Apple sinking more money into R&D as spending rose $1B in 2012

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 72


    I hope all these recent changes mean better software quality. I have been disappointed in the increasing number of bugs in Apple software. iPhoto '11, for example, has been a non-stop disaster, and recent iTunes versions often take 30 minutes to sync my phone where it used to take less than three. I think they have been more interested in adding features than in making sure it all works. The decision to delay iTunes 11 is a good sign, as is this increase in R&D spending.


     


    Of course I always wondered how Microsoft could have 65,000 employees and still have so many bugs.


     


    P.S. I must say I use Siri all the time for dictation and have very few complaints, the main one being that the server just never responds way too often. But I now use Siri to dictate all my email and text messages on my phone, and to do simple search queries. iOS 6 Maps, on the other hand, are a disaster for me as a public transportation user.

  • Reply 22 of 72
    With that kind of money maybe they could build a MacPro machine... Nah.
  • Reply 23 of 72


    Originally Posted by MiddleGuy View Post

    Intel spent 17% R&D spending, Qualcomm 21%, AMD 22%, TI 13%, Toshiba 16%, TSMC 8%, Samsung 8%,......... and Apple 2%. It's lame.


     


    Because numbers = good. This is the extent of your understanding?

  • Reply 24 of 72
    jonoromjonorom Posts: 293member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by justamacguy View Post



    With that kind of money maybe they could build a MacPro machine... Nah.




     If Apple would just start with the recently-announced 48-core mobile chip from Intel, it would be all downhill from there....! You could carry it in your pocket. But you have to wait 5-10 years for it.

  • Reply 25 of 72


    Seeing as Apple has been granted 1066 Patents and climbing the R&D pricing makes complete sense. More importantly, the % of actually implemented patents by Apple is much larger than the industry average.


     


    They patent to make products.


     


    They don't patent to block products from being made.

  • Reply 26 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Here's a clue: Apple is not Intel. Apple is not AMD. Apple is not Qualcomm.

    Microprocessor manufacturing is extremely expensive. Designing a new case is not. Furthermore, there's the matter of efficiency. Apple is extremely efficient with their R&D expenditures. At some point, spending more money is wasted - as you end up with duplicated effort and waste.

    In the end, the only thing that matters is results. Apple has something like 10% of the mobile phone business and the entire industry is scrambling to copy them. Apple completely reinvented the personal music player business. Apple completely reinvented the mobile phone business. Apple completely reinvented the tablet business. Apple reinvented the ultralight computer business. Apple is in the process of reinventing casual gaming. So Apple's R&D expenditures appear to be more than adequate.

    Ultimately, Apple is in an infinitely better position to determine how much money they should spend on R&D than you are. Calling their expenditures lame when they've reinvented so many industries is merely evidence that you don't know what you're talking about and/or you are mindlessly attacking Apple without any evidence to back you up.


     


    Apple has 10% of the mobile total business, but easily > 50% of all its potential profits.

  • Reply 27 of 72


    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    They patent to make products. They don't patent to block products from being made.



     


    Yep. But I would say that in the case of some patents involving invasive advertising, it looks more like they did it to keep others from being able to do it.

  • Reply 28 of 72
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,346member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MiddleGuy View Post


    Apple should spend more money on R&D. 2% is too small. It should be minimum 5%.



     


    Yeah, because Apple should aim to hit some random percentage of their revenue, instead of spending exactly the amount of money that they need on R&D. I very much doubt they're skimping, but there's no point in simply burning more money for the hell of doing so. The amount of money spent on R&D shouldnt scale linearly with your profits, thats a little ridiculous. 

  • Reply 29 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Russell View Post


    "The growth in R&D expense was driven by an increase in headcount and related expenses to support expanded R&D activities."


     


    It's about time they paid their people more.  Everybody in Silicon Valley knows Apple salaries are not that competitive for the amount of work you do.

     



    The average salary for an Apple engineer is approximately $115,000 a year, second only to Google & Facebook, but not that far behind. That's just base salary, Nevermind all the benefits, stock options, etc.

