growing) readership doesn't.

                            What on earth are you talking about? How do you know that the majority of the readership doesn't agree with me?

                            Have you taken a poll as to how many people think you have a good attitude toward others' opinions? Or show a measured response to criticism? These are the only opinions I have offered in this thread.

                            I believe you are attributing opinions to me that I have not authored. Funnily enough it is you here that is displaying prejudice and preconception. Especially when I take another look at your rant - how much of that is actually a direct response to my initial post?

                            Kindly do not put words into my mouth and then berate me for them.

                            To be honest I am not going to dignify the rest of your remark with a reply, you are consistently rude and react badly to criticism so I'm just going to leave it there.

                            Or to put it in parlance you might understand: Zero fucks given. Moving on.

                            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                              Re: @snarf

                              "you taken a poll as to how many people think you have a good attitude toward others' opinions?"

                              Several over the years. It is part of how the folks who run the place know they are on track with using snark as part of the schtick that defines the site.

                              "Or show a measured response to criticism?"

                              You aren't offering critisism. Only opinion. As to "measured response," you are talking about the website that posts "flame of the week" articles. I think you have mistaken The Register for some other website that tries really hard to make each and every reader feel like a love-wrapped unique snowflake. Maybe you missed all those years of the moderatrix or, well...everything about this site for the past decade or so.

                              "you are consistently rude and react badly to criticism"

                              Yes, I am consistently rude. And? Regarding criticism: nah, I handle that appropriately. I do not, however, give any fucks whatsoever about opinions beyond the obvious "this looks like an opening for a good troll" entry. Opinions are irrelevant to me as the individual that has them. If you want me to care about your opinion you must first convince me why I should care about you.

                              That's the thing about this here internet; it's the great leveller. Who are you? Why should I care? You could be a millionaire or a pauper. You could be a schizophrenic killer or even my wife, trolling me from a smurf account. You could be anyone or noone and that makes the value of the individual opinion impossible to gauge.

                              People who like to feel as though they somehow matter will argue that we should treat everyone's opinions as though they matter. Those people are consistently unable to explain exactly how one goes about doing so in the face of the reality in which every single topic on earth will produce individuals with divergent opinions.

                              Go with the majority, they will say; secure that their opinion must. be held by the majority. Individual ego means that the person holding the opinion believes that only those lacking any form of rational thought processes could disagree with them, so the majority must surely be on their side. Unless, of course, they know they hold a minority opinion. Then the argument is about tyranny of the majority and underrepresentation. "Balance" gets hauled out a lot, as does "bias."

                              Ultimately, what it boils down to is that the "opinion" of an anonymous block of text has no value. Certainly no more value than the opinion of a different, anonymous block of text. It is why I make a clear distinction between criticism and opinion. Criticism can be analysed on merit; the arguments and evidence weighed objectively.

                              Proponents of the value of opinion have yet to explain to me precisely how one bows to the personal opinion of anonymous blocks of text without alienating the other anonymous blocks of text that disagree. Until such a time as this is explained, I'll stick to careful consideration of criticism and due trolling of opinion.

                              " Zero fucks given. Moving on."

                              Well look at that! Several comments in, the lad gets it! This is exactly the appropriate response to encountering an opinion you don't like. Guess what, lads? I managed to achieve some amusement via trolling and taught some random text block on the internet a valuable life lesson about not investing one's sense of self worth in irrelevant blocks of text found on the internet.

                              Will wonders never cease.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Shark. Jumped.

          "So, I'll ask again: is there a decent tech news site on the internet that is aimed at people with an IQ above that of a cabbage?"

          It's called Slashdot - but their layout is shit and so is their comments section - so, I'll stick with El Reg - flamebaiting, commentard-loving, shill-writing bastards that they are - and god love 'em all for it.

        3. Steve I
          Go

          Re: Shark. Jumped.

          Agreed. You read the articles/comments and suddenly think - "Hang on a moment - adults don't talk like that. Schoolkids in a playground, yes; but adults, no".

          1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
            WTF?

            Re: Shark. Jumped.

            It's funny that slashdot was just mentioned here as an alternative. Over the last couple of years it appears that a lot of comments are becoming more typical of slashdot type comments.

            The "El Reg" readerships sense of irony and sarcasm seems to be diminishing...

            I even found myself recently wishing there was a way to filter out any comments marked 'joke alert', as more and more of them are like the crappy nerdy unfunny 'jokes' that often get scored 'funny' on slashdot.

