Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck Apple

Apple Puts $383 Million Handcuffs On CEO Tim Cook 170

Posted by timothy
from the I'll-take-those-odds dept.
theodp writes "There are bonuses. And then there are bonuses. Apple's board, led by sadly frail-looking chairman Steve Jobs, signaled its long-term confidence in Tim Cook as the company's new leader, disclosing in a regulatory filing that it's awarding the new CEO one million restricted stock units that will vest over the next decade. Apple shares closed at $383.53 Friday. From the SEC filing: 'In connection with Mr. Cook's appointment as Chief Executive Officer, the Board awarded Mr. Cook 1,000,000 restricted stock units. Fifty percent of the restricted stock units are scheduled to vest on each of August 24, 2016 and August 24, 2021, subject to Mr. Cook's continued employment with Apple through each such date.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Puts $383 Million Handcuffs On CEO Tim Cook

Comments Filter:
  • by Kensai7 (1005287) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @07:35AM (#37226794)

    This way if the company continues to win and prosper, he will become wealthy. Otherwise no honey. This is the right way!

    • by Trufagus (1803250)

      He already had an enormous number of shares, the eyes of the tech world on him, and the biggest company in the world at his command, and you're suggesting there wasn't sufficient motivation???

      If he didn't want this job, and intend to do his absolute best even without this additional bonus then he shouldn't have got this job.

      • by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @09:27AM (#37227366)

        It's a message to the outside world more than anything else: Apple and Cook saying "We think this job is long term and we're going to make profit doing it together." Sort of a mutual vote of confidence to calm any anxiety outsiders might have.

        • by hawk (1151) <hawk@eyry.org> on Saturday August 27, 2011 @12:14PM (#37228334) Journal

          It's also the correct way to make him share in both success *and* failure.

          Options were a reform that failed; they only work upwards. Once they dip underwater, they encourage wild risk, as the executive has nothing more to lose.

          What we really need is a tax code adjustment. Right now, if an executive is paid in stock, the valuenis general immediately taxable. If half of his pay were in stock, he would have to either sell stock to pay these taxes or give up the bulk of his pay to pay them (and then pay capital gains on the amount by which they increased when he eventually sold them, the difference between the sales price and the "basis" [price he received them at and was taxed upon]).

          Instead, when stock is the majority of the compensation, and is restricted from transfer for several years, it should come at a basis of 0, with no current taxation. When sold, the entire amount would be capital gain (or, tax the amount that would have been basis as ordinary income). Now the exec can afford to keep the stock, and also feels the shareholders' pain.

          dochawk, economist

          • Yes, but then under current tax laws this $383 million paycheck is only taxable at %15. I'd agree with you, if capital gains tax weren't so fundamentally broken.
            • Gah! Stupid - missed the "(or, tax the amount that would have been basis as ordinary income)" in brackets. Completely agree with you.
    • So, odds that Apple will fire him in the first week of August, 2016? Any bets?
      • Big companies can screw over the little guy all week long but someone expecting a 181.5 million dollar payday isn't someone you can screw over like that. He would be able to afford the best attorneys in the world and if it really were a week before the vesting date it's an open and shut case of fraud. All the people who approved a decision like that would be fired and probably face losing their personal assets for approving outright fraud.

        Now, if it's a year before the vesting date...that's a trickier cas

    • I agree one thousand percent! All bonuses should be tied to the corporate welfare. If the corporation goes bankrupt, then all the execs should be on the streets looking for handouts. If the corporation does well, then execs should get a bonus. If the corporation does exceedingly well, then execs might get a really good bonus.

      Anything else is insanity.

      • by Ihmhi (1206036)

        I might be naive on this, but isn't this how bonuses already work? I thought that bonuses were tied to performance or meeting other goals (i.e. a HR guy having a good retention rate of hired employees, or an IT guy getting a new technology deployed by the end of the quarter). I'd like to see an example of someone getting a bonus when they've been doing a shitty job (excluding the easy google result of the banks after the bailout).

        • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @10:50AM (#37227804) Homepage Journal

          I hate to say it - but, yes, you're naive. You must have missed the government bailout of my nation's largest banking corporations. Despite the fact that our largest banks were on the brink of bankruptcy and disaster, those same banks took bailouts in one hand, and paid their executives exorbitant bonuses with the other hand. There have been numerous news stories in the past decade, of executives being sacked, or even convicted, but still demanding (and getting) lucrative bonuses and/or severance packages. I have no idea how the rest of the world handles these things, but here in America, if you are one of the "Good Old Boys", you can't lose. Drive a good company into the dirt, and walk away with awesome bonuses.

