Decaflon

I think engineers who wish to work at Apple are doing it because they're obsessed with Apple technology and products, perhaps enough that they're willing to take a pay cut to do so.

Another thing to think about is that Google engineers and Apple engineers do very different things. Apple engineers are writing Objective-C and Cocoa, developing operating systems and desktop-based software, whereas Google engineers are writing C++, Java, or Python, tweaking algorithms for the search application or web-based software. I'm not saying that one job function should pay more than the other, but it's two very different types of jobs for an engineer. I'd suspect that Apple engineers used to writing desktop applications in ObjC are less likely to hop over to the web app world at Google and completely switch over to Python. Two very different skillsets.

Now Microsoft and Apple would be a fairer comparison, but the cost of living between Redmond and the Bay Area is pretty different so a comparison might be tough.

Yahoo and Microsoft pay in the range of $105K/yr. Microsoft not being in the Bay area, paying $105K/yr, makes one arch an eyebrow. There is no reason for engineers to take a pay cut. Apple has more than enough money to pay their engineers the standard salary in that area.

The truth? If Microsoft was doing this, there would be no explanations. Microsoft would be called out for unfairly paying their engineers.

Edit: I'm not hating on Apple and I'm not boasting Microsoft because I'm neutral on either company and own products from each.

Microsoft and Google engineers have to spend a lot of time and effort dealing with windows and Microsoft products.

That requires a significant pay boost. Who wants to deal with that crap?

Yes, I know, I'm a biased Apple user. However, I was a Microsoft Gold Solution Provider before I made the switch. The only Microsoft product I have to deal with directly these days is IE. I'd take a pay cut if I didn't have to deal with IE.

So does Apple since they are making software to be compatible with Windows servers. The iPhone boasts about being able to be more compatible with Outlook and enterprise software. iTune and Safari are both Windows compatible.

But again, Apple is paying less than the standard in that area, not just three companies.

It is interesting in Apple's case how people are unable to separate their love for the technology from the company. At least Microsoft fanboys will openly admit when Microsoft messes up - and try to hold Microsoft accountable.

It's only a mess up if the Apple employees are upset and wanting more.

And if that's the case, wouldn't they be dropping like flies and seeking employment elsewhere?

After a certain level, I really don't care what I'm paid. I got a raise a few months back that I think we completely unnecessary. I'm not complaining, but there is a lot more to a job than the salary.

I'm over Tyme's and she was telling me about the Apple fanboy-type behavior and I didn't believe her. All I can say is: wow.

They completely skipped the question of: which do you prefer more money, less stock vs. less money and more stock going straight to the defense of Apple.

Wow. The fanboy behavior stops the ability to hold an intelligent conversation about Apple. That's really sad.

Great going. Continue defending Apple and taking the discussion off-topic.

Correction: the fanboy behavior stops the ability to hold an intelligent conversation about anything if Apple is brought up in a way that isn't positive.

There is no reason to defend Apple in this case, if they can keep the engineers at a lower pay then more power to them. I don't see a reason to raise the salaries if people aren't going anywhere. This also doesn't take into account the actual work environment or the fact that engineer can be a million different things.

Even with the pay being higher Microsoft cant' seem to keep their people and the Google people are going to Facebook.

As for the stock vs salary issue it all depends on the company and the price of the stock. Apple at $20 a couple years ago? Most definitely. Apple at $200 today? Probably not.

...if they can keep the engineers at a lower pay then more power to them. I don't see a reason to raise the salaries if people aren't going anywhere.

Personally I believe, if the company can afford it, when a company is successful it is due to their employees. Pay them their worth and good employees are usually worth more than industry standards. Unless those employees have no debt, college tuition for the kids are paid for and their retirement funds are locked solid that extra 20K a year would help them progress in life. The same argument could be made for WalMart: continue to pay minimum wage because you'll always have people there who will take it.

Perhaps they make it up in bonuses. Or employees didn't realize they were being paid 20K less. Who knows? In the tech industry making this choice is kind of common - which would you do?