        4. hplasm Silver badge
          Gimp

          Re: Shark. Jumped.

          "I've been reading The Register since around 2000-ish. "

          And I'm still whining...

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Shark. Jumped.

        Errr still has a Job? Maybe that's down to the fact the Apple are doing pretty well at the moment, the fly in the ointment maps is neither here nor there.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Shark. Jumped.

        So Google fail to conquer Facebook - perhaps all their top management should resign?

        This maps issue has been massively over-stated - I suspect mostly by people who have not even used it sufficiently / at all. I've read posts on here that are pure fabrication about towns not existing (and out of interest I checked with both Apple Maps and Google Maps) when they do.

        Done a few side by side tests over the last few weeks and not sure I could really say one is definitely better than the other. Apple seem to have better (more efficient) routing, Google are slightly better if searching for a company name but they are equal if you actually have the post code. Apple have more up to date satellite maps in all the places I have tested, it is also quicker than Google Maps - but Google have Streetview. Lastly Google Maps (too frequently) nags you to login as they want your data rather than just storing it locally or on iCloud.

        Overall for most users there is little to choose from. Someone wanting a sat nav replacement would probably buy one of the premium Garmin or TomTom type apps anyway. I'm glad I have both now as competition will help both to improve which is good for users - ironically Apple doing maps will make Google improve their product which helps non-Apple users.

    2. Arctic fox
      Headmaster

      @Sean Timarco Baggaley Re: "Shark. Jumped." I am fairly suprised that an old Reg hand......

      ......like you would react to a very obvious wind-up in such a fashion. This kind of article is a speciality of El Reg - we all know that don't we? It was very clearly irresistible for a entirely standard Reg piss-take, I am surprised that en experienced member like yourself allowed this to get to you.

    3. henrydddd
      Linux

      Re: Shark. Jumped.

      I actually feel sorry for him. He should now apply for food stamps. I think that would help soften the blow.

    4. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Shark. Jumped.

      Thanks for all the feedback. I usually copy-edit articles prior to publication, so it's nice to see what people think of my raw typings.

      "Seriously? How old is this writer? Six?"

      I'm seven and three quarters! Haha, just kidding. I'm 30.

      "aimed at people with an IQ above that of a cabbage"

      Actually, it's more that we appreciate that our readers' time is limited (you may be grabbing a look at the site during a lunch break) so we keep things punchy, entertaining but dead-on accurate. If you didn't like the headline and intro, the facts are all there in the next few pars. We don't lie to readers, we try always to fly true, but we're biting the hand that feeds IT.

      "I can code in Z80 and 680x0"

      I can do 6502, 8051, ARM and x86. Is.. is that still cool?

      C.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Facepalm

      Re: Shark. Jumped.

      Apple maps ARE crap and Android DID dominate the mobile market. Not sure what your point it....

  2. DuncanL

    What do these epically highly paid execs actually do to earn these vast salaries? As some point they must have so many people doing the actual work for then thet they just become a figure head and spend the day playing golf?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They are responsible for large chunks of companies and are charged with ensuring those chunks make the required amount of profit. As people move up the management chain they get more responsibility, more accountability and, yes, higher rewards. Most people are not indispensable and if they screw up in a big enough way they will be on their way, albeit with a large (to us) payoff.

      Personally I don't think anyone can 'earn' tens of millions per year not matter how hard they work or how much responsibility they have. They do however receive these large sums. There is a price to pay; when you get to a certain level you are pretty much expected to 'live the job', working evenings and weekends becomes the norm. Lots say they would be willing to sacrifice evenings and weekends for the money but you also have to 'walk the talk'; could you run a division of say 50,000 people such that it makes the amount of money demanded by your CEO?

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge
        Pint

        "Lots say they would be willing to sacrifice evenings and weekends for the money but you also have to 'walk the talk'; could you run a division of say 50,000 people such that it makes the amount of money demanded by your CEO?"

        Yes.

        Oh, and I already put the hours in as a sysadmin, so the idea of being a CEO - and the demands required - are not exactly frightening. Give me enough startup capital and I will turn my company of 3 people into one of 50,000 people with a market cap in the billions in under a decade.

        I have the product ideas to get started and I have the schmoozing skills. I have the ability to delegate and the ability to kick ass when needed to make sure that promises are delivered. I can work suppliers and clients, do the negotiations that need be done, be mindful of the details and keep the big picture in mind the whole time. I know when to stick to my guns – and my own vision – and when to accept criticism and outside ideas. I know to surround myself with capable, competent people…all the better if they don't always agree with me.