        • Incentives are hard (Score:5, Interesting)

          by sjbe (173966) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @12:15PM (#37228344)

          I might be naive on this, but isn't this how bonuses already work? I thought that bonuses were tied to performance or meeting other goals...

          Not necessarily. Sometime bonuses are given out for no immediately obvious reason. Sometimes they are given out because the company board's compensation committee are a bunch of buddies who give the CEO a bonus even when the company loses money. Even if there are performance goals attached, all too often they are too easy reach. Goal oriented bonuses are difficult. Make them too easy and you don't accomplish anything. Make them too hard and they serve no incentive purpose - no point in reaching for a goal you can't actually achieve. In fact incentives in general are difficult to align with the goals of the company. For example, many salesmen are on commission based on revenue. The problem is that this motivates them to sell as much as possible, regardless of profitability. Companies have been ruined by misaligned incentives and management pay is no exception. There is an old saying that if you tell me someone's incentives I'll tell you their behavior.

          I'd like to see an example of someone getting a bonus when they've been doing a shitty job (excluding the easy google result of the banks after the bailout).

          How about Carly Fiorina who was given $180 million for what can generously be termed uninspired performance and a declining stock price. How about AIG awarding $165 billion in bonuses [wikipedia.org] AFTER receiving bailout money. It's not remotely difficult to find examples of executives being handsomely rewarded for mediocre or even terrible performance.

          • How about AIG awarding $165 billion in bonuses AFTER receiving bailout money

            I think you mean $165 million.

      • All bonuses should be tied to the long term corporate welfare.

        Need to make sure the company is guarded against the "mass firings, short term gain pump and dump" schemes that seem to be so popular these days.

      • by martyros (588782)

        If the corporation goes bankrupt, then all the execs should be on the streets looking for handouts.

        Unfortunately options don't work that way. If the stock tanks, they're worth $0, not negative.

        Maybe a better way to structure it would be to offer to match his stock purchase / ownership with options. I.e., if he buys (or already owns) 100,000 shares of stock, they give him 100,000 options. (Or 200,000, or something like that). Then if the stock tanks, he *really* loses something...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      This way if the company continues to win and prosper, he will become wealthy. Otherwise no honey. This is the right way!

      He can tank Apple stock by 90% and walk away with 38m$ bonus for it. The right way?

      • This way if the company continues to win and prosper, he will become wealthy. Otherwise no honey. This is the right way!

        He can tank Apple stock by 90% and walk away with 38m$ bonus for it. The right way?

        Or he can double Apple stock and walk away with a $767m bonus.

        Also keep in mind that he can be fired if he performs poorly, so if he tanks Apple stock in the next 5 years he gets $0.

        • by jayveekay (735967)

          You are saying that Apple's board would fire its CEO and not hand that CEO some sort of multimillion dollar exit package on the way out?

          I guess you "Think Different" from the boards of pretty much every other major US company in recent history.

          • by perpenso (1613749)

            You are saying that Apple's board would fire its CEO and not hand that CEO some sort of multimillion dollar exit package on the way out? I guess you "Think Different" from the boards of pretty much every other major US company in recent history.

            That is a weak straw man argument. A hypothetical exit package is something different from this bonus and would probably occur whether or not any such bonus existed.

            What I am saying is that the $383M bonus vests 50% at 5 years and 100% at 10 years, so its pretty clear the CEO wouldn't be getting that were he to screw up royally.

    • That's some mighty fine booze money there my friend.
    • This way if the company continues to win and prosper, he will become wealthy. Otherwise no honey.

      This is an outrageous affront to the principles of merit and earned reward which made this country great. If CEOs cannot expect an honest $5 million bonus payment for liquidating divisions and rolling back R&D in the short term, how will we attract the best people to run our companies?

      It's no surprise to hear this from a company run by a known former hippie. This kind of peace and love "fairness" will sink Apple as it will sink that other great coropration, the U.S.A. Ambitious, driven people will be forced out by poor remunerations, to be replaced by steady, long-term focused, family men whose decisions will be stymied by their senses of "responsibility" or--God Almighty forbid--"fiscal prudence".

