How is being the most profitable company on the planet not optimal? That is the definition of optimal.
You keep saying this but the interest of the board is primarily the health of the company as that is or should be the primary interest of the shareholders. The way you word it is that the board should put the interests of the shareholders before the company, which would suggest it's ok to drain the company's financial resources to give the shareholders a big payday. That's not what they are there to do.
It's not one or the other though, they have to do what's best for both and they already made a public statement about what they plan to do:
Again, remember: Apple was in a position of leadership twice before -- in the beginning, with the Apple II, and then in the mid-eighties, with the Mac, and they pissed it away both times doing the same thing as they are doing now: collecting fat margins and allowing more nimble competitors (which, amazingly, included IBM in 1981) to eat their lunch, and not being sufficiently innovative.
Again those words aren't accurate to describe what happened. When you say "more nimble", you mean sold at lower profits for a larger audience. Look at what's happening to Dell and HP. You could say Amazon is more nimble but do you want Apple to start churning out quarterly reports with revenues of billions and losses instead of profits? It's not in the best interests of shareholders to pursue loss-making business models.
How innovative do you think Samsung is with their S4?