Apple is consistently perceived as a highly inventive company, and yet as a proportion of profits, spends much less on R&D than other seemingly less inventive companies.
Nokia spends far more on R&D than Apple.
As a proportion of profits, the Nokia R&D spend seems unjustifiable.
C.
R&D spend is a funny thing, sometimes it comes up with great ideas... sometimes not so much.
I'm sure it looked like Motorola was pouring money into a black hole for years and then suddenly they come out of nowhere and sell 110 million Razr's. I'm sure it looks again like they are pouring money into a black hole, then one day they might have another Razr moment.
One thing is for sure, you can't use Apple in the most successful period in their almost quarter of a decade existence as the yard stick for how much should or shouldn't be spent on R&D and the ROI to expect.
If a company cuts their R&D budget in the bad times then they are basically digging their own grave.
One day Apple won't be such a market leader and won't see the ROI on their R&D that they do at the moment, and when that happens I would expect them to not slash their R&D budget but maintain or even increase it in the anticipation of their next "iOS" moment.
There is a difference between spending a lot of money foolishly and a smaller amount wisely. The R&D model MSFT is following seems to follow the ad model they follow. Remember Jerry and Bill?
I think MSFT is following the same philosophy all the way down line and I think it happens because they make so much money from windows that they don't have to "try harder".
They seem to make money in spite of themselves, not because of their ability to always "be right".
You are a funny chap!
After learning that Microsoft push 14% of their revenue back into R&D you've come to the conclusion that they are resting on their laurels and not trying hard enough!
There is nothing negative about Microsoft's R&D spend, and it's impossible to spin any other way.
They are in the position they are now not because of sheer blind luck, but because of the continued effort to improve and extend their enterprise stack, and their R&D spend is a big part of that.
Sure they haven't had any "iOS" moments in recent years like Apple have... but think about it, how many companies have?
One thing is for sure, you can't use Apple in the most successful period in their almost quarter of a decade existence as the yard stick for how much should or shouldn't be spent on R&D and the ROI to expect.
I'm not.
Apple consistently spends a low proportion of revenue on R&D
After learning that Microsoft push 14% of their revenue back into R&D you've come to the conclusion that they are resting on their laurels and not trying hard enough!
No, he said they spent money horribly ineffectively. Are you trying to earn the Tulkas Award for Lack of Reading Comprehension?
Quote:
There is nothing negative about Microsoft's R&D spend, and it's impossible to spin any other way.
I disagree, they bleed R&D money, yet for the last 10 years their stock price has only gone sideways, which is a loss compared to inflation and their market share is eroding in many places.
Quote:
They are in the position they are now not because of sheer blind luck, but because of the continued effort to improve and extend their enterprise stack, and their R&D spend is a big part of that.
Sure they haven't had any "iOS" moments in recent years like Apple have... but think about it, how many companies have?
No, they are where they are because of IIS server lock-in and customers fear that they cannot use their data without a MS IIS upgrade. As a business strategy, that is quite successful in the short to mid term, but the model has started to show cracks: first with Blackberry, now with iPhone. IT shops aren't quite as afraid of non-MS business stacks anymore, and that's not a good thing for MS.
Look at all that, nothing in there that shows any R&D leadership at all. Search failed once, maybe Bing will do OK this second time around. XBox does OK and makes money across the entire ecosystem, but not spectacular for how much they paid to develop it. And how many times have they started the OS from scratch? Only to do so again when it became obvious they really didn't start from scratch in the first place? Lots o' $$ down the drain there.
They are trying hard, only they haven't got a soul and vision to guide them. The MS R&D effort is a complete money pit the way it is currently executing.
Are you trying to earn the Tulkas Award for Lack of Reading Coprehension?
Learn to let it go Hiro. You were called on your BS (or dishonest posts, whichever it was). I understand your feelings were hurt by being publicly shown to be using 'less than accurate' facts, but it was months ago, hopefully you would have moved on. Remember the lesson your teacher tried to provide to you.