        I've taken the time to learn from others who have gone before and understand that as much as I think I know there is always far – far – more left to learn. I can state with absolute confidence that I believe I could do the job of a Tim Cook or a Steve Ballmer and after having spent years talking to (and researching) CEOs and suits from companies at all stages of the IT game I believe that I have a far better understanding of the demands and stresses placed upon them than most would suspect.

        This is what the internet makes possible. This is what unfettered access to information can provide those so interested. I do not have an MBA – I will likely never have one – nor do I live in the correct culture for the knowledge I have obtained to allow me to initiate a startup using venture capital and make a real go of it.

        Despite my belief that I do have the skills to bear the burden, reality would like to have a final say in the matter. With my (lack of) relevant educational credentials I would never be considered for a high-ranking position at any established company. Not without a whole lot of "working my way up from the bottom" first; even then, it's a long shot.

        With the lack of VC funding availability for tech startups in my region, my own company – and any fancy multi-squillion-dollar ideas I have – will have to be bootstrapped by whatever money I can make writing for outfits like El Reg. (As a supplement to my sysadmin income.) Even if I wanted to try the "start at the bottom of a multinational megacorp" route, there aren't any in my region, and few want to hire teleworking types for anything other than sales engineers.

        I could move. If I moved to Silicon Valley – we'll bypass discussions about the infeasibility of this given the American immigration system – I could walk into any number of companies and make 3x what I do now. The real question is: is it worth it do so?

        Today, I live in the third best city in the world. Behind only Berlin and Zurich. Indeed, there are 3 Canadian cities in the top 10 – no American – and 4 Canadian cities sit above 14th place San Francisco. I have friends and family here; my wife's roots are tied up in this city as well. Making the case to leave here for there is hard.

        3x the income to start would – just – offset the increased cost of living. American health care is barbaric and the culture toxic. I could probably climb the greasy pole and make my millions…but what does that get me, really? A life of guaranteed perpetual stress? If not from running some company then from continually trying to figure out how to optimally manage my cash; cash which everyone will want a piece of. I wouldn't have the crippling personal debt I have now, true…but it seems to me my financial worries would be far from over.

        Would I get out to the gym more, do you think? Would there be time? Would I have more time for my friends? My family? Would I be able to have a more positive impact on the world in some way? Maybe to all of the above…then again, maybe not.

        I would run a company if someone asked. I would ask for $200,000 a year in salary and no stock options. I would insist that I be allowed to live here, in my home. I'd fly/drive down for relevant meetings/negotiations that cannot be done by telepresence. I'd do a job, get paid enough to pay my debts off and focus less on personal glorification and more on doing the job I'm tasked with well.

        Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a place for that. More's the pity. Instead, I'll put my time and effort into growing my own small company into something that can indeed pay me $200,000 a year. It's really all I need or want. It would make my financial worries go away and I can live where I am happy.

        So I'm me. I'm not special, but I honestly believe I am up to the job in question. I'm one guy amongst over 7 million readers of this fine magazine…what do you suppose the chances a few others are equally – if not more so – capable of rising to the occasion?

        Modern CEOs are overpaid for the jobs they do. This overpayment doesn't earn you the best for the job, merely the most sociopathic. If you want to find someone who will be a good CEO for your company, don't look for the man craving power, attention and money. Find the ones who understand the language of business, the details of the industry you are in – in this case tech – and weigh the various options in front of them seeking balance.

        They will be the ones who plan for rainy days, have contingency plans, don't overextend and actually retain some semblance of pride in their work. I daresay I'd be more comfortable with some of the more pragmatic commenttards on El Reg running the show than the folks who actually do at most of these joints.

        Cheers.

        1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
          Meh

          What's more to the point, is what on earth can anyone actually do with that amount of money?

          1. Horridbloke
            Happy

            @Will Godfrey

            "What's more to the point, is what on earth can anyone actually do with that amount of money?"

            Blow it all on beer, SSDs and Intel Extreme Edition processors.

            Seriously, with that money I would track down everyone who has ever wronged me, buy the houses next to theirs, and fill them with tramps.

            1. Neil Greatorex

              Re: @Will Godfrey

              fill them with tramps

              Nah, fill them with pole dancers, then bar the neighbours entry.....

          2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            What on earth can anyone actually do with that amount of money?

