or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Could a lack of R&D spending threaten Apple's innovative run?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Could a lack of R&D spending threaten Apple's innovative run?

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 
Even while Apple's revenue has skyrocketed in recent years -- and even as expectations for future products and success have exploded -- what the company has spent on R&D has risen only modestly, Troy Wolverton reports for TheStreet.com.

The financial journalist questions whether the company's skimpy research spending could ultimately jeopardize its unprecedented run of innovative product hits, and wonders how much longer the company can squeeze juicier near-term profits out of its R&D line.

As a portion of overall sales, such expenses have actually fallen by more than half, Wolverton wrote. Based on an analysis of recent SEC filings, last year Apple spent 3.8 percent of sales on development, and just 3.2 percent in its most recent fiscal quarter.

Still, Apple hasn't really cut R&D spending. According to Wolverton, the company spent $534 million on development in fiscal 2005, which was 24 percent more than it spent in fiscal 2001. However, he says the company has clearly been constraining the growth of development spending.

While sales have grown at a compounded annual rate of 27 percent over the last four years, R&D spending has grown at an average rate of just 5.6 percent per year over that period, the journalist notes.

"At some point, that reaches stasis," Crawford Del Prete, an analyst with industry research firm IDC, told TheStreet.com "They can't take it down to 1.5 percent or 2 percent of revenue."

Already, Apple is reportedly being vastly outspent by its rivals. Both in dollar terms and as a portion of its revenue, Apple's R&D budget is said to be a fraction of that of competitors Hewlett-Packard, Sony and Microsoft. And unlike its rivals, Apple has to bear costs that many of its competitors don't, such as operating system development.

On the other hand, many analyst point out what's important is not how much a company spends on R&D but how well it spends it. "And for most of those analysts, Apple is a good example of a company that gets a lot of bang for its R&D buck," Wolverton wrote.

"You look at what Microsoft is spending on R&D and I guarantee there's wasted money there," said Roger Kay, founder of consulting firm Endpoint Technologies. "Look at what they've produced. It's not controversial that they haven't turned out 10 times as many great products as Apple."

A detailed breakdown of Apple's R&D spending, and comparisons to its competitors spending, are offered in the lengthy TheStreet.com piece.
post #2 of 64
Apple is in no danger of losing its innovation run if history is any indicator. Check out
this recent graph - increase in R&D spending has no correlation to sales growth.

It's the people and how the company is run from the ground up that makes the difference.
post #3 of 64
I wouldn't really call it a "detailed breakdown." What would be interesting would be if they gave the R&D costs of OS X (and maybe iLife). Given the ~$500 million figure they cite, I'm guessing the OS X costs alone must be $250 million or less, which implies it's basically under $50/Mac (5 million Macs shipped per year right now). This is similar in cost to a Windows XP Home/Vista Home Basic OEM license, and significantly less than a Vista Home Premium license will cost. The "Windows tax" is going to become a progressively larger portion of Wintel PC costs going forward.
post #4 of 64
Like the article says, R&D is growing healthily in absolute terms, it's just that sales have exploded in the last three years, so as a % of sales it looks lower. The fact that costs haven't scaled with sales doesn't surprise me, and most analysts should consider it a GoodThing(tm). SJ runs a tight ship. The first thing he did when he became iCEO was to rein in costs and return Apple to a regular (albeit tiny) profit. He's not going to party-like-its-1999 when sales pick up.

The 900-lb gorilla hiding in the closet, though, is that fact that most of Apple's recent sales growth is due to the iPod. The iPod has been as close to a printing press as any non-monopolist could dream of. And the iPod doesn't require an enormous continuing investment in R&D. They probably spend less R&D on the iPod than on any one of their Mac lines.
post #5 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by bigmig
What would be interesting would be if they gave the R&D costs of OS X (and maybe iLife). Given the ~$500 million figure they cite, I'm guessing the OS X costs alone must be $250 million or less

The only number I've seen was back around Tiger's release, when an analyst estimated its development costs at $100-200M. I wonder if it's an understatement, though, since so much R&D must go into core technologies that aren't necessarily release-specific, and it probably doesn't include iLife, etc. Since software development isn't capital-intensive (in the old-fashioned sense) I wonder if there's any way to find out how many software people Apple employs?
post #6 of 64
Mac OS X probably doesn´t cost as much to develop as it did three years ago, so my guess is some funds have shifted.

