Not exactly surprising or bold, i.e. it is the easiest way to deal with the surplus of cash. However, it could be seen as an indicator that Apple's management cannot figure out how to use all that cash to continue the company's growth. In that sense, the announcement of a dividend is a bellwether moment.
A big acquisition could just end up being a distraction from their core businesses. There is probably only so much you can spend on improving the current supply chain, $100 billion+ is a crazy large amount. What if they feel they can continue growth without spending every last cent?
A more positive way to see this is that Apple has become so profitable that they can continue funneling huge amounts of cash into everything that they want, and still have lots left over.
But I agree with your sentiment. It's a bit sad that Apple seems to have maxed out their ability to use money on themselves.
Or that is dosent need all of 100 billion dollars in cash to continue its growth.. If you look at the details, they will use 45 bil over 3 years, so in 2015 I believe they'll still have about 100 billion in cash.
They're now accumulating $40 billion per year in cash (for likely fiscal 2012 numbers).
So they'll continue to add to the stock pile of cash most likely. By 2015, under this plan, they'll have perhaps $135 to $150 billion in cash, unless they increase the buy-backs or dividend further, and that's assuming their annual profit stops growing.
As the world's largest corporation, they are now under intense scrutiny by the US Government, which prefers to leash all massive corporations.
Apple is not allowed to spend its $100 billion buying companies, even if it wanted to. For example, they could buy HP and Dell and shut them down (maybe all PC manufacturers in fact, just with cash); such would not pass anti-trust concerns. They could buy Facebook with cash + stock; again, that wouldn't make it through anti-trust review. And so on.
Even though they're not formally regulated under anti-trust just yet as, say, Microsoft was - their actions are indeed strictly limited by what the government will allow them to do.
I can't think of a single business that Apple could buy (note: could buy, not 'look at the market cap and assume that is what it costs to buy the company') that would give it a level of control in an industry that the government would care about.
Disney would actually brighten Apple's halo, they have a devoted customer base which would accept the merger, and produce the most salable content in the world.
I can see that (and re: antitrust I don't think the gov would have a problem with an Apple/Disney merger either), but I think Apple see themselves more as the enabling platform.
Why take a risk on the downside of creating content when you can charge a 30% toll across all of it? Also a different type of business and model. It would also leave them in conflict with the other media companies.
What I could see is buying Netflix, but Apple would be in a better position to just build that from scratch with better terms (again, the toll for accessing the Apple ecosystem/platform/whatever-you-want-to-call-it).
The other one is Akamai - Apple has been a long-term customer (probably one of the largest), they are delivering a lot of content (and ever increasing) but don't have any real hardcore infrastructure in the way Google and Microsoft do.
The idea of buying Netflix doesn't get Apple into Asia, Continental Europe, or the Africa. It also doesn't do much more than spend the interest on $100 billion. Akamai would put even less of a dent in Apple's cash pile.
Purchasing Disney isn't primarily driven by the fact that they are a movie studio. The purchase makes sense because of Disney's existing media portfolio and the worldwide demographic which their properties attract.
Apple could buy any one of them, either through friendly or hostile means. Not a single one of those would make it through anti-trust. Shareholders for Cisco would love to get $200 billion for their company; the US Government would never allow it in a million years. Shareholders for Amazon would love to get $200 billion, and they'd likely outvote Bezos' family holdings to agree to the purchase. Larry Ellison would sell Oracle for $300 billion in a heartbeat, and all shareholders would agree. Intel shareholders would instantly take a $300 billion bid; the US Government would never allow that purchase either. Apple also would never be allowed to gobble up either of the telecom monsters; AT&T shareholders would take a cash + $250 billion in shares deal, and Verizon shareholders would easily sign off on a $200 billion deal.
I think Apple would love to own their own telecom network, given their love of all things integrated. The things they could probably do in owning something like Verizon's network would be astounding. It would never be allowed.
The test for antitrust is competition being reduced to the point that prices can be controlled with monopoly-like behaviour, or suppliers are cut out from supplying competition.
Applying that test to all of those companies doesn't give Apple supplier control, extensive pricing control or monopoly power in any market.
for eg. even acquiring HP would be total 'PC' market share of ~25%. The only one that may be a concern is ARM, but that doesn't mean mergers are stopped, it just means that agreements are reached (for eg. as with Google and ITAR)
Furthermore, except for AT&T, Verizon, and possibly ARM, none of those acquisitions would be strategic for Apple. Intel is doing exactly what Apple would want them to do anyway, HP and Dell offer nothing Apple doesn't already have and a bunch of stuff Apple doesn't even want, Facebook and Amazon are overpriced, Google is probably overpriced and doesn't fit into Apple's strategy, and Oracle, Cisco, and TXI don't fit into Apple's strategy either.