            3 things to mind: ensure personal financial security and retirement. That takes maybe $1M...tops.

            You could leverage the money as an investment which could produce more money. At those amounts, that's easy.

            You could give it all away.

            I could only really see myself engaging in the first option followed by the last. I don't want mansions or yachts. I don't aant limos or planes. I want only to have enough money that I have the financial security and time to write my sci-fi triolgy before I die. I don't need the kind of money Tim Cook makes to do that, though I admit, I'd love to do his job for a decade or so. Not for the money...for the challenge.

            :) Cheers!

          3. Lars Silver badge
            Happy

            "what on earth can anyone actually do with that amount of money".

            Yes, what a problem, Have been thinking and thinking, no answers, cannot think of a thing I could do, but, perhaps he could help the family to get rid of that Venus yacht. On a more serious thought, and to get the mathematics right, (in between beer) does he pay any tax. Sorry, I know, I know that is getting too personal.

          4. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
            Pint

            Ideas for using a shed load of money

            1) Buy an Island (like the dearded one)

            2) Buy an aircraft Carrier (I hear the HMG will have one for sale soon)

            3) Solve the national debt of a 3rd world country. (That will enusre that your 'god' like status remains for a few more years)

            4) Pop down the local and buy a round for everyone

            (Mine is a pint of Southwold if you please)

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              @Steve Davies 3

              1) You don't need to be a millionaire for your own island. Money determines size and location, but I know several folks with middle class incomes here in Canada who own entire islands. Some of them on nice, freshwater lakes.

              2) Buy an Aircraft Carrier? They are smelly. And old. They are miserable to maintain and hard to get into port. Why not buy a decommissioned cruise liner instead? For that matter, why do you need such a large boat? Large boats are harder to defend, and you are anywhere in international waters and have that kind of wonga you are a target. Give me something small and bristling with defences – like a small destroyer – or better yet convert a sub.

              3) Solve the national debt of a third world country gives you god status for about 3 seconds. Then they get right back into debt again. Unless you can solve the underlying issues that caused the debt in the first place – I.E. massive economic manipulation by first world nations, lack of natural resources, constant internecine struggles – you are doing nothing except ensuring that some first-world banker somewhere gets a much higher-than-average quarterly bonus.

              4) No need to be rich for that; just takes some planning. If you're even in Edmonton, drinks are on me!

        2. SirDigalot

          but that city is bloody cold! (the people are nice though, maybe it's the cold?) other than that I agree not that I could be a CEO well I could well at least for a year get my overpayment drive the company to the brink of disaster and retire well heeled looking at most CEO pay these days.

          moving from the US from her majesties great and honest land (ok I choked on my own BS thee) there is a big culture shock, (afore mentioned healthcare, rat race etc) the disease of overpaid CEO is moving east though.

          did I mention Canada is bloody cold? .... nice people though

          noticed that the one of the previous posters tooted their horn somewhat, to me that came across as quite condescending, I will strike it up to an over indulgence of mulled wine, with possible indigestion.

          did I mention the last time I was in Canada it was march and there was lots of snow on the ground? it was really cold! Really nice people though very friendly, had a roller coaster in a mall and everything.

          I like the reg because it does extract the byproduct of cellular metabolism in its articles.

          cheers to the freakin' weekend oh and happy new year

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            @sirdigalot

            Humans are good at making things warm. If you are cold, you can always put more on. If you are warm, you can only legally take so much off. That, and humans are bad at removing heat from an area.

            I'll takethe cold.

        3. Jamie Jones Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          > Today, I live in the third best city in the world. Behind only Berlin and Zurich.

          i'm making no comment regarding Edmonton, (or indeed Berlin or Zurich) but I've spent some time in a few places on that list, and my thoughts are ... "Really?" - they seem to have a strange view of life quality.

          Look at the UK, for example - the only entry on the list is London which is great if you enjoy blowing soot out of your nose at the end of each day, or traffic jams, or high prices, or no natural 'wonders' .....

        4. Anonymous Bosch

          Trevor, with your already displayed people skills I think that it is fair to say that you will not have to deal with the issue of being highly placed in a large organisation.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge
            Pint

            @Anonymous Bosch

            People skills are malleable thing. I can be a perfectly wonderful human being, if I've a reason to be so. I can be a horrible troll. When and if I am in a position where kid gloves and delicate diplomacy are called for, I can - and do - play the game.