Besides how do you think the iPod would have looked like if the R&D had been twice as much? Probably something like the Origami project. Each person wants his own button...
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #7 of 64
Financial analyst warning of R&D lag? Get real. One of the strengths of the development tools, frameworks, etc., is that a small team of talented programmers can create innovative products.

Apple has no shortage of brainstorming, no shortage of architects, no shortage of engineers, etc. The talent is there.

What it reveals is that most company don't have the talents, tools and ideas; and no matter how much money you throw at it you won't get insanely great products.
post #8 of 64
Any R&D done about 2-3 years ago will only be coming into fruition now or maybe next year!


I'm not worried in the slightest about what this article says, the journalist who wrote this will have a different article next year when the shares double again!

I just bought more shares today on the lows.
I'm gathering a nice little collection.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #9 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Mac OS X probably doesn´t cost as much to develop as it did three years ago, so my guess is some funds have shifted.

Besides how do you think the iPod would have looked like if the R&D had been twice as much? Probably something like the Origami project. Each person wants his own button...

Even with the shift to Intel you don't believe that OS cost have risen?

I would have assumed it would be more now than ever but I don't know much.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #10 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Ireland
Any R&D done about 2-3 years ago will only be coming into fruition now or maybe next year!


I'm not worried in the slightest about what this article says, the journalist who wrote this will have a different article next year when the shares double again!

I just bought more shares today on the lows.
I'm gathering a nice little collection.

I love how analysts are paid to come up with something, ANYTHING, to drive the price lower agin to create buy/sell opportunities for those who know that Apple's marke share growth will continue....
post #11 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by lhvide
I love how analysts are paid to come up with something, ANYTHING, to drive the price lower agin to create buy/sell opportunities for those who know that Apple's marke share growth will continue....

BULL!!!!!!

If anything these analysts have been fanbois #1 for the last year. Any sensible valuation of the Apple stocks will tell you they are overpriced but nonetheless they all have the stock on hold or buy.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #12 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by lhvide
I love how analysts are paid to come up with something, ANYTHING, to drive the price lower agin to create buy/sell opportunities for those who know that Apple's marke share growth will continue....


So true!
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #13 of 64
These journalists have nothing better to do than come up with some "made up" belief with NO FACTUAL grounds so that they can get into the news as sounding somewhat intelligible. These guys are always just trying to pick the Apple downfall. Everytime these guys write up a scare tactic article on Apple then the stock takes a drop because of some un-intelligible investor gets scared and pulls out after an unfounded written article based upon what someone conjoured up in their own head so that they can be nearly-famous by stirring the pot again.

I can't stand journalists like this... They make this crap up with none or little basis for it. I just wish investors were smarter than this than to listen to every bad written article.

I assure you, Apple is doing very well for themselves and they are going to continue to grow. If you prefer a more stagnant company (MS) then be my guest and invest in a company that has not grown for 3yrs or more.

Thank you and have a great day,
RRP
post #14 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by nofear1az
These guys are always just trying to pick the Apple downfall.

Is that you, Karl Rove?

Its simply not true. If anything the analysts have a very pro-Apple leaning. For gods sake, they have a target price of $100 at a time when the stock is falling.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #15 of 64
The whole Intel switch is about containing R&D budgets on hardware. With Intel picking up MOBO design costs, that means AAPL can spend less and still devote more resources to software and external design. In years past, Apple spent fortunes on technologies and gadgets that never made it to market. M$ still does, or if they make it to market, flop.

A non-starter of an article.
post #16 of 64
So Apple R&D has increased, just not AS much as revenue? And that's a problem?

You don't have to keep R&D in pace with revenue if you... drum roll please... sell higher quantities to more people!

Apple's R&D has been massive for a long time: an OS, dozens of apps, plus hardware. So it didn't necessarily NEED to grow that much.
post #17 of 64
This article is crap and is just jumping on the Apple bandwagon.

Apple's R&D is still going strong they've just been able to do two things recently: increased sales and reduced in-house R&D costs due to the intel transition.

