

Steve Job gets $1 and Tim Cook $59 Million  - bakbak
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-07/apple-coo-tim-cook-made-59-million-last-year-after-filling-in-for-jobs.html

======
inovica
Apple is the company that Jobs founded and whilst he was ousted (and sold his
shares) at the time, I'm sure that it will always be his 'baby'. He obviously
loves what he does and doesn't need the money anyway. I can't remember where I
read it, but he leads a relatively frugal lifestyle in comparison to his
peers. Do what you love I suppose :)

~~~
Encosia
He should have received right at $250,000,000 in dividends on his Disney stock
since selling Pixar. He's certainly not hurting for cash, frugal or not.

~~~
inovica
Sure, he's certainly not going to need the money from Apple, but it also shows
where his passion is that he still accepts $1 from the company and hasn't sold
any shares. Whilst not everyone agrees with his methods or what Apple stands
for, there's no denying the success that Apple has become since he came back
on board and was the catalyst for huge change and growth.

------
jpwagner
Would be more interesting if it were "Joe Blow, CEO of ABC Widget Co."

Steve Jobs is such an outlier, we'll still be reading his quotes with
Einstein's and Yogi Berra's in 150 years.

------
c2
Tim Cook is worth every penny.

------
paylesworth
Your title is misleading because you're comparing Job's annual salary with
Cook's total compensation. If you read the fine print of the article, it
clearly states that Cook's annual salary "remained at about $800,000."

Later down, the article also shares that Jobs "holds about 5.5 million shares
in the company and hasn’t sold any since rejoining." If you wanted to
extrapolate Job's current worth based on Apple stock, it would be roughly $1.8
bil. ($334 / share * 5.5mil shares)

Anyway, I'm not sure what you were trying to point out with this article, but
I don't think Job's is being short-changed. The $1 salary is mainly a PR
stunt.

~~~
jonknee
But Jobs received no stock this year. Cook received tons ($52.3 million to be
exact).

------
rick_2047
Steve jobs knows what is the difference between owning a company and working
for a company. When you are an employee you get a fixed salary, when you own a
company you get whatever the company makes.

~~~
bradleyland
I believe in that philosophy, personally, but I doubt it has anything to do
with why Steve Jobs takes a $1 salary. It's not as if Apple would suffer if he
were to take a bigger salary.

I think it has more to do with the "Zen" of Steve Jobs. The bottom line is
that Steve Jobs doesn't do it for the money, and he has all the money he'll
ever need.

[http://books.google.com/books?id=9zzvMOF4PEwC&pg=PA44...](http://books.google.com/books?id=9zzvMOF4PEwC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44)

------
sabat
I object to any executive making $59 million of the _stockholder's_ money. It
either goes back to the stockholders or is reinvested into company operations.

~~~
stuff4ben
one could argue that giving the executives those shares _is_ investing into
company operations.

~~~
sabat
It's just investing in the executives. Actually investing in company
operations means spending money to get things, not giving away money. Giving
Tim Cook a ton of money doesn't actually get Apple anything. He could quit
tomorrow and Apple wouldn't feel it at all.

~~~
philwelch
_He could quit tomorrow and Apple wouldn't feel it at all._

If any C-level executive at any corporation could quit tomorrow and the
company wouldn't feel it at all, that executive needs to be fired. Employees
are an investment like anything else.

~~~
sabat
It's a rare employee who is not expendable. Tim Cook is not that employee.

