Despite being a long time Apple investor I was caught completely off gaurd that Jobs only owns 5,500,000 shares out of well over 900,000,000 outstanding.
Makes the perks like the private jet look like peanuts vs. value he's brought to the table.
Makes the perks like the private jet look like peanuts vs. value he's brought to the table.
Apple's SEC filings are generally interesting, if you're ever incredibly bored.
Compared to that, how benevolent is Google actually? Not that they need to be. They don't owe that to anyone anymore than Jobs does. So I wish conversations about Apple/Google could drop the good/evil nonsense. It's about trade offs and results. Why they do what they do is their own business.
EDIT: Removed unnecessary sentence (made an irrelevant call on Google's benevolence).
My point is that people should stop looking for motivations in these companies and see them for what they are: companies who provide us some service or product. Especially since if you force the issue and make us compare who is more benevolent I think a strong argument can be made for Jobs being more benevolent than Larry and/or Sergey (and again, it doesn't matter).
Why not take the options and just give to money to charity rather than let it lapse? I don't believe taking the options would impact Apple much, just add a (minor) dilution to existing shareholders who would never begrudge this being done for Jobs. Even if he doesn't care for the money I'd have thought he'd see the positives of becoming a large philanthropist.