Normally the street would laud a company for keeping costs down but in Apple's case they want it both ways.
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #18 of 64
Wasn't Apple spending crazy amounts in R&D before the return of Jobs? On everything from Copeland/Gershwin/Rhapsody to Newton to the manufacture of dozens of models of the Mac.

I would've thought this article would've come out when Tiger was released when Tevanian stated not to expect OS X revision cycles to keep the pace they did.

Considering Apple had a "black hole" of OS X on Intel R&D for five years, they will now see some revenue from it. Who knows what else has been in the works for that long that might be coming out.

You can't just be an R&D company and sell high-ticket items, otherwise you'll end up like Luxell.

"We'll see you real soon!"
post #19 of 64
Another completely useless "analyst" "analysis" of Apple.

Let's see: Apple's R&D spending (that gave us, what was it? Oh yeah - the iPod, iMac, OS X, mac mini, etc. etc.) has increased above inflation for the past five years, and that's a bad thing?

Yet another focus on quantity rather than quality.

Also, he has completely failed to account for the fact that once the Intel switch is over, Apple's spending on electronics R&D (on motherboard chipsets, layouts etc.) will be vastly reduced (because Intel will be doing most of the work) leaving Apple a lot more money to spend elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally posted by aplnub
Even with the shift to Intel you don't believe that OS cost have risen?

I would have assumed it would be more now than ever but I don't know much.

Well, Steve Jobs at last year's WWDC confirmed the rumours that Apple has been developing OS X to run on Intel from the very beginning. It's probably true to say that now it's out in the field it requires a bit more work, but I doubt costs have risen that much.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #20 of 64
Troy is like a lot of writers on the financial beat. They write sensational headlines to get clicks. The Motley Fool is the king of this practice.
I'm surprised he bashes apple so much, he kind of looks like a 12 year old fanboy.
post #21 of 64
Some of you guys just don't understand the concept of R&D growth. There is inflation to account for here as well. R&D becomes more expensive relative the the overall economy over time.

You can compare this to the cost of health care. A major reason for its explosive growth in cost is that as it gets more sophisticated, the costs rise. More expensive tools, larger teams, etc.

It's not two guys in a garage anymore. As Apple moves into more areas, its R&D must increase. Apple has been cutting back on projects for some time. We've been reading about that in these very pages.

Basic research is very important. Apple has been cutting back on that.

One of the reasons why Sony has lost its edge is because for the last six or seven years, they too, have been cutting back.

Don't think that small increases in the percentage means much. It doesn't.
post #22 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
BULL!!!!!!

If anything these analysts have been fanbois #1 for the last year. Any sensible valuation of the Apple stocks will tell you they are overpriced but nonetheless they all have the stock on hold or buy.

NO SHIT...right now, apple is a sell for anyone with common sence...Buy LOW, sell HIGH...

If you must buy Apple now, buy it before a keynote and sell afterwards, if you would have bought the monday before the MWSF keynote and sold the following afternoon, you would have made a cool 10% over night, the ride up is over, play Apple short for a while
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #23 of 64
You guys seem to be missing something.

If Apple has all this money coming in, why don't they simply attempt to create three times as many new products as they were before when they were just breaking even? Unless you claim they are somehow doing three times as much as before with the same amount of money, it is just natural to do more.

There is a such thing as being too conservative in your approach. Why doesn't Apple develop more products and take more risks? They have little to lose by spending $30 million on a project, but a lot to gain.

Microsoft obviously took the other approach. They had so much money coming in from their monopoly with DOS that they took over markets just by throwing enough money at them.

I think I know the reason, though. Very simply, Steve Jobs takes part in all the development, and he is a necessary component of development with limited time. It is well known he tests and plays around with products like the iPod, iDVD, etc. He may not come up with most of the ideas, but he makes the choices of what moves forward, and he comes up with lots of critical things that need to be improved about a product. He is the glue that holds everything together and gets the magic out of everyone else's ideas.

If Apple has the magic touch with products, obviously from the point of view of the shareholders they should be attempting more products. Why wouldn't they?
post #24 of 64
I think Apple looks at each project on its merits, not on whether it grows R&D or not. From Apple's patents, we can see that Apple is engaged in a wide variety of R&D work. Expanding too quickly (because you need to keep R&D pegged to a certain percentage) can lead to doing low ROI projects, hiring less qualified people, etc. R&D needs to be managed, just like everything else, on its merits.