Perhaps if they got the money (that Apple can afford to pay), they would spend the money and it would help the economy. No....why do that when one can accept a lower wage to make cool technology. There are millions of hard working people that work for companies that can afford to pay more (giving them a better quality of living) and don't.

But none of those issues are what my Note is about.

There is no reason to defend Apple in this case, if they can keep the engineers at a lower pay then more power to them.

Yet it happened. Happens in Design too. Someone asks about a BlogSpot theme and immediately the responses are: You should use WordPress. That's not what the person asked.

Apple right now, I'd want more stock.

Microsoft, I'd want more salary.

Google I'd want more salary.

But I'm not typical.

@Ozone: well, one has to take the money at Microsoft to pamper themselves in order to make it through another day. :)

====

I found this and I thought I would share it. Fanboyism is a passion for something you love. Passion is great but when it gets in the way of people able to see things objectively, that's not good.

Steve Jobs gave a commencement speech where he gives three stories about events that impacted his life. He has passion and recommends doing what you love but the only way to truly grow, and be able to connect the dots in the future (looking at the past) is to be able to see all of the options available to you. If Jobs were blindly guided by things (as you'll see in the video) Apple wouldn't be where it is today.

I've heard Jobs speak many times and ironically, hearing him speak a few months before he was fired ingrained some of the work ethics I still hold today. Jobs is an aggressive and demanding person to work for but his management style (which while difficult to work with creates tremendous respect) is the reason why Apple products are as good as they are.

With that, enjoy his commencement speech. It is very inspiring. Enjoy.

I did answer what the Note was about and added more thoughts on top of it. Way discussions work. Maybe they do pay their engineers what they feel they are worth. I don't like numbers like this because what if they are taking the average of a software engineer along with a janitorial engineer. Either way you choose where you work so the numbers don't intrigue me that much.

If Fanboyism is something to worry about then I would say don't bring up Apple. If you really do want to have a discussion about them, then understand it probably will come into play just like anti-fanboyism comes into play when you bring up Microsoft. Way humans work. When we don't know anything about a company then you will get the neutral opinions. Really don't see anything wrong with that.

If Fanboyism is something to worry about then I would say don't bring up Apple.

That's an addition to the ToS. "Hey, if you aren't a Apple fanboy don't bring up Apple...". Unfortunately to the new people coming to this site, they aren't going to know what they are walking into. So yes, better get that on the ToS.

I'm saying if you bring up any popular company you are going to have people who are going to side with that company no matter what. I do believe there has yet to be a discussion here that drops into the sewers like you see elsewhere. Some views may be skewed, but never to the point of "OMFG WHAT YOUR MOUTH ABOUT APPLEZ LOL THEY ROCKS I OWNZ 10 IPODS". Here the case seems to be trying to justify why apple engineers would want to stay when they could potentially make more elsewhere.

It's a good thought study on showing why money isn't everything. Sure if Apple is intentionally withholding upgrading the pay to increase profits then that's kind of whacked. Nobody would argue that one.

To one extent I agree that people should be paid what they're worth, but on the other end, if the employees aren't demanding more money and making an issue of it (and leaving because if it), then why pay them more. They're obviously happy at their salaries, so why should Apple say "Let's pay them more." Yes it would be awesome if they did do that, but I can see why they aren't.

So who's responsibility is it then? The company's to make sure they are paying their employees the rate that their competitors are or the employees to keep an eye on such things? I would think job security would also play a huge role in things because it is easy to say "pack up your bags and leave" if you aren't getting paid what someone else is at another company, but you have that job now so why lose it?

As a business if you are focused on your competitors, you're losing to them. Being aware of them is one thing, but if you start emulating them to keep up you are in a very bad position.

This really seems like a case of "if it's not broke..." There's a lot of things to consider here. Benefits, work environment, type of work, bonuses, job satisfaction. We're not seeing the whole picture. It's every employees decision to decide what's best for themselves. If the payrate isn't good for them, then they need to seek a raise, or seek another job.

