My read of the Bloomberg article is that this is a good thing -- Apple is much more productive with every $1 of R&D than most other large firms. The Bloomberg article also makes the point that Apple is much more productive with its marketing/advertising expenditures.
I think it's a mistake to interpret these as negatives.
I seem to recall Steve Jobs once making the point that R&D can be very cheap if management is able to identify which projects are losers or winners early in the cycle. The more time it takes to figure out what to say "no" to, the more expensive R&D becomes.
So far Apple appears to be maintaining a high level of efficiency, but it's hard to tell how much of that is momentum left over from Jobs. The success of the Apple Watch will be one early indicator of whether Apple still has its mo-jo. This alleged auto project may end up being a much bigger indicator.
Apple should spend a tiny slice of its R&D budget on giving OS X and iOS a world-class spelling checker. They'd get more user satisfaction per dollar spent there than in almost any other area. Users waste a lot of time making up for its deficiencies. They also look bad when it doesn't catch something it should catch.
Apple's current spell checker is a disaster. Its vocabulary is pitiful. Its lookup for misspelling is so primitive, it can't handle more than one misplaced letter. It doesn't even understand the rules for hyphenation in English. It's little better than the spell checkers that came DOS programs in the late 1980s.
Apple could at least update it with a professionally maintained vocabulary and perhaps offer as user-selected options dictionaries for professions such as law, medicine and the sciences.
That would impress. The current spell checker merely insults. Anyone who's made it halfway through college knows more words than it.
Apple should spend a tiny slice of its R&D budget on giving OS X and iOS a world-class spelling checker. They'd get more user satisfaction per dollar spent there than in almost any other area. Users waste a lot of time making up for its deficiencies. They also look bad when it doesn't catch something it should catch.
Apple's current spell checker is a disaster. Its vocabulary is pitiful. Its lookup for misspelling is so primitive, it can't handle more than one misplaced letter. It doesn't even understand the rules for hyphenation in English. It's little better than the spell checkers that came DOS programs in the late 1980s.
Apple could at least update it with a professionally maintained vocabulary and perhaps offer as user-selected options dictionaries for professions such as law, medicine and the sciences.
That would impress. The current spell checker merely insults. Anyone who's made it halfway through college knows more words than it.
I agree with this. misspelled words that are only a couple chars off routinely fail. which means I have to copy and paste into a new Google tab and get the spelling. that's weak.
It is interesting that it is down to 3.5%, in the 1990s and early 2000s it was above 5%, often closing in on 10% as I recall, but it has been drifting downwards since then.
I think it is a somewhat misleading comparison to compare to Facebook and Google, since those are primarily software companies - they don't have to pay to build things so they can have 15-20% on R&D. Even Qualcomm is fabless and, I believe, licenses IP blocks. It would be interesting to see what the division between "R" and "D" is – how much is research on new ideas vs. directly developing a new product.
Apple's revenue are what 100 times more (even accounting for inflation)...
There is a minimum you have to spend, people can't be cut in half, you need buildings, and you have to develop a product.
As your revenue surge, the percentage goes down.
There is also not an unlimited number of viable future products.
A much better way to get tech in house for big companies is to buy smaller ones.
That way, you don't have to try 1000 different things and have 90% fail (spending that money).
You just buy the best of those that have succeeded then integrated in house.
Apple's strength is integration of many different tech in an unified experience in one or many product.
That's where its R&D should focus and that's why I think the car is just the logical extension of this competency.
In fact, trying to develop everything in-house is a sure fire way of falling behind.
I wasn't aware other American companies did research (outside marketing) :-p Seems to be not a thing that directly contributes to share prices and quarterly profit reports. I.e. Wall Street doesn't like spending money on research (unless it's research to further the marketing of things that are bad for us but which are powerful money makers).
There is nothing inaccurate about AIs headlines. They are carefully crafted for a specific purpose.
Interesting that Samsung spent $13.8 B on R&D in 2014. I am surprised Apple is spending as much as it is. I suspect a big chunk will be on the car project which has all gone quiet recently and which is why there has been an notable increase.
Bottom line- Apple is more focused than it's competitors and it's economies of scale encourage suppliers to give it the best.
The other companies are wasting R&D on nonsense.