All that being said, Apple is using other companies to do a lot of this work such as PortalPlayer, Broadcom (wide variety of chips), Samsung (flash), Hitachi/Toshiba (hard drives), Intel, etc. For a good deal of hardware, Apple can just use parts from others. Why? Because Apple adds value with software and design. (However, Apple did move the touch/click wheel stuff from Synaptics in house. I suspect it either has to do with software integration with the wheel or Synaptics heading in a different direction. Remember the story with Cornice?)

And by the way, Apple is already expanding into the living room (front row, remote, hi-fi, rumored TV, rumored video store and infrastructure), and most think it's working on a cell phone and tablet. Maybe they could do more car-related stuff but do they have to move into kitchen appliances (remember the iPod toaster) as well?
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #25 of 64
I'm curious if anyone knows or has an educated guess as to which costs more, R&D for software developement or R&d for hardware developement?
post #26 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
You guys seem to be missing something.

There is a such thing as being too conservative in your approach. Why doesn't Apple develop more products and take more risks? They have little to lose by spending $30 million on a project, but a lot to gain.


Due to Apple's unique place in the market, they can't just throw things at the wall & see what sticks. There are Apple-bashers a-plenty just waiting for them to stumble so they ban go "AHA!" JOBS HAS LOST TEH MAGIC! Apple is teh BELEAGUERED!!"

Think of all the media attention that a barely-perceptible crease in the finish of the Cube got, now multiply that 10X if they release a real dud of a gadget.

Apple has been very good over the last 5 years at not only finding a hole in the biz, but taking the time to do it right.

Do what you will, but harm none.

Reply

Do what you will, but harm none.

Reply
post #27 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by mark2005
I think Apple looks at each project on its merits, not on whether it grows R&D or not. From Apple's patents, we can see that Apple is engaged in a wide variety of R&D work. Expanding too quickly (because you need to keep R&D pegged to a certain percentage) can lead to doing low ROI projects, hiring less qualified people, etc. R&D needs to be managed, just like everything else, on its merits.

All that being said, Apple is using other companies to do a lot of this work such as PortalPlayer, Broadcom (wide variety of chips), Samsung (flash), Hitachi/Toshiba (hard drives), Intel, etc. For a good deal of hardware, Apple can just use parts from others. Why? Because Apple adds value with software and design. (However, Apple did move the touch/click wheel stuff from Synaptics in house. I suspect it either has to do with software integration with the wheel or Synaptics heading in a different direction. Remember the story with Cornice?)

And by the way, Apple is already expanding into the living room (front row, remote, hi-fi, rumored TV, rumored video store and infrastructure), and most think it's working on a cell phone and tablet. Maybe they could do more car-related stuff but do they have to move into kitchen appliances (remember the iPod toaster) as well?

No company looks at projects to enable them to "grow" R&D. R&D grows as a consequence of establishing new areas of research.

It's a dangerous thing to allow other companies to do your R&D for you. When that happens, you lose the edge that doing it yourself gives you. You also lose control of the research, as well as the results. Just as important is the procedures, people and laboratories you develop when doing it in-house. This can't be stressed enough.

It may seem cool to say that putting this on the shoulders of others saves money for Apple, and that it's great. It's not.

You can never lead when you are dependent on some other company coming up with your basic concepts, and later, products. It's not enough to tell someone else that this is what you want, and to then let them come up with the solution. When you do that, you don't have the deep understanding of your own products, and you have no idea where the R&D will lead in the future.
post #28 of 64
So,

On the verge of bankruptcy, Apple was able to innovate or buy, not only OS X (NeXt) but the ipod.


No, I think that the money Apple spends on R&D they expect to return.

Microsoft just throws money at a problem and hopes for a solution.

Apple has always been a culture of innovation.

Microsoft has never innovated.

\
post #29 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No company looks at projects to enable them to "grow" R&D. R&D grows as a consequence of establishing new areas of research.