      That's not the America I know! The America I know gives 29 years olds a chance to run multi-million dollar companies and over three times their own age. It allows new technologies to be brought to market cheaply by giving their secrets to foreign contractors. It allows billions of dollars to soak up the economic chain to the righteous, hard-working, low-taxed millionaire hands where it belongs. The America I know embraces inequality as a founding principle!

      If this catches on, expect myself and the rest of your betters moving on to a better life in Shanghai, under a Government which recognises and rewards our ability.

    • by JamesP (688957)

      Yeah, I mean, Jobs' salary was only one dollar a year, no wonder he resigned...

    • It's also a clever way of avoiding income tax.

  • Oh look... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bmo (77928) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @07:37AM (#37226798)

    Motivation to look out for the long-term interest of the company instead of the next quarter.

    Whoda thunk it?

    Sadly, such motivation is missing from the portfolios of many CEOs.

    These are not handcuffs. The only people who think these are handcuffs are day traders and speculators. Fuck them.

    --
    BMO

    • Day traders and speculators in the employ of major banks and trading houses unfortunately make the market. Aided by the unending stupidities of cost accounting.

      One can only hope seeing a goliath like Apple make an obvious pro-throughput move will convince a few others.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816)

        Day traders and speculators in the employ of major banks and trading houses unfortunately make the market.

        I think you mean make up the market. Corporations producing goods of value make the market.

      • Day traders and speculators in the employ of major banks and trading houses unfortunately make the market

        I work for a small-cap publicly-traded software company, with the share price around $4. Do the above cause the share price to go up and down marginally? (up a quarter, down fifty cents, up a quarter, then again etc.) Sure. However, our share price is primarily driven by company performance - Our revenue and OpEx - The share price metrics clearly point to this. "Day Traders" are not going to deci

    • How is this motivation to do well? Suppose Cook royally screws up and Apple stock drops to $100/share. Then his bonus is only worth $100 million. That's quite a penalty. Give him a million options, and he'll need to keep the stock price going up.
    • by Ryanrule (1657199)
      Ide like to see it at 30 years. For amount of money, working someone to death is completely acceptable.
    • by Raenex (947668)

      These are not handcuffs. The only people who think these are handcuffs are day traders and speculators.

      Or activist spin-doctors like theodp. Yes, he does this with every submission.

  • ya know.... APPL just may tumble all the way down by 2021. I guess $1million @ $1/share aint so bad either
    • by bmo (77928)

      That... uh... sort of the point of these vested stock options.

      Companies do not just randomly tank on their own. They need to be driven there by incompetent leadership.

      If he drives the company into the ground in 10 years, he doesn't deserve a dime, actually, but if he triples the value of the company, he gets more than a billion dollars for his troubles.

      It's the right way to do things.

  • by Morky (577776)
    Nice bonus, but $383,000,000 doesn't buy what it used to.
    • No, and ten years from now who knows how weak the dollar might be? We might all have contracts for $383 million by then.

      • by shitzu (931108)

        Yeah, but his contract is for 1000000 stocks that AT THE MOMENT cost $383 apiece. The price will be something else by the time you will have a $383 million contract.

  • by alen (225700) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @07:40AM (#37226812)

    it's stock he can't sell for another 10 years. it's only worth 383 million if the stock price stays where it's at. Just look at GE after jack welch left. MS after bill gates. or almost any other company after an iconic CEO or founder steps down. the stock usually tanks.

    usually it's the law of large numbers. you can't grow as fast when you're a huge company

    • by bmo (77928)

      Microsoft's stock tanked at the Dot Bust, over 10 years ago.

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT+Basic+Chart&t=my [yahoo.com]

      It hasn't ever recovered. When Gates left, it didn't even leave a bump in the graph.

      To contrast with a different situation...

      When Carly Fiorina got kicked out of HP, the market cap of HP bounced 3 billion dollars. In other words, the market thought Carly was a drag on HP by 3 billion.

      --
      BMO

      • by macs4all (973270)

        When Carly Fiorina got kicked out of HP, the market cap of HP bounced 3 billion dollars. In other words, the market thought Carly was a drag on HP by 3 billion.

        She and her bathroom-spying team, er, WERE.

        Good riddance, bitch!

        • by bmo (77928) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @08:12AM (#37226976)

          I feel ya, bro, I feel ya.

          She was of the same school as Scully. "We sell a brand, not products." We need to find the business schools where they learn this shit and burn them to the ground.