  • Reply 30 of 72


    The thrust of this story seems in such opposition to yesterday's article in which Steve Ballmer jabs Apple as being a "low volume player." One company continues to imagine the future with a commitment to quality, while the other can't even imitate well, much less innovate.


     


    Before you label me a fanboy, let me say no company is perfect and that includes Apple. Likewise, no company is completely without merit. But man, the world appreciates an elegant solution and to knock a world-class leader with hollow rhetoric is just plain pathetic.

  • Reply 31 of 72
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    middleguy wrote: »
    Intel spent 17% R&D spending, Qualcomm 21%, AMD 22%, TI 13%, Toshiba 16%, TSMC 8%, Samsung 8%,......... and Apple 2%. It's lame.

    Samsung spends 8% of its money on photocopiers? Wow.
  • Reply 32 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Why, because thy can? Those employees also have te choice to work for another company. If they can get more money from everybody else in Silicon Valley and that is their sole thing they look for in a company then they should seek employment elsewhere.

    I know I'd take a substantial pay cut to work at Apple's upcoming HQ onpared to the same work for MS, Nokia, RiM, Samsung, Sony, Acer, HP, Dell, Asus, et al. I et many hear would to because there are many other actors that make a job fulfilling than your salary.


    It's not that difficult to get hired by Apple. I assumed you aren't working there. Why?

  • Reply 33 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji View Post


    The average salary for an Apple engineer is approximately $115,000 a year, second only to Google & Facebook, but not that far behind. That's just base salary, Nevermind all the benefits, stock options, etc.



    Which enables a low-middle class lifestyle in Cupertino and other valley cities. I would never work there for that little money.

  • Reply 34 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


     


    Apple has 10% of the mobile total business, but easily > 50% of all its potential profits.



    Actually, latest estimates show Apple with 16.5% of the total worldwide mobile market.  If you count only smartphones, it hovers around 30%. Not shabby but still room for serious growth.  Samsung is still overall market share leader by a 2:1 margin.

  • Reply 35 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by galore2112 View Post


    Which enables a low-middle class lifestyle in Cupertino and other valley cities. I would never work there for that little money.



    $115,000 a year is low-middle class? Since when?

  • Reply 36 of 72


    Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji View Post

    $115,000 a year is low-middle class? Since when?


     


    Since place of residence.

  • Reply 37 of 72
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    galore2112 wrote: »
    It's not that difficult to get hired by Apple. I assumed you aren't working there. Why?

    I don't live in Cupertino and they seem pretty hell bent on maintaining their HQ there. In all honestly, I haven't actually contacted Tim Cook to see if he'll relocate their entire company to my town just so I could work there so I guess that's my fault.
  • Reply 38 of 72


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    I don't live in Cupertino and they seem pretty hell bent on maintaining their HQ there. In all honestly, I haven't actually contacted Tim Cook to see if he'll locate to my town just so I could work there so I guess that's my fault.


     


    Dear Tim,


     


    My city is fairly small and surrounded by farmland. You can redesign Apple HQ to completely circle the city. Shouldn't be too hard.


     


    You know what to do,


     


    Skil

  • Reply 39 of 72
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    That is almost 900 million a quarter. More than enough money to make three Hollywood block buster movies a quarter. These numbers are staggering.

    One problem I had with this is that R&D can be booth long term and short term. That is the money likely goes to immediate new products like IPad or iPhone and then a portion goes to longer term research. It is this longer term research that is most interesting and likely under very tight wraps. The next most likely product is the Mac Pro or its replacement. What they are working on for after that is where the potential new products are. I wouldn't be surprised to find something delivered early spring of next year.

    As to Apples spend rate, yes it is pathetic. I base this not on the percentage value but in the quality slippage we are seeing in some software. Also beyond thin I'm not seeing huge innovation on the desktop.
  • Reply 40 of 72


    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

    Also beyond thin I'm not seeing huge innovation on the desktop.


     


    Until the next Mac Pro comes out, I don't think we can say much about Apple's desired direction with the desktop, you know? And catch me when I go against that, because with my memory I know that I will.

Sign In or Register to comment.