Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
52,111
13,741



apple_logo-150x174.jpg


Apple's annual shareholder meeting has just concluded at its headquarters in Cupertino, California, with the company declining to make any major announcements related to its operations. One of the biggest questions on the stock side has been speculation about a dividend, buyback, or stock split, and while Apple has indicated that it is continually evaluating the best uses for its cash stockpile, the company has not decided to adopt any of those strategies so far.

CNBC posted a live blog of the meeting, outlining the formal agenda, brief statements from Tim Cook, and a brief Q&A session with shareholders. One change the company did announce is its adoption of a measure that will require members of Apple's board of directors to obtain majority votes from shareholders in order to be elected. The company had previously operated under a plurality vote standard in which directors need to obtain only a majority of the votes cast, omitting those who failed to vote their shares. Under the new policy, directors who do not receive a majority of outstanding voting shares will voluntarily step down. All current directors were easily re-elected.

Majority voting has increasingly become the standard among major companies, and major shareholders have been attempting to push Apple in that direction for several years. A non-binding proposal from shareholders on the topic was approved last year, but Apple declined to adopt it. The proposal was set to be revisited at this year's meeting, and while Apple opposed it in its proxy materials sent to shareholders, the company agreed to implement it even before today's vote results were released.

Tim Cook faced several other questions from shareholders today, touching on topics such as Apple's commitment to education and the company's lack of interest in owning music labels or television studios. Other topics included Apple's advertising on controversial television shows, its relationship with Facebook (Cook called Facebook a "friend"), and the possibility of an Apple television set (no comment from Cook).

Article Link: Apple Shareholder Meeting: No Dividend or Stock Split, Majority Vote Requirement for Directors
 

pjac

macrumors regular
Jun 20, 2007
122
0
I guess that even if Apple could afford to buy (a controlling stake in) all the big music or film companies, it wouldn't be able to due to anti-monopoly laws. And if it owned just one music and one film company, negotiations to get content from the others into iTMS would get harder - so they are happier not owning any music or film company.
 
Comment

840quadra

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,284
3,582
Twin Cities Minnesota
I guess that even if Apple could afford to buy (a controlling stake in) all the big music or film companies, it wouldn't be able to due to anti-monopoly laws. And if it owned just one music and one film company, negotiations to get content from the others into iTMS would get harder - so they are happier not owning any music or film company.

Great reply and I share the opinion on this subject. Companies have commented many times in the past few years, that Apple has too much control of the Music industry. If they did have their own label, they would be seen more as competition to other labels, as opposed to a potential outlet / sales partner.
 
Comment

pjarvi

macrumors 65816
Jan 11, 2006
1,289
190
Clovis, CA
LOL at someone thinking Family Guy is a "controversial" TV show. Reminds me of my cousin's family in Pennsylvania thinking The Simpson's was evil trash when it's the most religious show on any major network during prime time. One of my friends is a huge lover of Family Guy and he started his own church!
 
Comment

Bubba Satori

Suspended
Feb 15, 2008
4,726
3,753
B'ham
Cook: no dividends, we only have one hundred billion dollars.

One trillion is the new one hundred billion and you're
not going to get there by tossing money around.

"Hey, let's charge the cultists $1.29 for ringtones
on music they already own and how about two
new adaptors for the iPaid 3 to work properly?
A couple of bucks for the slaves to make them
and we'll put $50 Apple stickers on them. Magic. :apple:
 
Comment

bigcat318

macrumors 6502
Dec 25, 2007
349
76
LOL at someone thinking Family Guy is a "controversial" TV show...

I was going to ask what show was considered 'controversial' when I read the comment in the blurb. It's amazing how easily some people are offended.
 
Comment

TallGuy1970

macrumors 6502
Jun 16, 2010
323
0
LOL at someone thinking Family Guy is a "controversial" TV show. Reminds me of my cousin's family in Pennsylvania thinking The Simpson's was evil trash when it's the most religious show on any major network during prime time. One of my friends is a huge lover of Family Guy and he started his own church!

To join you off topic for a moment. Simpsons and sometimes Family Guy make me laugh, but there is absolutely no way I would ever let my children watch them. Does that make them controversial?
 
Comment

jon1987

macrumors regular
Jan 27, 2011
151
10
To join you off topic for a moment. Simpsons and sometimes Family Guy make me laugh, but there is absolutely no way I would ever let my children watch them. Does that make them controversial?

How old are your children?
 