Having said that, I actually agree with your post this time. Well done!
.Anyways, limited data from Verizon is as much a bummer as it is from AT&T. Luckily for me though, I got in before this happens. So in the context of me looking for a phone right now, Verizon seemed better.
Sure, you are free to decide what is best for you. After using the iPhone for three years the clear reality is that unlimited data is not really needed. I look over my data usage history and most of the time my phone is connected to WiFi. So I have no problem taking a lower phone bill for limited data.
Quote:
Verizon apps and their app store are meaningless. 10 minutes after owning my phone, I rooted it, and took all the verizon bloatware off (which made my battery life AMAZING.) BTW, I've never owned an Android phone before, so that should tell you how easy it is to root the galaxy s.
Rooting your phone isn't a realistic solution for most people. Is certainly at the height of bad customer experience. The far majority of people are going to be forced to have Verizon's app store.
Quote:
Finally, I did get suckered by the visual voicemail, BUT, you can unsubscribe from it. You're not stuck with it. I think I will unsubscribe simply because I hardly ever get voicemails to begin with.
I could not see living without visual voicemail. I could never go back to listening to every message to try to find an old message. Verizon is nickel and diming its customers by charging for it.
Quote:
Anyways, the point remains: If AT&T had unlimited data, I'd have an iphone 4.
Unless WiFi is absent from you life, or you've jail broken your phone to have unlimited tethering. Unlimited data isn't absolutely necessary.
Rooting your phone isn't a realistic solution for most people. Is certainly at the height of bad customer experience. The far majority of people are going to be forced to have Verizon's app store.
Rooting your phone is being made easier and easier lately with one-touch apps. But yes, it's a path that the "normal" user probably won't go down.
Verizon will have its store there, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the user will be forced to use it. Most Android phones have 8+ GB of storage plus an addition 16 GB on a microSD card. The Verizon apps can't possibly take up more than a 100 MB. And having the app draw be separate from the home screens means you can pretty much ignore whatever apps Verizon pre-installed.
Quote:
I could not see living without visual voicemail. I could never go back to listening to every message to try to find an old message. Verizon is nickel and diming its customers by charging for it.
I agree. Which is why Google Voice is your friend.
Its completely ridiculous for people to root their phone and use GV to get around Verizon's tyrannical practices.
I agree with you about Verizon's practices. But since they're probably not going to change, we might as well make use of the tools we have.
However, I don't see why it's lowering the bar to use GV. It's a free service/app that requires no rooting. And the way it's so nicely integrated into Android phones, I see it as a step up from anything that Verizon may offer.
Nice attempt champ, try reading his whole post next time!
Well sir! I commend you on your consistency, not your reading comprehension!
A single quoted pair of words conveniently separated from the rest of their their context does not your case make.
Opportunistic reading like that is why politics is so screwed up today. It is impossible to carry on normal discourse when the minority of the participants decide they are going to use non-standard, self-serving rules of grammar parsing.
I have to admit, i peeked at Tulkas' post despite having him on ignore. I see he is consistent as ever, no content, just drivel. I do feel sorry for him that he still doesn't get Mr. Weingarden's words, they are quite accurate. How he came up with the fact that a class motto was a conversation is mysterious though. Maybe it's that making things up again thing, I dunno. Maybe The Wino was warning us all about his ilk, and their self delusions.
Interesting that he thinks he awarded anything for reading comprehension, I just made the Tulkas Award for Lack of Reading Comprehension up based on his track record, guess his memory is just as good too? [It's priceless I tell you! ]
Well back to ignoring him, I hope he keeps spreading the word of The Wino though, it is a fitting and self inflicted boomerang!
I was at this guys house last night. He had a quad graphic card sli, i7, 64 gigs or high end ram and it blazes. All much less than a mac pro and ironically, he can install odd if he wanted, dual boot, blow away a mac pro and save almost half of what it would cost for a mac. You see in PC worlds.
