I happen also to come from an R&D background and the dollars spent is really irrelevant. What counts are the marketable results ... new products or new technology. A good example these days seems to be Alphabet, which seems to throw a lot of R&D money around with nothing really much to show for it.
It's also often the case that the profit-leader in a sector is not necessarily the technology leader, which is clearly applicable to Apple. They have a long and successful record of making the profits often enough when coming up from way behind in terms of real innovation. Its obviously a winning strategy at the moment, so who's complaining. Whether or not it's a recipe for future success is a question I could easily ask but not answer. We will see.
Because the A series processors don't have market leading performance and power management...oh wait, it does.
In what strategic technology area is Apple "way behind"?
Because it isn't processors, GPUs, material science, industrial design, manufacturing, cyber security, operating systems, development toolchains/frameworks, financial systems, content delivery or application software.
It's not even behind in cloud infrastructure anymore.
It’s interesting to note that, in the past, Apple didn’t really come up with much of their own technology. That is, in hardware and electronics. Though, The Woz did invent the modern floppy controller. Apple was known for taking new technologies first, and integrating them before anyone else did, at least on a wide scale.
but over the years, Apple has been doing more basic research. They come up with their own alloy variants. They come up with their own processing methods in manufacture. They design their own testing machines, and modify manufacturing equipment from others. They really have come a long way from mostly product development to “real” R&D.
so we “see” them doing original work in machine vision, in machine learning, with their own chip too. We see them doing original work in AR and VR. We can go a long way with this. This isn’t the old Apple anymore.
R&D is something I’m particularly familiar with. We did R&D in both of the companies I was involved with.
most people don’t realize that R&D isn’t linear to the results. In other words, in relation to the products that come out. While a small, but very important detail, may cost a lot in R&D terms, a major feature may cost almost nothing. This is my own experience. A lot of R&D is really the R, but not the D, and a lot is the D, but not the R. It depends. Sometimes you need to go well beyond what you want to do to be able to actually understand the very basics of the science, and other times, you just have to spend on engineering, both mechanically and electronically. These days, software is at the core of most any product, in one way or the other, so that’s included too.
quite frankly, while I understand why intel needs to spend so much, and Samsung, because both of these have numerous products, with Samsung producing almost everything electronic, I just can’t figure out what Alphabet is spending it on.
In companies like Samsung, I'd argue most of it is D and little is R. In places like Google its probably a load of R and not much D. Apple seems to be balanced with as much R as D, which explains why they've got high margins innovative products (R) (high margins from good IP) and able to execute/bring to market better than anyone (D).
IBM in its hey days of the 1960s to early 1980s was also like that, a huge amount of research pumped into a suite of products. What undid IBM was it wasn't adapted to the shift towards personal computing. For them, it was an afterthought and not something that drove their core business.
The market focus changed and that's what undid IBM (though they remain a big profitable company, they're a shadow of their old self).
This is the kind of thing that Apple has to stay attuned too. Not be locked into a market niche so much that you can't adapt to a sudden shift in the market environment.
I happen also to come from an R&D background and the dollars spent is really irrelevant. What counts are the marketable results ... new products or new technology. A good example these days seems to be Alphabet, which seems to throw a lot of R&D money around with nothing really much to show for it.
It's also often the case that the profit-leader in a sector is not necessarily the technology leader, which is clearly applicable to Apple. They have a long and successful record of making the profits often enough when coming up from way behind in terms of real innovation. Its obviously a winning strategy at the moment, so who's complaining. Whether or not it's a recipe for future success is a question I could easily ask but not answer. We will see.
Because the A series processors don't have market leading performance and power management...oh wait, it does.
In what strategic technology area is Apple "way behind"?
Because it isn't processors, GPUs, material science, industrial design, manufacturing, cyber security, operating systems, development toolchains/frameworks, financial systems, content delivery or application software.
It's not even behind in cloud infrastructure anymore.
