Dividends are only one way to get value out of cash reserves in a company. I'd argue that if the company knows what the hell it's doing, handing away the fuel that helps it to execute on its strategy (cash) is the worst thing to do.
If they can't invest it in a way that covers their cost of capital, it is their duty to pay it out, not to sit on it.
it is their duty to pay it out
How so? Did they commit to giving out dividends as a part of your purchase of their stock? Are they siphoning the cash out of the company to avoid giving shareholders value?
Sitting on cash has been an Apple strategy for a very long time, even before Jobs came back. How have they deceived shareholders by continuing with it?
When you have multiple shareholders, the concept is the same, it's just harder to hold management's feet to the fire.
This is different than "sitting on cash" as a strategic decision. It is wise to do so - there might be investment opportunities or hard times down the road. But we are talking about excess cash - cash beyond the level that is reasonable to sit on for strategic purposes. To sit on excess cash (which is admittedly a judgement call) is to hold your shareholders' money hostage in an unprofitable manner. Given how much cash Apple has, I don't think it's unreasonable for shareholders to grumble a bit.
Having cash reserves sor which you have no immediate plans is itself a strategy that may have extra benefits, like it or not.