It's a dangerous thing to allow other companies to do your R&D for you. When that happens, you lose the edge that doing it yourself gives you. You also lose control of the research, as well as the results. Just as important is the procedures, people and laboratories you develop when doing it in-house. This can't be stressed enough.

It may seem cool to say that putting this on the shoulders of others saves money for Apple, and that it's great. It's not.

You can never lead when you are dependent on some other company coming up with your basic concepts, and later, products. It's not enough to tell someone else that this is what you want, and to then let them come up with the solution. When you do that, you don't have the deep understanding of your own products, and you have no idea where the R&D will lead in the future.

Good points mel. Again I wonder what costs more to develope, software or hardware? This may tell you where Apple is headed. Certainly by moving to Intel they can reduce R&D costs on some aspects of hardware developement and frankly this is probably good. Do you really want to keep up with Intel in chip and motherboard design?
post #30 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Good points mel. Again I wonder what costs more to develope, software or hardware? This may tell you where Apple is headed. Certainly by moving to Intel they can reduce R&D costs on some aspects of hardware developement and frankly this is probably good. Do you really want to keep up with Intel in chip and motherboard design?

Some things matter more than others. Apple had a lot to do with the early development of the PPC chip line. They were responsible for many of its features. This held them in good stead for years. Much of this broke down when Jobs refused to allow Moto to continue their clones.

There are now rumors on some PC tech sites that Apple and Intel are working on chip features that will, at first, only appear on machines that Apple produces. This may, or may not, be true. But it shows the interest that even the PC community has in Apple's part in any research. This tells us something, does it not? The belief is that if Apple gets involved, good things will happen.

Apple has developed designs that were farmed out, such as the touch pads for the laptops, that Apple is now producing in-house. That says something as well.

I'm not sure if mobo designs are as important when the chips being used are from Intel, as Intel is the worlds largest high quality mobo manufacturer. Intel will build to Apples' specs. Since no one knows as much about their chips as they do, they have been producing very good mobo designs for a long time.

It's the area of new ideas that Apple must keep in-house.

Both software and hardware can be expensive to develop. It depends on the scope of the project.
post #31 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
If Apple has all this money coming in, why don't they simply attempt to create three times as many new products as they were before when they were just breaking even? Unless you claim they are somehow doing three times as much as before with the same amount of money, it is just natural to do more.

Not exactly, Apple had dozens of products and iterations in the "dark ages" but they were still hurting because everything they made was utter shit. Now, they are spending plenty in R&D but a cut seems in order, the intel ramp-up was a clandestine R&D project for at least a few years before WWDC '05, because for the transition, they needed more than just the OS, they needed all of its components, like QT and core* to be perfect on intel, and PPC, not a cheap thing to do. Now that the intel groundwork is laid, the intel versioning becomes part of the standard OSX R&D cycle, thus cutting costs, allbeit an unknown, or under-specified cost
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #32 of 64
the article is dead right.

it is called eating the seed corn.

apple's 'innovation' is a mile wide & an inch deep.

this is the sentiment from those who both care & admire apple.

it is not crazy talk.

most people who havent been on the inside have no idea how much money apple has left on the table because of the on-going self-castration.

dlf
post #33 of 64
I would say, he is dead wrong. It was a silly article because it offered no tangible evidence that Apple is really slipping behind but merely offers an opinion--- in fact it contradicts itself by stating that "actual" funding has increased, even if the percentage has slipped and trying to make something out of both those observations. Tying a fixed investment percentage of income as a benchmark is out-dated thinking and exposes the writer's lack of understanding of how an innovative company like Apple, operates. Indeed, NO ONE outside the inner circle knows the reasoning behind Apple's thinking and this author most certainly doesn't. Clearly, he must think they are about to tank otherwise he would not have written the article with that slant- well, join the ranks of Enderle and Dvorak mate---and they have been right, er, let me think......
post #34 of 64
Apple's inflated stock price is predicated on them inventing "the next iPod".

Well, now it's been several years, and we've got U2 iPods and iPod cases and iPod boomboxes, but no new consumer electronics device. Public is getting skeptical. So the analysts look and see, well well well, looks like Apple is not spending that much money developing the "next iPod".

So, at the next conference call, Apple responds by hinting they're investing more in R&D and/or have new products in the pipe, and the stock shoots up to even higher levels.