            The Register's comment threads are not such a place. Quite the opposite; show any sign of weakness and the vicious pack of internet piranha hereabouts will tear you to pieces. Never mistake the persona that an individual chooses to portray in one forum on the internet – in this case quite deliberately - for the native and "natural" approach that individual takes.

            What should give you pause is that while I may play the part of the ornery internet troll here on The Register's forums, even that affected persona is far – far – more agreeable than the demonstrated personalities of many top CEOs.

            If you knew me personally – if you've interviewed with me, spent time with me at a junket or lived and worked with me in my native frozen habitat – I think you'd find that I am somewhat unlike the persona I portray for the hoi polloi text blocks here in the forums. Oh, I retain the "brutal honesty" trait – that's endemic to my personality and thus something I have trouble weeding out of any "character" I build – and along with that my true nature reflects my online one in that I don't like to mince words.

            In reality, however, I'm far more like to listen to opinions and complaints. If for no other reason than that when dealing with an individual who is aught but a random block of text you are able to read more about that individual than their words alone can provide. Body language and voice patterns provide clues by which to judge many things about an individual. You can far more rapidly assess whether that individual is likely to be competent, have opinions/complaints/concerns that are valid or whether they are simply "hysterical individuals."

            What I find interesting about this entire thread is the certainty of some individuals that they can pin you down based on what you type in forums like these. We're readers of The Register for $deity's sake! We are supposed to be technologically adept internet sophisticates! We are supposed to understand the complexities not only of the machinery we tinker with but also of the online communities that we frequent!

            How many articles have you read that discuss the science of alternate behaviour patterns in online fora? Or group dynamics as it applies to either online or offline scenarios? If you are older than 12 and on this site, you should have encountered dozens – maybe even hundreds – by now.

            Forums on websites like The Register aren't carefully constructed, rigidly moderated bastions of academic thought, inclusive cooperation and mutual respect. Far from it! They are cesspools of the worst kinds of egotistical self promotion and partisan vitriol. Anonymity removes people's social inhibitions and you don't tend to get civil discourse.

            Unlike some, I accept this as the natural order of things. I may not personally like it – and I have lengthy proposals for changes that could be made to eventually curb this – but I do play the game.

            In this case, the game is being a mirror to The Register's community. The Register's commenters have become a community of "me, me, me;" inwardly focused on their own opinions and demanding that all and sundry believe exactly as they do. The past few years have seen this get worse, not better. Everyone enjoys tearing everyone else down whilst maintaining a pretence of individual unassailability, doubly so when individual opinion rather than rationally deconstructable criticism is the topic of discussion.

            I find the entire exercise childish and demeaning, doubly so to the writers whom many of The Register's commenttard community seem to feel entitled to mock, berate and belittle.

            So I gave up any attempts to be civil or lead by example; and yes I did have a period of trying that. I even had a nice period of simply "walking away" and washing my hands of the for a entirely. That lasted the better part of a year. Ultimately, I decided against both approaches deliberately and with very careful consideration.

            If The Register's commenttards choose to act like vacuous children, then I will hold the mirror up to their faces. I will treat them with the same lack of respect they demonstrate for the writers and for their fellow commenttards. I will engage with them – at random, if I can – and argue them down to little trolled-out nubs. Since it is generally the same offenders over and over one of two things will happen, both of which are completely acceptable to me:

            1) I will drive off the worst of the piranhas (unlikely).

            2) I will vent my personal frustrations in a safe and largely consequence free environment whilst creating a "personality" that commenters on The Register can become polarised towards: love or hate, they can't stop reading, commenting and engaging with (seems to have worked.)

            Yes, it's cynical. Yes, it is cold and calculated. What else would you expect? Every single thing I do is calculated and has a purpose. It always has.

            If you want to get to know me, and not the character I choose to play you need to step away from The Register a little. A great start would be some of the Q&A interviews that folks have done with me. The first part of the Spiceworks Q&A is out. It should provide a much more realistic view of me, the individual.

            The fact that you – or anyone – buys the persona portrayed in these forums as "me" without questioning the lunacy of that should tell you a lot. Of itself, it should start you thinking about human dynamics in online for a…and I use my real name here. Imagine how those dynamics change for those using pseudonyms!

            The people that don't think about such things – that simply accept the world at face value – they are the ones that shouldn't be running companies. They are incapable of seeing the wheels within the wheels that are part and parcel of human interaction. Everything from fora persona to business interactions and reading your opponent across a negotiating table.

            Cheers, mate.

            Have a pint on me.

