Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

statista.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

#81

Post by sho_hn »

SllX wrote: post #79
sho_hn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about columnists. Journalists are not people who build things. I'm talking about people who build things and think about what to build next. The option of doing away with the hardware keyboard and going touchscreen-only was always there and always up for discussion, but for the longest time not easy due to the power and performance envelope at the price point. Lots of devices already worked like this…

I think what you’re forgetting is that a lot of people thought the iPhone would fail because it didn’t have a keyboard, and at the time smartphones were going more towards keyboard-driven devices than touchscreen-driven, and touchscreen more often than not meant touchscreen + stylus. Apple committed to their own approach. > having a proper web browser (which Apple didn't even write themselves). This is just bollocks.

> Apple committed to their own approach.

That is exactly what I'm arguing.

> This is just bollocks.

WebKit was forked from our KHTML, even if it definitely had significantly deviated by 2007, and particularly UX-wise Mobile Safari definitely had many fantastic ideas. I didn't mean to be dismissive of it, it was more to point out that they also don't create in a vacuum, even their successes.

Re: Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

#82

Post by MBCook »

user_7832 wrote: post #76
chx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust me my friend, even if you have a CGM the benefits would be gigantic. I can't speak for T1 people who spend their entire lives like this and maybe it gets easier but inserting the CGM sensor, even if you use a local anesthetics is unpleasant and psychologically taxing. Then it interferes with your daily life and more importantly, it interferes with your mental health. Do you need a visual, can-be-felt reminder e…

(T1 here) I agree that applying a CGM is nerve-wracking for a few moments, and can hurt if you accidentally hit a nerve. But I really don’t notice it (much like my spectacles or watch) in everyday life. However, I’ve been using a CGMS for years now, so it’s likely I’m “used to it” by now. I guess as a T1 it’s much nicer to not poke your finger every few hours which is probably why I love CGMS’es, but if you’re not di…

I do wonder if it would be accurate enough. Maybe it would be useful to type two diabetics who have their blood sugar under decent control. I’m not expecting true CGM level accuracy.

Still whatever they could get if it was reasonable enough to be useful I’m sure insurance would much rather give people an Apple Watch for a relatively low price then pay for expensive one time use medical supplies over and over.

I mean how long would it take before just the price of test strips would add up to the cost of a fancy Apple Watch?

Re: Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

#83

Post by sho_hn »

voisin wrote: post #78
sho_hn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about columnists. Journalists are not people who build things. I'm talking about people who build things and think about what to build next. The option of doing away with the hardware keyboard and going touchscreen-only was always there and always up for discussion, but for the longest time not easy due to the power and performance envelope at the price point. Lots of devices already worked like this…

> I'm talking about people who build things and think about what to build next. The market leader in smart phones, BlackBerry (RIM), with some of the best engineering talent in this space anywhere, didn’t see it coming. Their technical co-CEO didn’t believe it in the immediate aftermath of the announcement. Couldn’t imagine how the battery could manage all that. Immediately dismissed it as some sort of trickery. So……

None of what you say is in any way incongruent with what I said, though. It may mean BlackBerry didn't think it could be done, but it doesn't mean that no one in the company could conceive of a phone without a keyboard. They just didn't think it was a good idea or the right time, and didn't try.

The original post I replied to claims Apple is a magical place of unicorns with ideas that exist nowhere else. I'm arguing that it isn't the case, and that it's the willingness to try and execution ability that matter. It's more likely to be dismissing the idea that kept BlackBerry from doing it.

There is a lesson in there that speaks to the "we can't possibly figure out what they will do" in the original post. You very likely can. You also have to be willing to give your ideas the mileage.

Re: Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

#84

Post by syspec »

edgyquant wrote: post #62
paxys wrote: post #51

This is yet another instance of people simply not understanding what R&D spending means in the context of tech. Most employee salaries are R&D. Cloud compute is R&D. Any expense related to developing any of their existing products or services gets categorized under that bucket, and they get tax breaks on it. R&D does not only mean new research.

> Most employee salaries are R&D. > and they get tax breaks on it. This isn’t true anymore. The tax break for engineers counting as R&D ended last year and this is cited as one reason for so many layoffs

I read that it was more about splitting it over 5 years and that for big companies this would actually help them (since they have the runway)

Re: Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

#85

Post by JumpCrisscross »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #73
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iPhone: There is now a usable internet-connected general-purpose computer in your pocket. AirPods: We got rid of the piece of wire between your earbuds. Most people who have AirPods didn’t have earbuds with the wire. Those who did didn’t wear them like AirPods. The iPhone is a computer in your pocket you interact with through touch. AirPods are computers in your ears you interact with through voice. Especially with…

> the processing power in an AirPod outclasses Apollo 11’s Apollo 11 was in 1969. It had a 2048 KHz processor. The processing power in a Bluetooth headset from the 90s outclasses Apollo 11's. > Most people who have AirPods didn’t have earbuds with the wire. Those who did didn’t wear them like AirPods. Are you really contending that this is a difference of the same magnitude as the iPhone?