You mean stuff like Zune, Windows Vista, Surface, Microsoft brick and mortar stores, and WGA? Those are a good way to keep people employed! The money isn't going down the drain; it's going somewhere.
Comments
My read of the Bloomberg article is that this is a good thing -- Apple is much more productive with every $1 of R&D than most other large firms. The Bloomberg article also makes the point that Apple is much more productive with its marketing/advertising expenditures.
I think it's a mistake to interpret these as negatives.
I seem to recall Steve Jobs once making the point that R&D can be very cheap if management is able to identify which projects are losers or winners early in the cycle. The more time it takes to figure out what to say "no" to, the more expensive R&D becomes.
So far Apple appears to be maintaining a high level of efficiency, but it's hard to tell how much of that is momentum left over from Jobs. The success of the Apple Watch will be one early indicator of whether Apple still has its mo-jo. This alleged auto project may end up being a much bigger indicator.
What usually goes into it is a lot of bogus and wasted overhead spending classified as "D" and very little "R."
Apple's spending on R&D is just fine.
Apple's current spell checker is a disaster. Its vocabulary is pitiful. Its lookup for misspelling is so primitive, it can't handle more than one misplaced letter. It doesn't even understand the rules for hyphenation in English. It's little better than the spell checkers that came DOS programs in the late 1980s.
Apple could at least update it with a professionally maintained vocabulary and perhaps offer as user-selected options dictionaries for professions such as law, medicine and the sciences.
That would impress. The current spell checker merely insults. Anyone who's made it halfway through college knows more words than it.
I agree with this. misspelled words that are only a couple chars off routinely fail. which means I have to copy and paste into a new Google tab and get the spelling. that's weak.
It is interesting that it is down to 3.5%, in the 1990s and early 2000s it was above 5%, often closing in on 10% as I recall, but it has been drifting downwards since then.
I think it is a somewhat misleading comparison to compare to Facebook and Google, since those are primarily software companies - they don't have to pay to build things so they can have 15-20% on R&D. Even Qualcomm is fabless and, I believe, licenses IP blocks. It would be interesting to see what the division between "R" and "D" is – how much is research on new ideas vs. directly developing a new product.
Apple's revenue are what 100 times more (even accounting for inflation)...
There is a minimum you have to spend, people can't be cut in half, you need buildings, and you have to develop a product.
As your revenue surge, the percentage goes down.
There is also not an unlimited number of viable future products.
A much better way to get tech in house for big companies is to buy smaller ones.
That way, you don't have to try 1000 different things and have 90% fail (spending that money).
You just buy the best of those that have succeeded then integrated in house.
Apple's strength is integration of many different tech in an unified experience in one or many product.
That's where its R&D should focus and that's why I think the car is just the logical extension of this competency.
In fact, trying to develop everything in-house is a sure fire way of falling behind.
The other companies are wasting R&D on nonsense.
The headline made no mention of percentages, just spending:
Apple R&D spending is a fraction of other major American tech companies.
This should be corrected to such as:
Apple R&D spending as a percentage of income a fraction of some other major American tech companies.
A.I.'s editors persist with inaccurate banners.
A.I.'s editors persist with inaccurate banners.
There is nothing inaccurate about AIs headlines. They are carefully crafted for a specific purpose.
Interesting that Samsung spent $13.8 B on R&D in 2014. I am surprised Apple is spending as much as it is. I suspect a big chunk will be on the car project which has all gone quiet recently and which is why there has been an notable increase.
A much better way to get tech in house for big companies is to buy smaller ones.
That way, you don't have to try 1000 different things and have 90% fail (spending that money).
You just buy the best of those that have succeeded then integrated in house.
Apple's strength is integration of many different tech in an unified experience in one or many product.
That's where its R&D should focus and that's why I think the car is just the logical extension of this competency.
In fact, trying to develop everything in-house is a sure fire way of falling behind.
Or you can try Samsung's way: copy the competition.
Bottom line- Apple is more focused than it's competitors and it's economies of scale encourage suppliers to give it the best.
The other companies are wasting R&D on nonsense.
You mean stuff like Zune, Windows Vista, Surface, Microsoft brick and mortar stores, and WGA? Those are a good way to keep people employed! The money isn't going down the drain; it's going somewhere.