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

A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

tuaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

#51

Post by spodek »

doktrin wrote: post #38
colinbartlett wrote: post #20

Pie chart: The world's worst way to display time-series data. http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/adam/2c59e6862a532820a9854bd...

For the statisticians and data scientists in the room : do pie charts ever have a valid use case (as defined by being superior to another form of visualization)?

This pie chart -- http://www.youthblog.org/pie%20chart2.jpg -- is accurate and presents the data better than any alternative.

(so no one has to click blindly, it's a photo of a pie showing how much of it was eaten or not)

Re: A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

#52

Post by blah32497 »

cromwellian wrote: post #46
joezydeco wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..and Microsoft, Atari, Sun, et al sunk billions of dollars into "research" groups with very little to show for it other than a bunch of concept videos and the resumes of the researchers. It's a double-edged sword.

That's the nature of R&D. There are 100 failures for every 1 success, because often, the usefulness of basic research is unknown. Modern cryptography is based on advances in number theory and abstract algebra. None of the mathematicians over the last 2 centuries who contributed to those advancements foresaw the applications. Modern GPS satellites are dependent upon general and special relativity. Einstein never fores…

"100 failures for every 1 success"

There aren't a lot of examples of big tech companies dumping money into R&D - with no end goal in mind - and then cashing out big time. Even companies that that have gotten useful discoveries from hiring smart people to sit around and invent (Bell Labs, Xerox Park, Microsoft Research etc.) don't ever seem to end up raking in the big bucks.

The only thing that comes to mind is MS and their Kinect.

Unfortunately the ROI is pretty bad when you just throw money and hope it gives you results. It's cheaper to just buy up startups with interesting ideas

Re: A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

#53

Post by wmf »

grannyg00se wrote: post #32

Perhaps they spend slightly less than others, but what interests me is that there is an exponential growth of R&D spending over the last five years with no real innovation (in my opinion, since the iPhone). And Microsoft has been spending consistently around 15% of their revenue on R&D. For what? Higher pixel density and an OS with tiles that can be swiped on touch screens? Is R&D really that low ROI? We're talking a…

Remember that Apple is releasing a new product category in 2014; the R&D for that has been paid over the last few years.

Re: A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

#54

Post by gress »

dragontamer wrote: post #49
gress wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a link to substantiate that claim that doesn't put the information behind a paywall?

Not one that I know of. Charlie isn't the typical blogger though, and I prefer his paywall style over the ad-based models that other sites have done. When Charlie wrote a few honest (but blasting) reports on various companies a while back... the ad-companies held his revenue hostage. They didn't like him writing the way he did. As such, he stopped doing ad-hosted content and was forced into the paywall model. Now to…

There are a whole bunch of other sites linking to this piece calling it a rumour, and that there is little detail beyond the paywall and no corroborating evidence since then.

I think it's false.

Re: A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

#55

Post by wmf »

cromwellian wrote: post #16
stephencanon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is indirectly plowing billions of dollars into that research via their contracts with Intel and the foundries. If the margins on those contracts aren’t sufficient to provide for further research, that’s on the head of the supplier’s pricing teams, not Apple.

And if Walmart's employees and Chinese suppliers have their payments squeezed, it's not Walmart's fault? That ignores the pricing power that a large player has. Apple and Tim Cook, as has been noted in the media, are very good at negotiating down their suppliers. But no matter how you slice it, these downstream suppliers are doing more with less. They have much smaller margins, fund more important R&D which benefits…

You're basically arguing (repeatedly) that outsourcing (and thus the whole modern economy) won't work. It's provocative, but seriously citation needed.

Re: A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

#56

Post by joezydeco »

blah32497 wrote: post #52
cromwellian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the nature of R&D. There are 100 failures for every 1 success, because often, the usefulness of basic research is unknown. Modern cryptography is based on advances in number theory and abstract algebra. None of the mathematicians over the last 2 centuries who contributed to those advancements foresaw the applications. Modern GPS satellites are dependent upon general and special relativity. Einstein never fores…

"100 failures for every 1 success" There aren't a lot of examples of big tech companies dumping money into R&D - with no end goal in mind - and then cashing out big time. Even companies that that have gotten useful discoveries from hiring smart people to sit around and invent (Bell Labs, Xerox Park, Microsoft Research etc.) don't ever seem to end up raking in the big bucks. The only thing that comes to mind is MS and…

Exactly right. There's a big difference between "go think up a way to figure your position on the globe to within 10 cm" and "here's a pile of cash and some beanbags, think up clever stuff and we'll commercialize anything that looks interesting."