I'm all for paying people what they're worth, even to the point of being overly generous. But there is a lot more to it than just a flat number. Even not considering all the variables on a personal level, there are variables at the company level. In a great company, most if not all of the employees are clued into the overall strategy. Pay rates may very well be a part of that.

I think what everyone would like to know is that if these engineers know they are being paid less and do serve the same functionality that they would in other companies why are they staying? Surveys like this leaves more questions than they answer at times.

In the end I think it is going to be boil down to the ethics of the people making the decisions. I was raised by entrepreneurs and my Mom has a very strong opinion on this that I suppose rubbed off on me.

We once had someone working for us that was rich, retired older man that worked to stay busy. He did a good job. My Mom told me that regardless of how much money he had personally, he came in everyday and did stellar work, and because of that (and she had the funds to do it) she paid him extra. She said that when employees do a good job and work hard consistently they should be paid for the work they do. A good work environment shouldn't be a perk, it should be there anyway. An employee should never have to question their worth, bad employees should not continue to be paid if they are not consistently outputting, etc. because it taints the work environment, bonuses and incentives are important...long list. On the flip side my brother used to work for a hotel.

The argument that it is an employee's decision, it's not broke don't fix it doesn't sit well with me because to me, it's broken if an employee has to ask an employer that can afford to pay industry standards to pay those standards. To me that's saying, "If I can get away with paying less, I will."

That isn't a company I want to work for.

If you've ever been in that position it sucks (having to ask your employer for a raise). Majoring in business I've told many clients the salary range for different niches and I always recommended that they pay their people what they are worth - they shouldn't have to ask for it but also be sure to cut the people who aren't performing because those people are taking advantage. For the "system" to work a higher quality employee is required.

The blunt truth: if those employees were told their salaries were being increased to match industry standard (Apple is a big time player now) how many do you think would say, "No Steve, please, don't give me that 20K - it's not necessary?".

Not many - they'd happily accept it and feel grateful they are getting it. If they loved Apple before they'd love Apple more after that. Because in the end, the ones that say it doesn't matter...don't they take the money when offered?

So no, it's not only about the money [to me]. It's about the caring. The appreciation. The respect. The loyalty.

It goes both ways.

I forgot to say I think the change in economy caused a shift in thinking because when I was growing up (yes, I'm very very very very old) employees took care of their employees if only for the reason they knew the good employees could have another job across the street the next day.

With the weakened economy, things have changed and employers have more "power". Perhaps some older folks who remember how it once was can chime in. Much different than today.

The argument that it is an employee's decision, it's not broke don't fix it doesn't sit well with me because to me

These are two different things in my opinion. It's always the employee's decision to stick around and we aren't sure how companies are looking at things, but I guess in this case we are assuming Apple is going under the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy.

Interesting that you associate Google and Microsoft salaries with industry standards. This means (and this goes back to Mike's point, which didn't answer your initial question I know, but is relevant now) that we are assuming that the engineers at these companies are all doing the same tasks.

- Microsoft: Software
- Apple: Hardware
- Google: Advertising

That is essentially 3 different industries, yet we placing all their engineers under the same category. Looking at this trend you can almost also see why Apple and Google pay less than Microsoft for software engineers since that isn't their core functionality. Not sure this is the logic behind the companies motives, but it makes sense to me. By no means does this justify why the rates are different, but it could just show how the different companies value these positions.

A better comparison in my eyes would be the engineers that work on the iPod v the Zune, OS X v Windows, and MSN Search v Google Search.

- Microsoft: Software
- Apple: Hardware
- Google: Advertising

That is essentially 3 different industries, yet we placing all their engineers under the same category.

Actually no. The article focused on software engineers. It was comparing the software engineering salaries from those companies, including Yahoo. TechCrunch has a chart that breaks it down.

That's what I'm saying though, Microsoft is the only company of those three who's main source of revenue is software. I'm not saying Apple and Google don't deal in software, I'm saying that isn't their focus. Since Microsoft deals in so many different software categories they may have to have great salaries to pull in so many people working across such a broad product line.

An example, I run a car dealership, but I have a mechanic or two. I'm not sure I pay him what car mechanics make at full-blown repair shops because my money is selling cars, not fixing them.

