There's nothing wrong with growing instead of paying dividends. Growth: We have 100 outstanding shares of $1, so we're worth $100, we made a "profit" of $5 whi

There's nothing wrong with growing instead of paying dividends. Growth: We have 100 outstanding shares of $1, so we're worth $100, we made a "profit" of $5 which we immediately invest in ourselves such that we're now worth $105. Each shareholder is $0.05 better off. Dividends: We have 100 outstanding shares of $1, so we're worth $100, we made a profit (no quotes) of $5 which we pay out in dividends. Each shareholder is $0.05 better off. We also issue five new shares of $1 and invest the revenue in growth, the company is now worth $105. The former model gives Amazon more freedom by isolating them from the whims of stock market (it's hard/expensive to raise money in a down market), and is probably more efficient because there are fewer transactions involved, but requires investment opportunities for the $5. Apple, famously, does not have these opportunities, so the best they can do (indeed, what they're supposed to do -- if investors want to invest in cash, they'll go to the treasury bond market) is to remit the cash to shareholders, through dividends and buy backs.