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "I have the product ideas to get started and I have the schmoozing skills."

          Funny, everyone you converse with in the comments on here seems to hate you within 3 posts.

          "I've taken the time to learn from others who have gone before" No idea where you get this from, any time anyone says anything vaguely constructive you shout them down and become childish.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            @07:38 Funny, I seem to get along fine with folks that actually say things which are constructive. It's the ones who just want to emote and self-promote that I rather enjoy mixing it up with. Constructive is good; plenty of them around here I rather like.

  3. jai

    so...

    so the "news" in this article is that Cook's pay is less than last year, although, it's not because last year included special one-off bonus, and in fact, this year he's got a little bit more than last year?

    i'm not sure there's any real news there, although, fair play to El Reg, the FT also covered this in a full page article.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: so...

      Bear in mind when you read an article about outrageous executive pay, they'll be spinning it upwards by including every one-off. Not to mention double-counting, so for example a five-year award will be counted when it's first awarded, then again in each of the five years over which it's paid.

      This article is kind-of a counterbalance to that. Same spin, but with a self-aware angle as opposed to an intention to mislead.

  4. JeeBee

    That's a lot of money...

    Maybe we should pay footballers in share options instead of vast wages, cars and expensive call girls, might make them concentrate a bit more on playing well, not getting red carded, having an investment in the club they play for and doing a good job overall.

    Hmm, not that share options have done much of any of the above for CEOs and the like in businesses.

    I'm trying to work out how someone is worth over $60m a year. Not that I'd say no myself, but it does seem a bit OTT. Spread those share options a bit more liberally around the company Apple.

    1. Jediben

      Re: That's a lot of money...

      Footballers are a particular bug-bear of mine, specifically their apparent immunity to criticism for performance compared to team managers. I don't understand a process whereby a player can be bought for X million, tied into a 3/4/5 year contract and perhaps not play more than 40% of the time (and perform poorly) but still be paid in full, slathered with sponsorship endorsements and generally worshipped, but a manager can be in a job for 9 games and get the sack within 2 months because the 11 players on the pitch were crap. The players still get to stay on though.

      What's a suitable IT analogy? Buying windows 8 and installing it on a Dell PC but realising that you can't figure out how to make it playback your UEFA Champions Leage Highlights DVD. You throw it out.

      Then you buy another PC from HP, install Windows 8 on it and get the same result.

      Then you try installing it on a Compaq. Same again.

      And then you tell your mates that all PCs are shit because they can't play DVDs...

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: That's a lot of money...

        >Footballers are a particular bug-bear of mine

        Film stars are even worse. You pay Bruce Willis/Arnie/Clooney $100M to appear in a movie,it takes $1Bn at the box office yet makes a loss - and they still pay the star

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Pirate

      Re: That's a lot of money...

      "Maybe we should pay footballers in share options!

      That could make for some interesting matches after players get transferred from one team to another.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Fanbois may recall that Jobs famously gave himself a salary of $1 at Apple but held shares worth billions."

    So that was nothing more than a tax fiddle? Wish the rest of us could get out of paying income tax and national insurance as easily.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Maybe so, but you sure have to trust that those shares will go up otherwise you quickly earn negative income...

      Great motivator right there and shares going up is good for the wider economy too.

      1. NumptyScrub

        quote: "Great motivator right there and shares going up is good for the wider economy too."

        I've always been confused by this one. Unless there is an infinite source of money, a value increase in share price should consequently de-value something else, surely? So the concomitant devaluation (of competitors, I would assume?) would in parallel be bad for the economy, wouldn't it?

        I know trading is not a fully zero-sum game, and neither is economics in general thanks to inflation, but I didn't think it was skewed enough to allow value increases to have no negative knock-on effects... :/

        Anyone got an easily digestible explanation for that?

        1. frank ly

          @NumptyScrub re.

          "Unless there is an infinite source of money, a value increase in share price should consequently de-value something else, surely? "

          In which case, we'd be stuck in the Victorian age (or earlier) as far as share valuations and total wealth was concerned. Don't ask me to explain it, I'm just observing and commenting here. An economist will be along in a minute.

          1. tath
            Pirate

            Re: @NumptyScrub re.

            Credit creation, very basically!

            You may "have" money in the bank, but unless you actually go to the bank, withdraw it and stuff it under your mattress, the bank will be doing other things with a proportion of it (keeping some as reserve for the proportion of people who withdraw some or all of their money).

