Tim Cook made Apple fall behind in the AI era, wasting trillions on stock buybacks

In recent years, Apple has remained one of the world’s most influential technology companies, but growing dissatisfaction has emerged within its most dedicated community of fans, investors, and industry watchers. 

The comment captured in a recent viral post is symptomatic of a much broader sentiment: Apple under Tim Cook’s leadership is being accused of focusing on cosmetic changes and financial engineering, rather than true innovation, especially as the artificial intelligence revolution is sweeping through the tech sector.

While Apple has long been celebrated for its cutting-edge products, sleek design, and seamless user experience, critics now question whether the company’s priorities under Cook are causing it to miss critical opportunities and fall behind its fiercest rivals.

The post begins with a blunt observation: “Yeah I think they just want to save face. They could have been the leader in AI but no they made a slightly thinner iPhone and MacBook. Oh yeah and they spent a trillion on buybacks. Tim Cook’s has gotta go.”

This statement highlights three key issues that have become flashpoints for Apple’s critics: a perceived lack of genuine innovation, an overemphasis on incremental hardware updates, and an extraordinary focus on returning capital to shareholders through stock buybacks, all culminating in mounting calls for a change at the very top.

First, the comment takes direct aim at Apple’s product strategy in the era of artificial intelligence. While rivals like Microsoft and Google have made aggressive moves into generative AI, natural language processing, and cloud-based machine learning, Apple has often seemed content to refine its core product lines without making major bets on disruptive new technology.

In 2023 and 2024, Microsoft’s investments in OpenAI and Google’s rapid deployment of AI-powered services have drawn headlines, but Apple’s public AI initiatives have appeared far more restrained.

Even the much-hyped integration of Siri with on-device AI has lagged behind the breakthroughs seen elsewhere, with Apple content to emphasize privacy and ecosystem integration rather than the boldness and speed that have characterized its competitors’ efforts.

This hesitance has prompted frustration among those who believe Apple’s immense resources and technical talent should position it as a leader in AI.

Instead, as the post observes, the company’s marquee achievements are often seen as minor refinements: thinner iPhones, lighter MacBooks, small iterative improvements in cameras, screens, or battery life.

These changes, while not insignificant, are seen by some as failing to match the spirit of innovation that drove Apple’s greatest successes under Steve Jobs.

The iPod, iPhone, and iPad each redefined entire categories; critics argue that under Tim Cook, Apple has instead focused on perfecting existing devices rather than inventing the future.

The criticism extends to Apple’s financial strategy, particularly its reliance on stock buybacks. Apple has returned more than a trillion dollars to shareholders in the past decade through buybacks and dividends, an amount that dwarfs the research and development budgets of most Fortune 500 companies.

Proponents argue that these buybacks support the stock price and signal confidence in the company’s future, rewarding long-term investors and providing a buffer during market volatility.

Detractors, however, claim that such financial maneuvers come at the expense of long-term investment in breakthrough technologies.

They suggest that instead of directing so much capital to shareholders, Apple could have used these resources to double down on AI research, acquire promising startups, or accelerate development of new platforms in fields like augmented reality, healthcare, or next-generation silicon.

This ongoing debate has intensified as Apple’s traditional strengths face growing pressure. The iPhone, still the company’s main revenue driver, is maturing in a market increasingly saturated with capable alternatives from Samsung, Google, and even Chinese brands.

Mac and iPad lines remain strong but have failed to ignite the same excitement as in their early years. Meanwhile, services revenue has risen steadily but has not compensated for perceptions that Apple’s most innovative days may be behind it.

The introduction of new products, such as the Apple Vision Pro headset, has drawn interest but not yet revolutionized the consumer tech landscape.

Against this backdrop, calls for leadership change have grown louder. Tim Cook, who took the helm in 2011, is credited with turning Apple into the world’s most valuable company and stewarding unprecedented growth.

Yet, critics argue that his style—measured, disciplined, and operationally focused—is mismatched for a period when bold innovation is once again the order of the day.

They suggest that Apple now needs a visionary leader capable of galvanizing the company around new ideas, inspiring employees, and taking calculated risks in pursuit of technological leadership, especially in AI and emerging fields.

It is important to acknowledge that Apple’s situation is not unique. Many companies that reach the pinnacle of success find it difficult to sustain a culture of radical innovation as they scale.

Risk aversion increases, product cycles slow down, and leadership faces intense scrutiny from investors who demand both steady returns and the next big breakthrough. Apple, as the world’s most valuable brand, is under more pressure than any other company to deliver both.

Tim Cook’s strategy has succeeded in providing stability and profit, but some now believe that very stability is becoming a liability.

The path forward for Apple may require difficult choices. Should the company continue to optimize and perfect its core products, or should it pivot aggressively toward AI, even at the risk of short-term setbacks and investor anxiety?

Should it persist with massive buybacks, or redirect those resources toward moonshot projects that could define the next era of computing? The answers to these questions will shape not only Apple’s future but also the broader technology industry, which continues to look to Cupertino for leadership and inspiration.

For many inside and outside Apple, the frustration captured in the viral comment is not about a lack of respect for Tim Cook or Apple’s past successes, but rather a longing for the kind of bold, risk-taking innovation that once made Apple unique.

As the AI revolution accelerates and new competitors emerge, the stakes for Apple could not be higher. Whether the company chooses to double down on operational excellence or rediscover its willingness to bet big on the future, one thing is certain: Apple’s next chapter will be defined by its ability to answer the calls for change echoing from its most passionate supporters.

In conclusion, the growing criticism of Tim Cook’s leadership and Apple’s strategic direction speaks to a broader debate about the nature of innovation in the tech industry.

As new waves of technology reshape the market, even the most successful companies must continually reinvent themselves or risk irrelevance. For Apple, the challenge is not just to make products slightly better or to reward shareholders, but to lead once again—to take the risks, pursue the breakthroughs, and spark the excitement that only true innovation can bring.

Whether that requires new leadership or a renewed commitment to bold ideas, the world will be watching, and Apple’s response may well determine its place in the future of technology.