          --
          BMO

          • by Kjella (173770)

            She was of the same school as Scully. "We sell a brand, not products." We need to find the business schools where they learn this shit and burn them to the ground.

            Because Apple isn't selling a brand? An image? The problem is that some CEOs go over the top and forget that the actual product is part of your reputation as well. If people think your product is buggy low-quality shit and you get a reputation for that, it's a turn-off in every market segment. Then it hardly matters if you're hitting the "right" segments or not.

            • by bmo (77928) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @09:27AM (#37227372)

              >Because Apple isn't selling a brand? An image?

              No, they don't They sell products first. The brand, the reputation /follows/.

              It's how they were brought back from the dead, because Apple had a shitty reputation back in the 90s because they did stupid shit like sell an '030 machine for $10,000 with a straight face (the 20'th anniversary edition Macintosh).

              Scully was "brand first, product last" and it showed through the entire 90s until Jobs came back after learning hard lessons at NeXT.

              "Brand first product last" kills companies. It was introduced at HP with Carly, and the effects of the Carly era are still being felt, because HP just decided they can't compete in the hardware arena anymore.

              Another "brand first, product last" company is Nokia. Nokia built a reputation on innovative phones that worked. Now look at them. Instead of innovating in the smartphone space, they sat on their hands and phoned it in (hah) on their name, only to become a Microsoft puppet in the Trojan Horse CEO deal of the century.

              I give HP 5 years, and then their stock is going to be pennies.

              I give Nokia 2 years and they will cease to exist.

              --
              BMO

            • by jo_ham (604554)

              It's subtly different - Apple's brand is one of the most important things to Apple, to the exclusion of a couple of other things that a company might normally place above it (like popularity among geeks, who are traditionally high spenders on hardware).

              What they *sell* to you though is a product, which the brand merely accentuates. After the sale you have an iPad/iPhone/Mac and the advertising talks about what those things do, as does the Apple site and the documentation. You get something tangible.

              HP, on t

          • I feel ya, bro, I feel ya.

            She was of the same school as Scully. "We sell a brand, not products." We need to find the business schools where they learn this shit and burn them to the ground.

            -- BMO

            well, for successful companies, that is true. A good brand enables companies to extract a price premium - because people know and trust the company's brand. Products, of course go hand in hand with that - you need to make good products so the brand is valuable, but you sell the brand. Otherwise, all you have is another me-too commodity.

            Commodity sellers try desperately to create a brand - so they can sell it and get more. why do you think the Canadian Wheat Board spends money selling the attributes of "C

    • Eric S Raymond (and Taco) after this [slashdot.org]...
    • by macs4all (973270) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @08:06AM (#37226932)

      it's stock he can't sell for another 10 years. it's only worth 383 million if the stock price stays where it's at. Just look at GE after jack welch left. MS after bill gates. or almost any other company after an iconic CEO or founder steps down. the stock usually tanks.

      usually it's the law of large numbers. you can't grow as fast when you're a huge company

      Amazingly, even though "the market" is EXTREMELY jittery right now, Apple's stock only went down by 7%, and in two days is now trading HIGHER than the pre-announcement price.

      This reflects the fact that Tim Cook IS the right man for the Job, and in fact, already HAS a proven track record at Apple, since he has run the company twice (or is it three times?) during Jobs' other hiatuses (hiatii?). And Apple and Jobs' have been quite smart by pushing Tim's previous fill-ins out into the limelight. Not only did that signal to everyone that Apple had "a plan" for succession, but also let everyone get to know Tim Cook, and his managerial style.

      Fortunately, Jobs' protracted illness has given both he and Apple time to do this right. If Jobs had died in a plane crash or something, and no one had ever heard of Tim, THEN there would have been a bigger drop. But not this way.

      Apple's stock isn't going to be "tanking" anytime soon. Now go spread your FUD somewhere else.

      • by flyingsquid (813711) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @08:30AM (#37227080)
        This reflects the fact that Tim Cook IS the right man for the Job, and in fact, already HAS a proven track record at Apple, since he has run the company twice (or is it three times?) during Jobs' other hiatuses (hiatii?).

        What it probably reflects is that the news of Jobs departure was already factored into the stock price. Investors already knew how central Jobs has been to Apple, investors knew that Jobs had previously taken a medical leave for pancreatic cancer, and investors knew that Jobs had gotten a liver transplant which appeared to be an effort to treat a recurrence of that cancer. This wasn't insider information or anything, this was widely reported in places like Slate.com. Given that, it seemed like the question was not whether Jobs would leave but when, and everyone's been waiting for this to happen. Now it has, and the uncertainty is removed.

