31–40 of 71 posts
http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/adam/3924d8cabc4e8469af6fa91... One question: Why is VW's R&D spending so high? It's BILLIONS more than other car manufacturers.
Pie chart: The world's worst way to display time-series data. http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/adam/2c59e6862a532820a9854bd...
It's natural to ask: "Of all R&D expenditures, what percentage came from each year?"
On a side note, time series is not a great phrase for the original data set ("time sequence" would have made more sense, since the numbers shown are not cumulative)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's natural to ask: "Of all R&D expenditures, what percentage came from each year?"
A time-series series (cumulative sum) would also answer the question, and could actually be plotted on the same chart as the original series. On a side note, time series is not a great phrase for the original data set ("time sequence" would have made more sense, since the numbers shown are not cumulative)
Also note that 'time series' is a well-defined and widely-used term that exactly describes the dataset presented here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_series).
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.
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/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A time-series series (cumulative sum) would also answer the question, and could actually be plotted on the same chart as the original series. On a side note, time series is not a great phrase for the original data set ("time sequence" would have made more sense, since the numbers shown are not cumulative)
Yes, a cumulative sum would have done a much better job than that pie chart at illustrating their point (from the text: "Apple over the last four years spent more on R&D than it did during the preceding 15 years combined") Also note that 'time series' is a well-defined and widely-used term that exactly describes the dataset presented here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_series ).
Pie chart: The world's worst way to display time-series data. http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/adam/2c59e6862a532820a9854bd...
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…
Not surprising, since most of the core R&D needed happens in the supply chain -- the fabs, the screen manufacturers, the battery makers, sensors, etc. If the iWatch for example, uses new curved battery tech or curved screen, that will have arisen mostly from the R&D done by their partners. With the acquisition of PA Semi, Apple does seem to be doing basic chip R&D now. But the industry as a whole would be no where wi…