The only thing that comes to mind is MS and their Kinect.

Um, didn't Primesense develop the imaging sensor used in the Kinect? This seems more of the Apple model of "let's figure out a cool use for this interesting device".

Re: A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

#57

Post by cromwellian »

wmf wrote: post #55
cromwellian wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if Walmart's employees and Chinese suppliers have their payments squeezed, it's not Walmart's fault? That ignores the pricing power that a large player has. Apple and Tim Cook, as has been noted in the media, are very good at negotiating down their suppliers. But no matter how you slice it, these downstream suppliers are doing more with less. They have much smaller margins, fund more important R&D which benefits…

You're basically arguing (repeatedly) that outsourcing (and thus the whole modern economy) won't work. It's provocative, but seriously citation needed.

I don't I've arguing outsourcing won't work, just that outsourcing can lead to malinvestment.

Re: A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

#58

Post by dragontamer »

gress wrote: post #54
dragontamer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not one that I know of. Charlie isn't the typical blogger though, and I prefer his paywall style over the ad-based models that other sites have done. When Charlie wrote a few honest (but blasting) reports on various companies a while back... the ad-companies held his revenue hostage. They didn't like him writing the way he did. As such, he stopped doing ad-hosted content and was forced into the paywall model. Now to…

There are a whole bunch of other sites linking to this piece calling it a rumour , and that there is little detail beyond the paywall and no corroborating evidence since then. I think it's false.

Fair enough. As I've said before, Semiaccurate is only "mostly" correct. Charlie has been wrong before, mostly because he pushes (likely) hypotheticals.

I have however, read the contents behind the paywall, and Charlie is quite specific. He has the company name, some vague details on the deal, and the location of the facility.

He is stretching the hypothetical a bit to say that "Apple bought a fabrication lab". That may have gone to far... but those details are discussed in the paywalled article.

Re: A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

#59

Post by cromwellian »

blah32497 wrote: post #52
cromwellian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the nature of R&D. There are 100 failures for every 1 success, because often, the usefulness of basic research is unknown. Modern cryptography is based on advances in number theory and abstract algebra. None of the mathematicians over the last 2 centuries who contributed to those advancements foresaw the applications. Modern GPS satellites are dependent upon general and special relativity. Einstein never fores…

"100 failures for every 1 success" There aren't a lot of examples of big tech companies dumping money into R&D - with no end goal in mind - and then cashing out big time. Even companies that that have gotten useful discoveries from hiring smart people to sit around and invent (Bell Labs, Xerox Park, Microsoft Research etc.) don't ever seem to end up raking in the big bucks. The only thing that comes to mind is MS and…

All of the startups you're talking about are sitting on the shoulders of much longer term R&D that was funded by corporate labs or government/academic R&D.

When was the last time a small startup produced a huge breakthrough in physics or manufacturing that did not build off of research funded by the public or big consortiums, corporate labs, or universities?

I don't care if Bell Labs didn't cash out, just like I don't care if NASA, DARPA, or Sandia Labs makes a profit. Quantum Theorists need work too, and Y-Combinator isn't going to fund them.

Re: A look at Apple's R&D expenditures from 1995-2013

#60

Post by cromwellian »

joezydeco wrote: post #56
blah32497 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"100 failures for every 1 success" There aren't a lot of examples of big tech companies dumping money into R&D - with no end goal in mind - and then cashing out big time. Even companies that that have gotten useful discoveries from hiring smart people to sit around and invent (Bell Labs, Xerox Park, Microsoft Research etc.) don't ever seem to end up raking in the big bucks. The only thing that comes to mind is MS and…

Exactly right. There's a big difference between "go think up a way to figure your position on the globe to within 10 cm" and "here's a pile of cash and some beanbags, think up clever stuff and we'll commercialize anything that looks interesting." The only thing that comes to mind is MS and their Kinect. Um, didn't Primesense develop the imaging sensor used in the Kinect? This seems more of the Apple model of "let's f…

Actually, it was "go think up a way to deliver an ICBM between the US and Russia with meter accuracy" and "here's several hundred billion dollars to figure it out and build it."

The GPS system would never have been built by any startup, period. It took decades to build up the space based infrastructure and engineering know-how to make it, with the backing of a very deep pocketed government that was looking for results, not for profits.

We need diversity in research approaches. No one is saying that profit-focused R&D is wrong, just that monoculture is. If you've got $100 billion in the bank, do you need to focus all of it on short term projects, or can you try several strategies.

Post reply on HN