I call BS. 4 GTX295's will run $2600 all on their own. Add 64GB or RAM and add another $1400-$3300 depending on his motherboard. You don't even have a motherboard to slap them on and you can already buy 1 or 2 Mac Pros if you don't go nuts configuring it.
The author of that article doesn't know what he's talking about. "Bnet estimates"? He just spouts some number ($10 per user per year) that Schmidt casually mentioned in a WSJ interview, and then (randomly) doubles it.
In any event, it is rounding error vis-a-vis Google's total revenues. As I mentioned before, Google gets 96% of revenue from ads in their own websites and in Google Network websites.
The other problem with that article is Google would make almost all of that money on any smartphone, it doesn't have to be android. So the incremental revenue generated by Android compared to the revenue Google would generate even without developing Android is more likely to be so small as to be round-off error.
I have a small question....does the Android have enought Apps like the Iphone 4 does....?
Depends on what "enough" means in your book. Last I read, the Market's crossed the 100,000 mark. There are quite a few iOS apps that have made the jump over to Android (at least all the really big-name ones) and I've noticed the quality level of the games is starting to rise as well.
While the Market is still smaller than the App Store, I'm sure you'll find the app(s) that you're looking for.
Comments
Apple is consistently perceived as a highly inventive company, and yet as a proportion of profits, spends much less on R&D than other seemingly less inventive companies.
Nokia spends far more on R&D than Apple.
As a proportion of profits, the Nokia R&D spend seems unjustifiable.
C.
R&D spend is a funny thing, sometimes it comes up with great ideas... sometimes not so much.
I'm sure it looked like Motorola was pouring money into a black hole for years and then suddenly they come out of nowhere and sell 110 million Razr's. I'm sure it looks again like they are pouring money into a black hole, then one day they might have another Razr moment.
One thing is for sure, you can't use Apple in the most successful period in their almost quarter of a decade existence as the yard stick for how much should or shouldn't be spent on R&D and the ROI to expect.
If a company cuts their R&D budget in the bad times then they are basically digging their own grave.
One day Apple won't be such a market leader and won't see the ROI on their R&D that they do at the moment, and when that happens I would expect them to not slash their R&D budget but maintain or even increase it in the anticipation of their next "iOS" moment.
There is a difference between spending a lot of money foolishly and a smaller amount wisely. The R&D model MSFT is following seems to follow the ad model they follow. Remember Jerry and Bill?
I think MSFT is following the same philosophy all the way down line and I think it happens because they make so much money from windows that they don't have to "try harder".
They seem to make money in spite of themselves, not because of their ability to always "be right".
You are a funny chap!
After learning that Microsoft push 14% of their revenue back into R&D you've come to the conclusion that they are resting on their laurels and not trying hard enough!
There is nothing negative about Microsoft's R&D spend, and it's impossible to spin any other way.
They are in the position they are now not because of sheer blind luck, but because of the continued effort to improve and extend their enterprise stack, and their R&D spend is a big part of that.
Sure they haven't had any "iOS" moments in recent years like Apple have... but think about it, how many companies have?
One thing is for sure, you can't use Apple in the most successful period in their almost quarter of a decade existence as the yard stick for how much should or shouldn't be spent on R&D and the ROI to expect.
I'm not.
Apple consistently spends a low proportion of revenue on R&D
C.
You are a funny chap!
After learning that Microsoft push 14% of their revenue back into R&D you've come to the conclusion that they are resting on their laurels and not trying hard enough!
No, he said they spent money horribly ineffectively. Are you trying to earn the Tulkas Award for Lack of Reading Comprehension?
There is nothing negative about Microsoft's R&D spend, and it's impossible to spin any other way.
I disagree, they bleed R&D money, yet for the last 10 years their stock price has only gone sideways, which is a loss compared to inflation and their market share is eroding in many places.
They are in the position they are now not because of sheer blind luck, but because of the continued effort to improve and extend their enterprise stack, and their R&D spend is a big part of that.