            Say you put £100 in the bank... They will lend out a proportion of it, call it 90%, so someone else now has £90, but you still have your £100 'in the bank'. The 2nd person spends their £90, the shop puts it in the bank and the bank then lends out £81 of it, and you get a series:

            £100 + 0.9*100 + 0.9^2*100 + 0.9^3*100 ........... = £1000.

            So £100 is now £1000, hinging around everybody not realising this, especially not at the same time, and definitely not if they find out the £100 they put in the bank went to a high risk and there's a chance they won't get it back, cue Northern Rock run.

            tl;dr - it's all lies.

            1. NumptyScrub

              Re: @NumptyScrub re.

              quote: "Credit creation, very basically!

              tl;dr - it's all lies."

              I suspected as much, but was very much hoping to be proved wrong. Even less fun when you find out governments use very similar techniques and just print more when they need it (usually after selling the reserves it should be guaranteed on)... :'(

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yeah right - he would have paid more tax on what he spends than you earn. Income tax and NI are not the only taxes. He also increased the value of Apple enormously which would have triggered huge capital gains taxes for Apple shareholders. So as far as increasing overall tax take he is an ocean and you are a teacup.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    99% pay cut

    Yet he's still earned more money this year than anyone has in their entire career peddling Linux....

    1. Greg J Preece

      Re: 99% pay cut

      Obvious troll is obvious, but hey, I'm bored. Bored enough to look Jim Whitehurst up on Forbes and read the part where he earned $7,407,214 in 2011 (figures for 2012 aren't there yet).

      Soooooo....no.

    2. Mark .

      Re: 99% pay cut

      I suspect Google and Samsung have made plenty (hint, Android is based on Linux).

  7. johnnymotel
    WTF?

    all that dosh!

    and I read he gets up at 6, does a round at the gym, spends the rest of the day in the office and then goes home.....so WTF does he (or any other high paid CEO) spend the money on?

    1. frank ly

      Re: all that dosh!

      Yachts, big ones, expensive ones; but not beautiful ones I suspect.

    2. Greg J Preece

      Re: all that dosh!

      so WTF does he (or any other high paid CEO) spend the money on?

      Same thing we should all aim for (IMO): retiring early and spending the rest of our days enjoying everything else.

  8. Goldmember
    Thumb Down

    WTF?

    "Cook was also a runner-up in this year's Time Person of the Year award"

    For what, exactly? Being able to 'head' a successful and well-established company without completely ruining it in less than a year? Having lots of money?

    An activist I can understand, and even a president trying to make the most of a country gone to shit, but Cook? I'm sure he does make decisions on a day to day basis (he has to do something to earn that 4 mil) but he has an army of experienced advisers around him to walk him through every step, and is certainly not worthy of being anywhere near the top of the 'person of the year' award. What a pile of bullshit Time is.

    1. Eh9999
      WTF?

      Re: WTF?

      I had to say the same.

      Exactly what has he done to got on such a list? As you said, he took over a company which was dominating the markets it was in, and had a number of already well received products in the hands of consumers. I'm struggling to think of what he's done which has further expanded the company which didn't rely on the work already carried out by Jobs and Co before he took the helm.

      1. Mark .

        Re: WTF?

        "dominating the markets it was in"

        Not even that - they don't dominate in computer operating systems, and they're third place in phones behind even Nokia (or by mobile OS, outsold by Android 6 times over). Which makes it even worse.

        He's the CEO of a multinational. The media can harp on about Apple's "success", but the fact is it's nothing more than the success of many other multinationals (you have to be successful in order to get to being a multinational, basically).

        It's sad to see the Apple bias in the media continues after Jobs - it's sad to see their pathetic attempts to try to personify Apple with the new CEO (what's-his-name), just like they did with Jobs - it's far easier to make a company look friendlier or different when you see them as a person, and just look at the overblown hoo-hah when Jobs died. Do we think most of those overemotional Apple fans even know the name of the CEO of larger and more successful Samsung is, let alone know if he died?

        (I suppose the counter example is that being Time Person of the Year isn't necessarily a compliment, but also covers negative aspects, e.g., obvious example being Hitler - so this could cover the negative actions of Apple such as trying to lock the most successful smartphone platform out of the market. But even there, it's ludicrous to say he's the most influential person, or anywhere near it)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: WTF?

