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

21–30 of 71 posts

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

#21

Post by tromobne8vb »

stephencanon wrote: post #15
fidotron wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In detail, that's not quite right about the A7. Apple designed the A7 themselves. It happens to implement the ARM instructions, but is not an ARM design. The only other player I can think of currently with this in the wild is Qualcomm, and this is one reason Apple and Qualcomm chips maintain a performance edge over other ARM CPUs.

I believe your parent is referring specifically to basic physics/chemistry research toward future process technology, rather than processor design.

You can apply the 'They didn't build that' argument to just about anything. It almost seems like a strawman here.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/they-didnt-build...

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

#22

Post by dba7dba »

nilsimsa wrote: post #6
josefresco wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they don't have any fabs" Isn't this not true anymore? I thought Apple brought chip production "in house" as well as other specific hardware related to their iOS products.

They brought some chip design in house. Chip production is quite expensive that only a few companies do it in house.

I know this is a hearsay but at the height of the apple/samsung law suit I was following a story and one of the commenters claimed Apple's chip R&D was being done in a borrowed facility at a Samsung owned chip factory in Austin, TX. Intrinsity based in Austin had been doing work with samsung and since Intrinsity was bought out by Apple, I think there's some chance it's true. No way I can verify if it's true it'd be pretty funny...

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

#24

Post by devfeed »

twoodfin wrote: post #2

I am not an expert, but it's my understanding that what is R&D vs. "only" engineering is largely an accounting question. I don't think Microsoft is spending all of that $10B on MSR, for example. As a metric I don't think it provides much insight.

MSR is only "R" (and that too only a subset of the total research that happens throughout the company - the stuff that can be classified as "basic science"/longer-term), the "D" happens all over the company in the various departments.

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

#25

Post by dragontamer »

josefresco wrote: post #4
Guvante wrote: post #3

The article feels a little shallow on the analysis side. For instance I would expect this oddity to be caused by the fact that they aren't a traditional hardware manufacturer (they don't have any fabs and outsource their production) nor are they a traditional software manufacturer (their software focus pales in comparison to Google or Microsoft). Since developing silicon and software are two of the biggest drivers in…

"they don't have any fabs" Isn't this not true anymore? I thought Apple brought chip production "in house" as well as other specific hardware related to their iOS products.

You are correct. Apple just spent billions of dollars buying up a fab lab. However, it will be years before this investment sees any practical use at Apple.

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/07/12/apple-has-their-own-fab/

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

#26

Post by antr »

stephencanon wrote: post #13
cromwellian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it is abstract development that relies on lower level discoveries. It's like designing a medical treatment that relies on anti-biotics, if no new antibiotics are discovered, and the old ones become less valuable, then new treatments hault. The A7 is a marvelous chip, but the reason these super smartphones exist is silicon manufacturing prowess. If we could not make these chips smaller and less power hungry,…

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.

True, and that r&d $ is hidden under capex and investment in associates. Real r&d expenditure can be tough to measure from the outside.

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

#27

Post by cromwellian »

fidotron wrote: post #18
stephencanon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe your parent is referring specifically to basic physics/chemistry research toward future process technology, rather than processor design.

They're ignoring that Apple (and others) are competing in design at all and claiming the only progress is in fab process. Fab process is very important, but it is most important in x86 land where you don't have many options but to improve fabrication, hence Intel's massive spend there. Beyond that you have the competing groups of TSMC, GlobalFoundries etc. that will spend way more than any non-specialist is going to.…

I'm not dismissing it, but to ignore the fact that the iPhone is wholly dependent on tons of innovation in their supply chain is a problem. No matter how fancy your transistor layout gets, if, starting tomorrow, there were no more process node shrinks, and no more innovation in other ares of silicon (e.g. low-k/high-k), the mobile revolution would be effectively frozen in place.

Phones would have no choice but to get bigger to get more powerful or to get longer battery life and perf/watt would hit a wall.

Point being, Apple spends a disproportionately small sum on R&D relative to the size of their earnings and they don't seem to be funding basic research at all like large corporations of the past, e.g. IBM, Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, etc.

With the government cutting funds for basic research, we need corporations who are sitting on $4 trillion in cash, to pick up the slack.

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

#28

Post by cromwellian »

stephencanon wrote: post #17
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…

Intel obviously has vastly more negotiating power than any of Walmart’s suppliers. This may or may not be true of other fabs, but even in that space there are only a few suppliers and the costs of switching fabs are enormous; that isn’t true when Walmart is searching for a supplier of plastic adirondack chairs.

Apple doesn't buy mobile chips from Intel, they buy them from Samsung.

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

#30

Post by cromwellian »

tromobne8vb wrote: post #21
stephencanon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe your parent is referring specifically to basic physics/chemistry research toward future process technology, rather than processor design.

You can apply the 'They didn't build that' argument to just about anything. It almost seems like a strawman here. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/they-didnt-build...

Great analogy actually, because the President and Krugman are exactly right in this regard. We ignore the ecosystem that was built, and which we benefit from, by those before us at our peril.

You should see technology as a forest. You can mine it for medical cures, for wood, it's an enormous externality that you leverage. And you have a duty to continue planting more back into it to keep it going for yourself and everyone who comes after you.

The Apple narrative is too bound up in heroic origination stories, without due credit and acknowledge to the huge role played by the rest of the industry. I'm only saying that if one profits immensely by using knowledge produced by one's forefathers, one has a duty to reinvest and keep driving it forward, not hoarding piles of cash. (oh, and not going insanely litigious and secretive on discoveries either :) )

Post reply on HN