Sure they haven't had any "iOS" moments in recent years like Apple have... but think about it, how many companies have?
No, they are where they are because of IIS server lock-in and customers fear that they cannot use their data without a MS IIS upgrade. As a business strategy, that is quite successful in the short to mid term, but the model has started to show cracks: first with Blackberry, now with iPhone. IT shops aren't quite as afraid of non-MS business stacks anymore, and that's not a good thing for MS.
Look at all that, nothing in there that shows any R&D leadership at all. Search failed once, maybe Bing will do OK this second time around. XBox does OK and makes money across the entire ecosystem, but not spectacular for how much they paid to develop it. And how many times have they started the OS from scratch? Only to do so again when it became obvious they really didn't start from scratch in the first place? Lots o' $$ down the drain there.
They are trying hard, only they haven't got a soul and vision to guide them. The MS R&D effort is a complete money pit the way it is currently executing.
Are you trying to earn the Tulkas Award for Lack of Reading Coprehension?
Learn to let it go Hiro. You were called on your BS (or dishonest posts, whichever it was). I understand your feelings were hurt by being publicly shown to be using 'less than accurate' facts, but it was months ago, hopefully you would have moved on. Remember the lesson your teacher tried to provide to you.
Having said that, I actually agree with your post this time. Well done!
.Anyways, limited data from Verizon is as much a bummer as it is from AT&T. Luckily for me though, I got in before this happens. So in the context of me looking for a phone right now, Verizon seemed better.
Sure, you are free to decide what is best for you. After using the iPhone for three years the clear reality is that unlimited data is not really needed. I look over my data usage history and most of the time my phone is connected to WiFi. So I have no problem taking a lower phone bill for limited data.
Verizon apps and their app store are meaningless. 10 minutes after owning my phone, I rooted it, and took all the verizon bloatware off (which made my battery life AMAZING.) BTW, I've never owned an Android phone before, so that should tell you how easy it is to root the galaxy s.
Rooting your phone isn't a realistic solution for most people. Is certainly at the height of bad customer experience. The far majority of people are going to be forced to have Verizon's app store.
Finally, I did get suckered by the visual voicemail, BUT, you can unsubscribe from it. You're not stuck with it. I think I will unsubscribe simply because I hardly ever get voicemails to begin with.
I could not see living without visual voicemail. I could never go back to listening to every message to try to find an old message. Verizon is nickel and diming its customers by charging for it.
Anyways, the point remains: If AT&T had unlimited data, I'd have an iphone 4.
Unless WiFi is absent from you life, or you've jail broken your phone to have unlimited tethering. Unlimited data isn't absolutely necessary.
Rooting your phone isn't a realistic solution for most people. Is certainly at the height of bad customer experience. The far majority of people are going to be forced to have Verizon's app store.
Rooting your phone is being made easier and easier lately with one-touch apps. But yes, it's a path that the "normal" user probably won't go down.
Verizon will have its store there, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the user will be forced to use it. Most Android phones have 8+ GB of storage plus an addition 16 GB on a microSD card. The Verizon apps can't possibly take up more than a 100 MB. And having the app draw be separate from the home screens means you can pretty much ignore whatever apps Verizon pre-installed.
I could not see living without visual voicemail. I could never go back to listening to every message to try to find an old message. Verizon is nickel and diming its customers by charging for it.
I agree. Which is why Google Voice is your friend.
Its completely ridiculous for people to root their phone and use GV to get around Verizon's tyrannical practices.
Rooting your phone is being made easier and easier lately with one-touch apps. But yes, it's a path that the "normal" user probably won't go down.
I agree. Which is why Google Voice is your friend.
I would call this lowering the bar.
Its completely ridiculous for people to root their phone and use GV to get around Verizon's tyrannical practices.
I agree with you about Verizon's practices. But since they're probably not going to change, we might as well make use of the tools we have.