          Suspect the 'success' of Samsung will be far more short lived than Apple and they will be back to making average fridges and cheap TVs just as soon as 'someone else' develops the next 'best' Android phone and tablets. They have no unique selling point - Apple have iOS and the whole ecosystem - Samsung make hardware and in 6-12-18 months that could all change.

          The only long term winner with Android is Google and remember they bought Motorola - now lets suppose Motorola made the next new 'best' Android phone - I can imagine a lot of people would have no issue buying that instead after all with Android it's the OS not the phone manufacturer. Lenovo, Asus, Motorola or ...?

          The other irony with the 'success' of Samsung is it's largely been on the back of Apple - Samsung phones pre-iPhone were just like any other Nokia, LG etc.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: WTF?

          The person of the year award is for the person "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year."

          Don't see your name being suggested? Big Mac meal please - no mayo.

          It really is ridiculous to suggest Samsung are any better - guess their CEO is a Saint on earth?

  9. Tom 35 Silver badge

    Poor baby

    Only about 100x what most people make.

  10. sleepy

    non-story

    Last years pay was golden handcuffs that will reward him over the coming decade or so provided he stays and achieves results. Of course he's not getting more this year. What does he do? For a start he gets up at 3:45 every morning then does an hour of email and an hour in the gym and then a very long day's work. He is seriously, obsessively dedicated. Would you be if you had hundreds of millions in the bank?

    1. Neil Greatorex

      @ sleepy

      Didn't read the article to the end, eh?

  11. stefn

    Old Reliable

    Trust the Register to pick up on a bogus story.

  12. Boris S.

    Just a Poor Boy

    Poor Tim, it's a tough life for a CEO. I guess he'll just have to tighten his belt and average his $700 MILLION compensation from last year with the "lump of coal" that the Rotten Apple doled out this year. Some how I think Tim is strong enough to scrap by under the circumstances...

  13. graeme leggett

    Cook's salary written out in words

    "wealth beyond the dreams of avarice"

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Neil Greatorex

      @Chris Thomas Alpha

      wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.

      Avarice = Greed

      How can you dream of riches beyond the dreams of greed?

  14. Ketlan
    Devil

    No dosh here

    'The chief executive took home a paltry $4.17m'

    Poor lamb.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No dosh here

      I have tears in my beir over Timmy only getting a paltry $4 million this year. I'm so distraught I might need to have another beir.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No dosh here

        Think you have had too many already perhaps a dictionary would serve you better?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No dosh here

      ... and his stock options have increased in value by almost $400m as well.

  15. Boris S.

    Maybe we should take up a collection?

    Do you think the Chincese slaves will be able to donate to Tim's worthy cause?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Maybe we should take up a collection?

      Slaves - hardly - people travel long distances and queue to apply for jobs at the factories.

      Also before you say things like 'slaves' ever considered if they would be better or worse off without those jobs?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Maybe we should take up a collection?

        You might want to educate yourselves... Just because they queue up so they don't starve to death due to over-population does not mean they are not treated and abused as slaves - which has been documented. Being in denial is ignorant. Pretending that Foxconn is doing these people a "favor" is insulting and foolish.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Maybe we should take up a collection?

          I am not saying it's a place I would choose to work - but they do - so what does that say of the alternative?

          So what is your master plan - move the jobs back to the US and then are they better or worse off?

  16. Anonymous Bosch

    Charitable Donations

    How much did Tim Cook give to charity this year? Anyone know?

  17. 2Fat2Bald

    Correct me if I am wrong....

    But the whole bloody point of the article was to be lighthearted, and have a bit of a pop at Apple maybe. Saying that you don't like the way it is written is a bit like complaining that the spaceships in Star Trek don't conform to neutonian physics. Yes, you're correct, but this is irrelevant. The piece was written for entertainment value as much as it was for technical accuracy.

    I never waste time wondering why CEOs, Bankers or Footballers are paid so much. I don't run a company, I have appauling maths and i'm shit at football. Therefore none of the above really effect me very much.

    But I will say this. Apple do seem to have lost their trademark surefootedness as of late. At the moment most of the products being launched were probably largely instigated under Steve Job's regieme. But that won't be true for much longer, and it will be interesting to see how much the company changes with a new person at the helm. Certainly the appearance of the iPad mini could indictate that someone, somewhere thinks differently from Steve Jobs. They may be right, they may be wrong. But Apple are a unique company, a lot of their value is in fashionability and brand image. It would not be hard to cock it up so badly that they become a pariah brand. However it would be very hard to do as good a job of reading the writing the market as Steve Jobs did.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019