It’s interesting to note that, in the past, Apple didn’t really come up with much of their own technology. That is, in hardware and electronics. Though, The Woz did invent the modern floppy controller. Apple was known for taking new technologies first, and integrating them before anyone else did, at least on a wide scale.
but over the years, Apple has been doing more basic research. They come up with their own alloy variants. They come up with their own processing methods in manufacture. They design their own testing machines, and modify manufacturing equipment from others. They really have come a long way from mostly product development to “real” R&D.
so we “see” them doing original work in machine vision, in machine learning, with their own chip too. We see them doing original work in AR and VR. We can go a long way with this. This isn’t the old Apple anymore.
Apple's strength is purposeful design to meet a clearly defined goal: making technology work for people, and not the opposite. Making their life better.
This leads to picking the best tech everywhere and assembling them to fulfill this goal; Apple's product is hollistic, they exist only as a whole and not as parts. That has made Apple the master of integration, of finding the right glue to assemble all those parts together so they work as a whole.
That has naturally led to the ecosystem that's now at the center what Apple sells: a great experience, a great life.
R&D is something I’m particularly familiar with. We did R&D in both of the companies I was involved with.
most people don’t realize that R&D isn’t linear to the results. In other words, in relation to the products that come out. While a small, but very important detail, may cost a lot in R&D terms, a major feature may cost almost nothing. This is my own experience. A lot of R&D is really the R, but not the D, and a lot is the D, but not the R. It depends. Sometimes you need to go well beyond what you want to do to be able to actually understand the very basics of the science, and other times, you just have to spend on engineering, both mechanically and electronically. These days, software is at the core of most any product, in one way or the other, so that’s included too.
quite frankly, while I understand why intel needs to spend so much, and Samsung, because both of these have numerous products, with Samsung producing almost everything electronic, I just can’t figure out what Alphabet is spending it on.
In companies like Samsung, I'd argue most of it is D and little is R. In places like Google its probably a load of R and not much D. Apple seems to be balanced with as much R as D, which explains why they've got high margins innovative products (R) (high margins from good IP) and able to execute/bring to market better than anyone (D).
IBM in its hey days of the 1960s to early 1980s was also like that, a huge amount of research pumped into a suite of products. What undid IBM was it wasn't adapted to the shift towards personal computing. For them, it was an afterthought and not something that drove their core business.
The market focus changed and that's what undid IBM (though they remain a big profitable company, they're a shadow of their old self).
This is the kind of thing that Apple has to stay attuned too. Not be locked into a market niche so much that you can't adapt to a sudden shift in the market environment.
I would argue that Samsung does a lot of the R in R&D. While I don’t like what they do in business, I have to admit that they’re a pretty heavy company in R&D.
even today, IBM continues to rack up more patents than anyone year to year. In fact, a large part of their business is in patent licensing.
I happen also to come from an R&D background and the dollars spent is really irrelevant. What counts are the marketable results ... new products or new technology. A good example these days seems to be Alphabet, which seems to throw a lot of R&D money around with nothing really much to show for it.
It's also often the case that the profit-leader in a sector is not necessarily the technology leader, which is clearly applicable to Apple. They have a long and successful record of making the profits often enough when coming up from way behind in terms of real innovation. Its obviously a winning strategy at the moment, so who's complaining. Whether or not it's a recipe for future success is a question I could easily ask but not answer. We will see.
Because the A series processors don't have market leading performance and power management...oh wait, it does.
In what strategic technology area is Apple "way behind"?
Because it isn't processors, GPUs, material science, industrial design, manufacturing, cyber security, operating systems, development toolchains/frameworks, financial systems, content delivery or application software.
It's not even behind in cloud infrastructure anymore.
It’s interesting to note that, in the past, Apple didn’t really come up with much of their own technology. That is, in hardware and electronics. Though, The Woz did invent the modern floppy controller. Apple was known for taking new technologies first, and integrating them before anyone else did, at least on a wide scale.
but over the years, Apple has been doing more basic research. They come up with their own alloy variants. They come up with their own processing methods in manufacture. They design their own testing machines, and modify manufacturing equipment from others. They really have come a long way from mostly product development to “real” R&D.
so we “see” them doing original work in machine vision, in machine learning, with their own chip too. We see them doing original work in AR and VR. We can go a long way with this. This isn’t the old Apple anymore.