        • by Kjella (173770)

          That, and that Jobs isn't dead he's now chairman of the board. Of course that means he won't be running things day to day like a CEO, but he'll be there to guide Apple. Hopefully the cancer isn't terminal but if it is, I think that's when we'll see the real drop.

          • by mikael_j (106439) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @09:15AM (#37227314)

            I'm not going to speculate on the exact reasons for Jobs resigning as CEO but I suspect it was done now rather than later is so that Tim Cook gets a chance to prove to the rest of the world that he really is capable of running Apple. So should Jobs step down completely/die/whatever in the future the stock price won't tank because everyone has gotten over the whole "Apple needs Jobs to survive" thing.

            In that way it's a smart move. If anything, Jobs is 56 years old, even if it wasn't for his illness that sounds like the age at which you'd at least be considering your retirement plan. For all we know he might be perfectly (well as perfect as you can be after a transplant and cancer) healthy but just knows that he doesn't want Apple to go down the drain when he retires and he doesn't want to keep working past 60 or 65.

            I know a few people who ran their own companies and they all started putting things into motion for their retirement in similar ways when they were in their mid-50s, it just takes a while to step down when you're The Boss(tm).

            • > For all we know he might be perfectly (well as perfect as you
              > can be after a transplant and cancer) healthy

              Did you click on the photo link in TFA? It saddens me greatly, but I am quite certain Jobs has seen his last Christmas. And maybe even Labour Day.

            • Tim Cook is 50 years old. He's only 6 years younger than Steve Jobs. I don't think age is the thing here.
      • by Dhalka226 (559740)

        Well, you're right: Apple won't be tanking anytime soon, but the long-term success of the company is still in question.

        The problem is, we won't really be able to evaluate it for a while. I'm sure they already have their next product or two down the road pretty much mapped out and all Tim has to do is point the rudder that direction. The real test will come in when Steve Jobs no longer plays an active role at Apple and there isn't a document somewhere laying out the path forward. In short, we have to ge

        • When 35% of consumers say they will buy the iPhone 5 without knowing anything about it or seeing it , and 51% say they would buy it in the first year*,I think that's a pretty nice cushion.

          And so it is but what people say they will do and what they actually will do are frequently VERY different. Let's say hypothetically that the iPhone 5 is a flop for some reason. Apple now gets about half their revenue from that product line. Cell phone buyers are notoriously fickle. I suspect most of us would switch phones in a heartbeat if we didn't like a particular phone. Sure, some people will buy even the crappiest product but Apple could easily lose a tremendous amount of revenue with just one po

      • This reflects the fact that Tim Cook IS the right man for the Job, and in fact, already HAS a proven track record at Apple, since he has run the company twice (or is it three times?) during Jobs' other hiatuses (hiatii?)

        He MAY be the right guy but that remains to be seen. Tim Cook by all accounts is a heck of a good executive but he's a different guy with different skills. That's not to say he will fail but he can't (and shouldn't) run the company exactly the same way because he is a different guy. The trick is to not ruin the company culture which would be easy to do. Apple's strategy is a bit of a high wire act and one bad iPhone could really screw things up. Frankly with Apple having the largest market capitalizati

      • by guttentag (313541)

        Fortunately, Jobs' protracted illness has given both he and Apple time to do this right. If Jobs had died in a plane crash or something, and no one had ever heard of Tim, THEN there would have been a bigger drop. But not this way.

        Wow. I'm sure you meant that it's fortunate that Jobs has had time to hand off responsibility to ensure the company continues to operate successfully. But a lot of people would read this as "it's fortunate that Jobs didn't just disappear and leave some guy we didn't know in charge, because we might have freaked out and pummeled the stock for a few months until we realized the guy knew what he was doing." Does anyone else think it's sad that we have decided it's better for Jobs to die slowly and painfully th

        • by macs4all (973270)

          Wow. I'm sure you meant that it's fortunate that Jobs has had time to hand off responsibility

          Yow!

          Yes, that's is exactly what I meant. I in no way intended for my words to sound insensitive or cruel. Thanks for allowing me to clarify...

  • Hi all... Hope this company will do the same as under legendary Steve Jobs. We will miss u Steve.
    • by macs4all (973270)

      Hi all... Hope this company will do the same as under legendary Steve Jobs. We will miss u Steve.