Of course this example might suck, but to me it gets my idea across.

I think a lot of this is perspective.

I don't think it sucks asking for a raise. I'd never have a problem asking my employer for more money if I thought I deserved it, and I honestly can't put myself in the head of someone that would be difficult for.

Well, let's see:

1) Do you require the certifications needed for those positions?
2) Does the employee have the same responsibilities as full repair shops?
3) Will the customer expect the same level of service coming from you vs. going to a repair shop?

To me, the focus of the company doesn't matter. It's more about the roles and responsibilities of the employee. If the employee is doing the work why shouldn't he/she be properly compensated?

If you were the employee of the dealership and you found out you were being paid less than standard, would you want a raise or would you be fine with your salary and you'd rationalize it as you being in the wrong place with the same responsibilities?

If you decided to ask for the raise, and you were told it wasn't necessary because repair wasn't the focus of the business, how would you feel? Would you think, "Ok, cool" or would you say, "Wait, I'm doing the same thing, why shouldn't I receive a similar wage?".

I honestly can't put myself in the head of someone that would be difficult for.

The guy who's co-worker got fired the week before for asking the same thing.

If you were the employee of the dealership and you found out you were being paid less than standard, would you want a raise or would you be fine with your salary and you'd rationalize it as you being in the wrong place with the same responsibilities?

As you mention I shouldn't have to find out, simple research should already provide me with that knowledge and if I go in without knowing that in the first place that is on me. I would rationalize it as "damn I should've seen what others were making and if I was comfortable with taking less to work here".

If you decided to ask for the raise, and you were told it wasn't necessary because repair wasn't the focus of the business, how would you feel? Would you think, "Ok, cool" or would you say, "Wait, I'm doing the same thing, why shouldn't I receive a similar wage?".

I would say that is fine and start sending out the resume to other places.

The key question you ask though is "why shouldn't he/she be properly compensated" and you would think in the eyes of the company and employees that are staying that they do feel they are being properly compensated. These are smart people so let's not assume they would just now realize someone at Microsoft is making more because we know how cutthroat these companies can be with regards to poaching.

Next week you are going to find out that Gates' salary and the Google Guys salaries were taken into consideration since they are all essentially engineers. Jobs couldn't program his VCR so his salary wasn't included.

As you mention I shouldn't have to find out, simple research should already provide me with that knowledge and if I go in without knowing that in the first place that is on me.

It's simple to us but for the average person? Not so much. It's hard to believe (due our level of computer use) that people aren't the same. The accurate industry numbers are pay-for-access. Glassdoor is relatively close but the solid industry numbers encompass more than Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. When I say industry standard that is what I mean. However, this article only mentioned those.

The key question you ask though is "why shouldn't he/she be properly compensated" and you would think in the eyes of the company and employees that are staying that they do feel they are being properly compensated.

That's only if they know they are being underpaid. Apple is a unique case because they underpaid in the beginning because they honestly couldn't afford to pay the standard industry. When I was in college analyzed their financial statements more than I care to admit. Their sacrifice and hard work paid off - pay 'em. Or offer it and let the employees decline - which none of them will do.

As I said, it boils down to ethics and perspective. It would bother me if I were paying employees 20K under standard. I'd be grateful they were that loyal and I'd appreciate their loyalty enough to pay them when I could afford to do so. That's me...the minority (no pun intended lol).

Steve only takes $1 - unless something changed.

Well that's why you ask other mechanics what they make. You don't need a computer to go down the street.

With Silicon Valley types you would have to assume I would think that they know what the deal is with salaries. A lot of what you are bringing up though reminds me of the discussion on Profit vs. Greed and that you don't like to think that a company is exploiting their employees. That makes sense if that is the case.

Us fanboys can love Apple and the products they make, we don't have to love the way they treat people if we ever figure out why salaries are like this. But then we can end up going into all of these companies and finding something wrong with how they treat employees.

The great thing about studies like this is that maybe it will make Apple aware, if they aren't already, of the discrepancy in salaries.