Apple's strength is purposeful design to meet a clearly defined goal: making technology work for people, and not the opposite. Making their life better.
This leads to picking the best tech everywhere and assembling them to fulfill this goal; Apple's product is hollistic, they exist only as a whole and not as parts. That has made Apple the master of integration, of finding the right glue to assemble all those parts together so they work as a whole.
That has naturally led to the ecosystem that's now at the center what Apple sells: a great experience, a great life.
Exactly. That’s a very big part of what Apple is. Only now, more of that technology is their own. Either by developing all of it in-house, or by buying small technology firms and advancing that technology into their own.
In addition to continuing to make great products which (many) people love and crave, Apple is a phenomenally well run company. I suspect in the future college economics departments will teach courses focusing on Apple as a case study in how huge companies can be run successfully.
Remember back when Apple was nearly bankrupt? Apparently Wall Street still views them from that perspective. Remember when Apple was a case study in business school of what NOT to do and Microsoft was the case story of success? The view then was "the money is in the software not the hardware". Lol. How times have changed.
Why I bought Apple stock in 2001: I knew Steve Jobs wanted REDEMPTION and he was the type to get it.
Yep. Apple should be taught as a case history right now, of a well run organization.
In addition to continuing to make great products which (many) people love and crave, Apple is a phenomenally well run company. I suspect in the future college economics departments will teach courses focusing on Apple as a case study in how huge companies can be run successfully.
Remember back when Apple was nearly bankrupt? Apparently Wall Street still views them from that perspective. Remember when Apple was a case study in business school of what NOT to do and Microsoft was the case story of success? The view then was "the money is in the software not the hardware". Lol. How times have changed.
Why I bought Apple stock in 2001: I knew Steve Jobs wanted REDEMPTION and he was the type to get it.
Yep. Apple should be taught as a case history right now, of a well run organization.
The money is in neither, hw or sw, its in marrying the two to tightly to improve the customer's life; the product is a system (ecosystem by extension).
Comments
but over the years, Apple has been doing more basic research. They come up with their own alloy variants. They come up with their own processing methods in manufacture. They design their own testing machines, and modify manufacturing equipment from others. They really have come a long way from mostly product development to “real” R&D.
so we “see” them doing original work in machine vision, in machine learning, with their own chip too. We see them doing original work in AR and VR. We can go a long way with this. This isn’t the old Apple anymore.
IBM in its hey days of the 1960s to early 1980s was also like that, a huge amount of research pumped into a suite of products.
What undid IBM was it wasn't adapted to the shift towards personal computing. For them, it was an afterthought and not something that drove their core business.
The market focus changed and that's what undid IBM (though they remain a big profitable company, they're a shadow of their old self).
This is the kind of thing that Apple has to stay attuned too. Not be locked into a market niche so much that you can't adapt to a sudden shift in the market environment.
This leads to picking the best tech everywhere and assembling them to fulfill this goal; Apple's product is hollistic, they exist only as a whole and not as parts.
That has made Apple the master of integration, of finding the right glue to assemble all those parts together so they work as a whole.
That has naturally led to the ecosystem that's now at the center what Apple sells: a great experience, a great life.
even today, IBM continues to rack up more patents than anyone year to year. In fact, a large part of their business is in patent licensing.
Exactly. That’s a very big part of what Apple is. Only now, more of that technology is their own. Either by developing all of it in-house, or by buying small technology firms and advancing that technology into their own.
Remember back when Apple was nearly bankrupt? Apparently Wall Street still views them from that perspective. Remember when Apple was a case study in business school of what NOT to do and Microsoft was the case story of success? The view then was "the money is in the software not the hardware". Lol. How times have changed.
Why I bought Apple stock in 2001: I knew Steve Jobs wanted REDEMPTION and he was the type to get it.
Yep. Apple should be taught as a case history right now, of a well run organization.