Although Apple has performed very well re: operations under Cook, few if any talk about the level of stock buy backs he has authored (likely #1).
Cook has authorized nearly $1Trillion in buy backs. During his run to becoming a billionaire one might argue that buy backs had more impact on Apple's stock price vs. any other factor. Note that this is **very** common CEO behavior for meeting one's stock performance objectives thereby adding 10's or 100's of millions to one's worth
One thing that separates Steve Jobs from most if not all CEO is his disdain for this type of stock price manipulation. One might argue that SJ ignored all pure financial means to raise stock price. His only focus was "better products = higher share price".
I like Tim. I hope he goes into politics (the "anti-Carly"). What might have have been had ~$1T in buy back been invested in products by SJ ???
Personally: I hope, **hope** that at some point buy backs are illegal. If you cannot reinvest at an adequate ROI then pay dividends. (Yeah, tilting at windmills there.)
I wouldn't want Apple to invest 1 trillion in R&D, nor do I think it is something to be celebrated. It simply reeks of wasteful spending, because I doubt the ROI is ever going to be worth it. Plus at some point, simply throwing more money at a problem isn't going to solve it any more quickly; you are just shovelling good money down a hole.
Reducing the amount of spare cash on hand also means there is less temptation for Apple to do something boneheaded like...acquiring Netflix (I know this rubs some members here the wrong way, and I will never stop pointing out what a boneheaded move such an action would be).
As for higher wages, well, there are a hundred other charities and causes I could think of that can use the money as well. But point being that Apple employees are already fairly well compensated for their labour.
And personally, I feel that stock buybacks make more sense than dividends. When you buy back stock, the stock price rises, and stays high, so anyone can benefit simply by selling their existing stock. But a dividend is often just a 1-off thing, and in the larger scheme of things, I wouldn't want to see a company paying wildly different dividends every quarter. So I stand by Apple paying more or less the same dividend each time, and funnelling the excess cash elsewhere.
In all, I think an entire textbook can be written about the way Apple is being managed, and the lessons which can be learnt by other companies. It's amazing how Apple has continued to prosper by doing the exact opposite of what many forum members here have said that Apple ought to do, and I maintain that we really should be spending more time explaining Apple's success, not explaining it away.