In other words, the analysts are driving the price up, not down.

(And the old Apple spent gazillions on speculative R&D, and the only thing that came out of it was QuickTime and the Newton.)
post #35 of 64
This "analyst" misses the most basic point in his analysis - that Apple is a much larger and more diverse company since 2001. With iTMS, iPod, Shake, iWork, iWeb, Apature, XServe, Mini, iSight - the list goes on, Apple has much more to spend R&D dollars on and is spending *far* less on its core products then it did in 2001.

I think this shows - Panther and Tiger were good but modest incremental improvements, largely bug fixes and code optimizations over Jaguar (plus obligatory eye candy). We never got Home on iPod, we never got the Cocoa Finder, we never got always-unmountable disks, we never got the new-hotness filesystem and the dpi-independent UI is still MIA (they talked about that in 1998). From Rhapsody to Jaguar Apple was like a ballistic rocket, then the rocket settled into orbit. See also security updates for Jaguar.

We'll see what comes with 10.5, but I'm not expecting to be astonished. I'd like to see some new virtualization-oriented security features that Apple has the underpinnings to pull off, but I'm expecting the Linux guys will get there first, and maybe even Microsoft.

So Apple's R&D spending might have increased in raw numbers but without accounting for the number of projects being worked on (and inflation) the analysis isn't terribly helpful.
post #36 of 64
I'm with Melgross. I think this is a concern for Apple. Imaginative leadership, which Apple has, would work best with solid R&D. The amount seems low.

Does development of OS X get list as "research" with Apple accounting, or development? Not at all sure. There is some real question as to what a compnay counts as "research".

Sincerely,
Henry Ledgard
post #37 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Wasn't Apple spending crazy amounts in R&D before the return of Jobs? On everything from Copeland/Gershwin/Rhapsody to Newton to the manufacture of dozens of models of the Mac.

Yes... in the mid 90's Apple was one of the top-10 patent applicants each year, and spend a huge % of their revenue on R&D, most of which never turned into products. Apple's R&D now seems much more focused an applied, which analysts usually love. Microsoft has taken the reigns in spending gobs of R&D cash with nothing to show for it. I personally am not sure of the best balance between "pure" research and applied research at the corporate level, but it's hard to argue with Apple's financial results so far.
post #38 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by TednDi
So,

On the verge of bankruptcy, Apple was able to innovate or buy, not only OS X (NeXt) but the ipod.


No, I think that the money Apple spends on R&D they expect to return.

Microsoft just throws money at a problem and hopes for a solution.

Apple has always been a culture of innovation.

Microsoft has never innovated.

\

never mind
post #39 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by davidf01
the article is dead right.

it is called eating the seed corn.

apple's 'innovation' is a mile wide & an inch deep.

this is the sentiment from those who both care & admire apple.

it is not crazy talk.

most people who havent been on the inside have no idea how much money apple has left on the table because of the on-going self-castration.

dlf

What's the 'self-castration' you refer to?
post #40 of 64
In my opinion and judging Apple behavior, I think Apple its more worried consolidating reals state for infrastructure than putting $$$ on R&D cause that department simply do their job, Apple its not Sony or Panasonic that have hundreds and hundreds of products. Its streamlined aproach by all departments assure Apple very good feedback and outstanding products, the follow up of the products its even better.
What we have here its another analyst trying to fill his pocket speculating with Apple again.
Almost all products from Apple get excelent reviews, the VALUE of them its always on top and we still have more products to come in the year, probably a few surpises with new hardware.
Simple its better, that overwhelm the mind of many not only with a top notch OS, it does also cause most companys dont know how to work the way Apple does with that kind of succes.

Thank God our OS its only $129.00 and we have one and only one solution of it.(we have 2 flavors os OS X, regular and the server one, but people care more for regular than the other)
That shows the commitment Apple has with their consumers to provide them with the best "all in one solution". Not as windows that has a normal/pro/beginer/NT/etc. version and MS put an ultra high price in its software that lacks everything a consumer/pro want, no matter what kind of thing they do, if its personal or business.

Botton line: Apple always have been creative cause the people who works in its the root of all, not the money, its cause they think different!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Could a lack of R&D spending threaten Apple's innovative run?