> Are you really contending that this is a difference of the same magnitude as the iPhone?

Yes. Convincing a large fraction of the population to not only adopt a novel computing device, but attach it to their person in a publicly-visible way is something that happens a few times a generation at most.

Re: Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

#86

Post by SllX »

sho_hn wrote: post #81
SllX wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what you’re forgetting is that a lot of people thought the iPhone would fail because it didn’t have a keyboard, and at the time smartphones were going more towards keyboard-driven devices than touchscreen-driven, and touchscreen more often than not meant touchscreen + stylus. Apple committed to their own approach. > having a proper web browser (which Apple didn't even write themselves). This is just bollocks.

> Apple committed to their own approach. That is exactly what I'm arguing. > This is just bollocks. WebKit was forked from our KHTML, even if it definitely had significantly deviated by 2007, and particularly UX-wise Mobile Safari definitely had many fantastic ideas. I didn't mean to be dismissive of it, it was more to point out that they also don't create in a vacuum, even their successes.

On the subject of WebKit, what you said is bollocks for two reasons.

1. You are conflating the rendering engine with the browser. Safari on Mac and iPhone uses WebKit as a core technology—really the preeminent core technology—but they are not WebKit and WebKit is not Safari on either platform.

2. Similarly, WebKit is not KHTML and KJS. WebCore and JavaScriptCore are forked from KHTML and KJS—and Apple did not and to my knowledge has never downplayed that nor denied it—but a fork of a project that sees significant new development work becomes a new project and takes on an identity of its own. By the time the iPhone was released, WebKit had been in development inside Apple for 6 years; and public knowledge since its announcement and Safari’s public beta for 4.5 years.

KHTML and KJS deserve and I believe actually receive their due respect, but it is wrong to say Apple did not develop their own web browsers.

Re: Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

#87

Post by sho_hn »

SllX wrote: post #86
sho_hn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple committed to their own approach. That is exactly what I'm arguing. > This is just bollocks. WebKit was forked from our KHTML, even if it definitely had significantly deviated by 2007, and particularly UX-wise Mobile Safari definitely had many fantastic ideas. I didn't mean to be dismissive of it, it was more to point out that they also don't create in a vacuum, even their successes.

On the subject of WebKit, what you said is bollocks for two reasons. 1. You are conflating the rendering engine with the browser. Safari on Mac and iPhone uses WebKit as a core technology—really the preeminent core technology—but they are not WebKit and WebKit is not Safari on either platform. 2. Similarly, WebKit is not KHTML and KJS. WebCore and JavaScriptCore are forked from KHTML and KJS—and Apple did not and to…

You know what, I'll go ahead and agree you are right. These are well-argued points, thanks!

Let's say I was a bit hyperbolic there. That said--in support of "not in a vacuum", and against myth-making.

Re: Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

#88

Post by aworks »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #38

Nice. The only company out of the FAANG which is worth its salt and will survive into the future.

It's behind a paywall but Barron's just removed Apple, Meta and Tesla from their "magnificent seven." Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, NVIDIA remain.

They were bearish on Apple due to revenue declines for 4 consecutive quarters and lack of growth in sales in iPhones and Macs as well as a high PE ratio. They suggest Vision Pro won't "move the needle."

They prefer Alphabet over Meta and having both in a portfolio might be "redundant."

https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-tesla-meta-magnificen...

Re: Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

#89

Post by tambourine_man »

pohl wrote: post #42
tambourine_man wrote: post #34

In absolute values, not percentage. IIRC, Apple was a ≈200b dollars company back then. It’s a 2 trillion dollars company now.

TFA: "...R&D spending as a percentage of sales, to levels last seen before the iPhone launch..."

Right, I misread.

Re: Apple Ramps Up R&D Intensity to Pre-iPhone Levels

#90

Post by SllX »

sho_hn wrote: post #87
SllX wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the subject of WebKit, what you said is bollocks for two reasons. 1. You are conflating the rendering engine with the browser. Safari on Mac and iPhone uses WebKit as a core technology—really the preeminent core technology—but they are not WebKit and WebKit is not Safari on either platform. 2. Similarly, WebKit is not KHTML and KJS. WebCore and JavaScriptCore are forked from KHTML and KJS—and Apple did not and to…

You know what, I'll go ahead and agree you are right. These are well-argued points, thanks! Let's say I was a bit hyperbolic there. That said--in support of "not in a vacuum", and against myth-making.

> That said--in support of "not in a vacuum", and against myth-making.

Apple knows what they owe to open source software: https://opensource.apple.com/releases/

Post reply on HN