Apple is obligated to maximize shareholders value. Google is a competitor as well. If apple did anything otherwise, it would cause shareholders losses. Its a publicly traded company. This is capitalism, not Apple.
That a company is obligated to do absolutely anything that will increase revenue is a position often advanced on the internet and never supported.
You cannot have a bonfire and literally burn the companies wealth in your backyard. One may in fact weigh the tangible and non tangible benefits of different courses of actions and make an intelligent decision.
>Third, corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." ( BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. ) In nearly all legal jurisdictions, disinterested and informed directors have the discretion to act in what they believe to be the interest of the business corporate entity, even if this differs from maximizing profits for present shareholders. Usually maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors.
> If apple did anything otherwise, it would cause shareholders losses.
Actually, by doing this, they could be gaining some revenue, while at the same time destroying their case for solidifying their own 30% cut. By losing that 30% cut, lose 100x the revenue and causing shareholders losses. So while "capitalism" may be eventually maximizing shareholder value, it doesn't happen by chasing local optima.
You cannot have a bonfire and literally burn the companies wealth in your backyard. One may in fact weigh the tangible and non tangible benefits of different courses of actions and make an intelligent decision.
This is covered ably in this article by Cornell
https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...
If I may reproduce the most relevant segment.
>Third, corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." ( BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. ) In nearly all legal jurisdictions, disinterested and informed directors have the discretion to act in what they believe to be the interest of the business corporate entity, even if this differs from maximizing profits for present shareholders. Usually maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors.
Additional reading is linked for the interested.