Big acquisitions are often disastrous for shareholders. See microsoft and yahoo.
Please leave your dogmatic thinking in the classrooms.
The real world rarely revolves around academic dogmas.
Sorry, but you are off the mark here. This has got nothing to do with big acquisitions or better mergers, which indeed have the reputation to be bad for shareholders. Although a real correlation has never been proven (and the timeframe for observation is disputed).
Apple typically buys smaller companies (with Beats as an exception). These smaller acquisitions are not about market share or protection of IP as often larger acquisitions are. These acquisitions are to sustain or build an innovative capability and to acquire new technologies.
In large corporations -even very innovative ones like Apple- the innovative culture is slowly replaced by an operational culture focused on protecting profit margins and sustaining operations. This can be disastrous in the long term, look at Microsoft, Oracle etc.
The practive of acquiring smaller technology focussed companies is a way to inject talent, innovative culture and entrepreneurial gusto into the organisation, besides of course the direct effect of being the owner of new technology. It is a very effective way of retaining innovative thrust and a solid product pipeline, and in fact for many companies the ONLY way when they have grown as massive as Apple, Microsoft or Google.
So, one should look at these smaller acquisitions in a broader perspective for Apple and compare it with the situation where it would be on its own. In that respect there can be only one conclusion. This is good for Apple's shareholders as otherwise Apple would indeed be doomed.