However, I don't see why it's lowering the bar to use GV. It's a free service/app that requires no rooting. And the way it's so nicely integrated into Android phones, I see it as a step up from anything that Verizon may offer.
I would call this lowering the bar.
Its completely ridiculous for people to root their phone and use GV to get around Verizon's tyrannical practices.
No, it's completely ridiculous for people to believe that Google's GV is a gift from God.
Google is bigger than the carriers, has more money than the carriers and is basically lobbing grenades all over the place.
Haven't you heard, Google is the big devil now. The carriers are just trying to make a realtive "honest" living.
No, he said they spent money horribly ineffectively. Are you trying to earn the Tulkas Award for Lack of Reading Coprehension?
Nice attempt champ, try reading his whole post next time!
Nice attempt champ, try reading his whole post next time!
Why do you think I awarded him a 'reading comprehension' award? Call him out on 'facts' and see how quickly he disappears.
Nice attempt champ, try reading his whole post next time!
Well sir! I commend you on your consistency, not your reading comprehension!
A single quoted pair of words conveniently separated from the rest of their their context does not your case make.
Opportunistic reading like that is why politics is so screwed up today. It is impossible to carry on normal discourse when the minority of the participants decide they are going to use non-standard, self-serving rules of grammar parsing.
I have to admit, i peeked at Tulkas' post despite having him on ignore. I see he is consistent as ever, no content, just drivel. I do feel sorry for him that he still doesn't get Mr. Weingarden's words, they are quite accurate. How he came up with the fact that a class motto was a conversation is mysterious though. Maybe it's that making things up again thing, I dunno. Maybe The Wino was warning us all about his ilk, and their self delusions.
Interesting that he thinks he awarded anything for reading comprehension, I just made the Tulkas Award for Lack of Reading Comprehension up based on his track record, guess his memory is just as good too? [It's priceless I tell you!
Well back to ignoring him, I hope he keeps spreading the word of The Wino though, it is a fitting and self inflicted boomerang!
Well sir! I commend you on your consistency, not your reading comprehension!
Cheers.
Now you've said you piece it may be best if you just zip it and avoid further embarrassment.
Cheers.
Now you've said you piece it may be best if you just zip it and avoid further embarrassment.
Take you (sic) fake sentiment and cram it up your disingenuous arse. Smilies are not legitimate cover for ass-hattedness.
I was at this guys house last night. He had a quad graphic card sli, i7, 64 gigs or high end ram and it blazes. All much less than a mac pro and ironically, he can install odd if he wanted, dual boot, blow away a mac pro and save almost half of what it would cost for a mac. You see in PC worlds.
I call BS. 4 GTX295's will run $2600 all on their own. Add 64GB or RAM and add another $1400-$3300 depending on his motherboard. You don't even have a motherboard to slap them on and you can already buy 1 or 2 Mac Pros if you don't go nuts configuring it.
The author of that article doesn't know what he's talking about. "Bnet estimates"? He just spouts some number ($10 per user per year) that Schmidt casually mentioned in a WSJ interview, and then (randomly) doubles it.
In any event, it is rounding error vis-a-vis Google's total revenues. As I mentioned before, Google gets 96% of revenue from ads in their own websites and in Google Network websites.
The other problem with that article is Google would make almost all of that money on any smartphone, it doesn't have to be android. So the incremental revenue generated by Android compared to the revenue Google would generate even without developing Android is more likely to be so small as to be round-off error.
Take you (sic) fake sentiment and cram it up your disingenuous arse. Smilies are not legitimate cover for ass-hattedness.
Not disingenuous at all. You embarrass yourself with the way you act.
Simple as that.
I have a small question....does the Android have enought Apps like the Iphone 4 does....?
Depends on what "enough" means in your book. Last I read, the Market's crossed the 100,000 mark. There are quite a few iOS apps that have made the jump over to Android (at least all the really big-name ones) and I've noticed the quality level of the games is starting to rise as well.
While the Market is still smaller than the App Store, I'm sure you'll find the app(s) that you're looking for.