      He's NOT DEAD YET!

      Damn!

  • Both sides show confidence in each other - but that sure is a way to put a negative spin on it.
  • No executive iPlane? Outrageous! If I was Tim, I would hold out for a black turtleneck so he and Steve can be known as the Apple Twinkies.
  • This is how you retain top talents in a company. Tim Cook is no newbie, he has been with Apple since 1998. The guy has proven himself to be capable of running Apple when Steve Jobs was away in the past. Lately, he's been leading the delegate in negotiation with China Mobile. As an Apple shareholder, I have no problem with this compensation plan: it's clear, easy to understand, and has a long term outlook.
    • by u38cg (607297)
      You should have a problem with it; this is the board of your company voting to give bits of it away without asking you. Board members, as a rule, are a craven breed whose only real interest is the continued existence of the board so that they can continue to receive lucrative payments for it.
      • You should have a problem with it; this is the board of your company voting to give bits of it away without asking you.

        Well, according to a measure passed in February, the election of new directors (like Cook) has to garner a majority of the votes by the shareholders.

  • Don't come cheap!

  • It's pretty fucking distasteful that Slashdot chose to link to the TMZ photos. Let a dying man have a little dignity and stop acting like fucking bloodthirsty creeps. Fucking sickening.

    • by grub (11606)
      Yep.

      TMZ can show all the drunken celebs-vomiting-on-their-feet pictures they want. It's self-induced stupidity. Showing an obviously frail, very private man demonstrates a complete lack of basic human decency and compassion.

      If Jobs wanted to be seen like that, he'd go on The View or whatever. TMZ has shown themselves to be nothing but parasitical shitbags.
  • by doug141 (863552) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @08:46AM (#37227166)
    and monetize this asset anytime?
    • by Ancil (622971) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @09:15AM (#37227318)
      No, because you can't cover a put option with stock you don't own. He won't own any of this stock for 5 years.

      Recall that US-style puts can be excercised any time before they expire. He also can't cover a "European" put option, because there's no guarantee he'll keep working for Apple and own the stock 5 years from now.
    • by Sowbug (16204)

      Very unlikely. Covered puts could only be covered by a short position in the stock. To sell a covered put, the employee would have to own a short position in the stock. It's typical that incentive-stock agreements will prohibit the employee from taking or holding any bearish equity/derivative positions. Shorting AAPL would violate that employee agreement.

      You probably meant calls, not puts. If you did indeed mean calls, it wouldn't be a covered position unless he owned the underlying stock, which he won't un

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Assuming he works 10hrs a day everyday for next 10years that is over 10k and hour on top of whatever his normal salary is.

    This is a perfect example of the pure stupidity in our system today. Jobs didn't need a huge bonuses to keep him in his position. He did it because that is who he was and that is what he loved doing. This slaves this fellow to the company and to the companies worth as expressed by it's stock value.

    If at sometime he starts feeling like he wants to leave he won't. If the share price st

  • That has to be one of the worst pro Photoshop jobs I have ever seen. Since when does Steve Jobs wear dresses? Like one of the ACs pointed out, a Redditer posted an analysis of the picture. Also, since when does /. link to TMZ as a reliable source?
  • I hadn't seen the photo til today either... But I'm not convinced they're authentic tbh.

    What is the context of the photo? Why is the man wearing what appears to be a skirt? And why does the skirt look like 2 black rectangles drawn on with MS Paint?

    Make no mistake... I really don't want that photo to be authentic.

  • Hard to know if the TMZ photo is legit or not. It's no like they are beneath photoshopping something to get a headline.

  • One, is it real or is some photo shop fake. Two, why is he wearing a dress?
  • by PPH (736903)
    That's more than 3.8 million HP TouchPads!
  • 2010 List by the CIA World Factbook:
    Gross Domestic Product of Niue $10mill
    Gross Domestic Product of Tuvalu $32mill
    Gross Domestic Product of Falkland Islands $105mill
    Gross Domestic Product of Kiribati $147mill
    Gross Domestic Product of Marshall Islands $161mill
    Gross Domestic Product of Palau $164mill
    Gross Domestic Product of Anguilla $175.4
    Gross Domestic Product of Cook Islands $183
    Gross Domestic Product of Sao Tome and Principe $196mill
    Gross Domestic Product of Federated States of Micronesia $238mill
    Gross Do

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan

Working...