Skip to main content

Apple spent nearly $700,000 in 2014 to protect CEO Tim Cook

Tim Cook
Image used with permission by copyright holder
Apple CEO Tim Cook is obviously important to the most valuable brand and company in the world, but the recent revelation that the technology giant spent nearly $700,000 for his personal safety and security in 2014 is getting a lot of attention. However, the eye-grabbing figure may not be all that noteworthy when placed in proper context.

The money spent on Cook’s security last year was spotted by Patently Apple in Apple’s Schedule 14A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 10. In that form was this detail for $774,176 in “All Other Compensation” for Cook in 2014:

Recommended Videos

“This amount represents: (i) the Company’s contributions to Mr. Cook’s account under its 401(k) plan in the amount of $15,600; (ii) Company-paid term life insurance premiums in the amount of $2,520; (iii) vacation cash-out in the amount of $56,923; and (iv) security expenses in the amount of $699,133.”

Please enable Javascript to view this content

Later in the filing, Apple stated that it “provides home and personal security for Mr. Cook because his personal safety and security are of the utmost importance to the Company and its shareholders. The Company considers the security measures to be a reasonable and necessary expense for the benefit of the Company.”

When compared with security expenses for other large corporations with prominent CEOs, Apple’s spending on Cook isn’t remarkable. In 2014, Amazon spent $1.6 million on security for CEO Jeff Bezos, Oracle spent $1.5 million on security for former CEO Larry Ellison, and Disney spent $584,075 on security for CEO Bob Iger, Gizmodo points out.

Jason Hahn
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Jason Hahn is a part-time freelance writer based in New Jersey. He earned his master's degree in journalism at Northwestern…
Tech CEO Congressional Hearing: Recap of the biggest moments you missed
big tech logos around capitol hill

For much of Wednesday, the CEOs of America's biggest tech companies -- Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Tim Cook (Apple), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), and Sundar Pichai (Google) -- testified before a House Judiciary Committee about whether their market dominance violates antitrust laws.

The topic is a crucial one, as the tech industry employs millions of Americans and generates trillions of dollars -- and increasingly, only a handful of companies are responsible for that success. Amazon may control just 5.5% of all retail sales, for example, but the company will capture 38% of US ecommerce sales in 2020, according to industry tracker eMarketer. Likewise, Facebook and Google dominate the online advertising industry, with some reports claiming the pair together control as much as 80% of the market -- which is why some have called for an end to big tech.

Read more
Big Tech CEOs’ showdown with Congress: The antitrust hearing that wasn’t
Styled Graphic featuring Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai

All eyes were on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to see if Congress could muster up the focus to figure out whether four of the biggest tech companies of our time were really monopolies. What happened instead was rhetorical chaos and grandstanding.

Whatever hope there might have been that this hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust would be focused and pointed in its questions was quickly dashed: It became clear within minutes that the members of Congress would take their time to ask more or less whatever they wanted of the four tech titans assembled before them.

Read more
Leading Dem says Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon have ‘monopoly power’
rep cicilline ask zuckerberb about policing misinformation on covid 19 poster for 6176418334001

Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook have "monopoly power" -- and must be either regulated or broken up, according to a leading House Democrat.

In Wednesday's Big Tech antitrust hearing, the focus throughout its five-hour run time was largely on anything else other than the topic at hand.

Read more