1. If you get enough shares together you can influence the company's behaviour, (not relevant to most people)
2. If someone else wants to influence the company's behaviour they might be willing to pay for your shares, and
3. If the company goes under the shareholders might get something once it gets dissected (not really relevant to AAPL at the moment)
In the case of a company in which all control is held by a majority shareholder who intends to hold 51% forever, you're absolutely right - the valuation of the 49% is almost completely arbitrary, giving no control or ownership in a meaningful sense.
Is 3 ever relevant? Most failed companies go into insolvency and then bankruptcy, which means creditors walk away with it all.
1 and 2 are fair points, but with interesting consequences. By 1 and 2, it would be rational to invest in failing but promising companies, since they are more ripe for takeover. With a successful company like Apple, the profit-maximizing move from shareholders is to make sure they keep doing what they're already doing.
1. If you get enough shares together you can influence the company's behaviour, (not relevant to most people)
2. If someone else wants to influence the company's behaviour they might be willing to pay for your shares, and
3. If the company goes under the shareholders might get something once it gets dissected (not really relevant to AAPL at the moment)
In the case of a company in which all control is held by a majority shareholder who intends to hold 51% forever, you're absolutely right - the valuation of the 49% is almost completely arbitrary, giving no control or ownership in a meaningful sense.