Comment

PeterQVenkman

macrumors 68020
Mar 4, 2005
2,023
0
Comment

CFreymarc

Suspended
Sep 4, 2009
3,969
1,149
"Hey, let's charge the cultists $1.29 for ringtones on music they already own and how about two new adapters for the iPad 3 to work properly? A couple of bucks for the slaves to make them and we'll put $50 Apple stickers on them. Magic.

Sad thing is I'm sure a product planning talk has happened like this already.
 
Comment

HelveticaRoman

macrumors 6502
Jun 28, 2011
258
0
They are surely inching towards being broken up, so there isn't much else they could buy that wouldn't put them on the EU radar especially.
 
Comment

hobo.hopkins

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2008
568
0
"Hey, let's charge the cultists $1.29 for ringtones
on music they already own and how about two
new adaptors for the iPaid 3 to work properly?

Yeah it's too bad Apple has such a stranglehold on consumers that they no longer have a choice related to purchasing...

A couple of bucks for the slaves to make them
and we'll put $50 Apple stickers on them. Magic. :apple:

Or they'll pay workers (of which there are thousands clamouring for an opportunity) to produce products, and price them so that people will choose to purchase them.

On a note actually related to the issue, I'm glad that they aren't going after music labels. Doesn't seem to be worth the money it would cost. It would only add headache.
 
Comment

3N16MA

macrumors 65816
Jul 23, 2009
1,011
177
Space
Owning a movie/music studio would be pointless for Apple. They need the content those studios provide for their services and have no need to get into the content creation/ownership side of things and complicate the matter.
 
Comment

chriscrk

macrumors 6502a
Nov 14, 2011
524
1,068
Planet Earth (?)
I was going to ask what show was considered 'controversial' when I read the comment in the blurb. It's amazing how easily some people are offended.

Where does it say someone mentioning Family Guy? :confused:
Or is it because of that episode where they go to the amish city and Meg hands the boy an iPhone or something like that?

What controversial show is Apple advertising on?
Only one I can think of, I guess, would be Dexter... I remember a scene from season 5 where they go in to a guy's office and he has like an iMac, an iPad and an iPhone laying on his desk lol.
 
Comment

Small White Car

macrumors G4
Aug 29, 2006
10,929
1,239
Washington DC
To join you off topic for a moment. Simpsons and sometimes Family Guy make me laugh, but there is absolutely no way I would ever let my children watch them. Does that make them controversial?

No. Not for you, anyway. For TV 'Controversial' usually means someone wants them to be taken off tr air. That doesn't sound like you.


Where does it say someone mentioning Family Guy? :confused:
Or is it because of that episode where they go to the amish city and Meg hands the boy an iPhone or something like that?

What controversial show is Apple advertising on?
Only one I can think of, I guess, would be Dexter... I remember a scene from season 5 where they go in to a guy's office and he has like an iMac, an iPad and an iPhone laying on his desk lol.


I'm pretty sure they're talking about running ads during show breaks. Not product placement.
 
Comment

donniedarko

macrumors regular
Jan 1, 2004
207
6
Los Angeles
Owning a movie/music studio would be pointless for Apple. They need the content those studios provide for their services and have no need to get into the content creation/ownership side of things and complicate the matter.

Owning a company that has WiMax or WiFi capability would be insane though. I try to imagine if the iMessage deal and call to call technology on Apple platform like Jobs wanted could happen. I would so rather give Apple my money for internet, wifi, cell services then AT$T, or Verizon et al...
 
Comment

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,889
1,478
Palookaville
I guess that even if Apple could afford to buy (a controlling stake in) all the big music or film companies, it wouldn't be able to due to anti-monopoly laws. And if it owned just one music and one film company, negotiations to get content from the others into iTMS would get harder - so they are happier not owning any music or film company.

The second part of what you say is true, but the first part really isn't. Monopolies aren't illegal, so there's no laws against them as such. The antitrust laws protect competition. If Apple attempted to gain controlling interests in competitive companies, then these efforts would likely be thwarted by the FTC, just as the AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile was deep-sixed by the government for being anticompetitive.
 
Comment

ponytrekker

macrumors member
Feb 6, 2012
45
10
Stock splits have proven to be pointless exercises that do nothing but create profits for the financial companies handling the paperwork. Absolutely no impact on company valuation.

Who isn't buying the stock because it's too expensive?

and Who cares about who isn't buying the stock because we are.
 
Comment

balwx

macrumors regular
Aug 22, 2007
141
0
Long time shareholder here, glad to hear the news although don't think anyone in the investment community would be suprised.

Slow and simple occasional deep in the money calls & weekly bull put spreads, amazing gains :)
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.