I am curious what people on Hacker News feel about ("public", traded) companies that don't re-invent themselves? I have heard 2 conflicting arguments about this

I am curious what people on Hacker News feel about ("public", traded) companies that don't re-invent themselves? I have heard 2 conflicting arguments about this: 1.) as one sector dies, and another grows, a company in the dying sector should give all possible profits to its investors, so the investors can invest in the growing sector. Maximizing profits in the short term, and allowing the company to go bankrupt, is the responsible thing to do, since the goal is to maximize returns for investors. 2.) as one sector dies, and another grows, a company in the dying sector should re-invent itself, investing in those sectors that are growing. Making long-term investments in fields that might become big in the future is the responsible thing to do. Some examples, mostly offered as counter-arguments to each proposition: Possibly relevant to #1, I have heard people complain that Microsoft has wasted billions on Bing, all of which was money that could have been returned to investors, at which point the investors could have used the money to invest in Google. Possibly relevant to #2, I have heard people complain that Jeff Bezos is being irresponsible by chasing growth, when he should instead be developing profits, which could then be given back to investors. Possibly relevant to #1, I recall there were people who complained about KMarts (failed) attempt to re-invent itself in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Harvard Business Review had a write-up of this, as an example of "pre-mature abandonment of core business". The money that KMart spent trying to re-invent itself is money that could have been given to investors, who then could have invested in Wal-Mart. Possibly relevant to #2, some Western "activist" investors have tried to pressure Japanese companies to focus more on quarterly profits. I recall this was a big thing 15 years ago, there were complaints that Toyota was investing in itself too much, rather than giving back to its investors. Possibly relevant to #1, some stakeholders have complained that General Motors has continued to pay out dividends for most of the last 40 years, when that money "really" should have been used to re-invent the company so it could better fight against Toyota. Possibly relevant to #1, Barnes and Noble continues to pay dividends, when the money might be better spent re-inventing the company. Possibly relevant to #1, The New York Times continues to pay dividends, when the money might be better spent re-inventing the company. Possibly relevant to #2, in 1997 Apple re-invented itself, when it might have been better for its stock owners if it had maximized payouts, gone bankrupt, and allowed its investors to take what cash they could get and re-invest in Microsoft. So which should be condoned? Should the law favor one of these options?