Apple's R&D investment is far below industry average, and most of that is "D", not "R". Apple essentially doesn't publish and doesn't support university research. If all companies were as stingy as Apple when it comes to R&D, computer science research would be in deep trouble. Nokia, on the other hand, has the largest R&D investment in Europe, many times that of Apple.
Apple can only make nice products because other companies and universities have invested a hell of a lot of money and time inventing the things that Apple then assembles into products. That model is not sustainable, and I can see why companies like Nokia are getting litigious over it.
Nokia's revenues are also twice as big as Apple's and they generate more profit per quarter than Apple. And considering Apple's revenues have doubled over the last 2 years, you have to give them some leeway for ramping up their R&D, which has in fact risen 55% in the last year. Apple isn't exactly resting on its or anyone else's laurels.
Dell is closer in revenues to Nokia than Apple is, yet Dell spends almost half of what Apple does on R&D. HP is almost 4x as big as Apple yet spends less than 3x as much as Apple on R&D.
In short, I think your statement that Apple spends well below the "industry average" (where are you getting your "industry average" numbers?) is specious at best. There are companies that spend greater percentages of their revenue on R&D and Nokia is certainly one of them, as is IBM and Microsoft, but Apple is no lightweight in the R&D department and NONE of those other companies are expanding their R&D spending as fast as Apple.
Apple's R&D to sales ratio is 5.9%, computer industry average is 7.6%.
Apple is no lightweight in the R&D department and NONE of those other companies are expanding their R&D spending as fast as Apple.
Apple spends money development, but not much on research; Apple's research output according to the usual objective measures (publications and citations) is non-existent.
With all due respect, your statistic does not support your claim. "R&D to sales" is a measure of the effectiveness of a company's effort to convert R&D into sales. If that ratio is low, all the better. You originally claimed that "Apple's R&D investment is far below industry average". That claim has been refuted in the grandparent to this post. Now you want to divorce the "R" from the "D" to complain that Apple doesn't publish papers or have its papers cited. That's an entirely different subject.
What's your point? If you want to argue that Apple is doing a disservice to the world of technology, you need a better yardstick than "papers published". Need I remind you that Apple basically invented the home computer, basically invented the PDA, and has recently completely re-energized the smartphone industry? Those accomplishments have had obvious penumbral effects.
With all due respect, your statistic does not support your claim. "R&D to sales" is a measure of the effectiveness of a company's effort to convert R&D into sales. If that ratio is low, all the better. You originally claimed that "Apple's R&D investment is far below industry average". That claim has been refuted in the grandparent to this post. Now you want to divorce the "R" from the "D" to complain that Apple doesn't publish papers or have its papers cited. That's an entirely different subject.
What's your point? If you want to argue that Apple is doing a disservice to the world of technology, you need a better yardstick than "papers published". Need I remind you that Apple basically invented the home computer, basically invented the PDA, and has recently completely re-energized the smartphone industry? Those accomplishments have had obvious penumbral effects.
I guess his point should be that he sucks at statistical relationships and how they may or may not support his theory. That R&D to sales is asinine. Boeing's R&D to sales sees them going into the crapper with losing $1.6 Billion this quarter. I suppose they just don't have very effective/efficient/competent R&D and it's showing.
With all due respect, your statistic does not support your claim. "R&D to sales" is a measure of the effectiveness of a company's effort to convert R&D into sales.... That claim has been refuted in the grandparent to this post
Oh, stop drinking the magic cool-aid and distorting reality. Apple's R&D investment is low in absolute numbers, relative to sales, and relative to company size. And Apple's research output is essentially non-existent by any objective measure.
Now you want to divorce the "R" from the "D"
I have consistently pointed out that Apple invests in "D" but almost nothing in "R".
Need I remind you that Apple basically invented the home computer, basically invented the PDA, and has recently completely re-energized the smartphone industry? Those accomplishments have had obvious penumbral effects.
Apple did none of those things. All their major products were copies of technologies and devices invented elsewhere, and Apple has gotten into trouble and disrepute over that more than once.
If you want to argue that Apple is doing a disservice to the world of technology, you need a better yardstick than "papers published".
I'm only pointing out that Nokia's lawsuit is consistent and plausible with what we know about Apple's actual R&D strategy.
Talk about selective quotation!! I just read the article you linked to, and who would have known it from what you've written, but the Booz report's conclusion was a glowingly *positive* reference to Apple's ability to spend its R&D on creating great products -- what the report calls "an innovation machine". This is the very same paragraph from which you quoted that Apple's R&D:sales ratio was below that of its competitors. By the way, that report was from 2005 -- the numbers may have changed since.
They revolutionized the home computer with a GUI interface model stolen from Xerox, they lowered the price of the hardware (Woz was a wizard after all), but they haven't invented it.
The first home computer intended for consumers was from Altair - aprox. one year before Apple I was released. And the credits for the "home computer" as it is today cannot be attributed to a single individual or company. Far from it.
They revolutionized the home computer with a GUI interface model stolen from Xerox, they lowered the price of the hardware (Woz was a wizard after all), but they haven't invented it.
Apple stole nothing. Apple PAID Xerox for the technology [74.125.93.132] (which was actually barely useable until Andy Hertzfeld, Randy Wigginton, Jef Raskin, Steve Capps, and others at Apple made some fundamental changes and improvements).
The first home computer intended for consumers was from Altair - aprox. one year before Apple I was released. And the credits for the "home computer" as it is today cannot be attributed to a single individual or company. Far from it.
The last part of your statement is true; however, Steve Wozniak (and hence, Apple) is, however, rightfully credited at making the home computer USEABLE, by having a ROM-based monitor "OS" on-board. The Apple 1 (which I own) WAS the first home computer (or any computer) you could simply t
Apple is a multi-industrial company. In mobile telecommunications market, they are definitely far below average R&D and have totally dropped off R part. And OP has directly sated that Apple does little R in R&D, so please "Now you want to divorce "R" from the "D"" part is a bit too late.
Apple's research contribution isn't quite nonexistent. I've personally cited them at least twice in published papers. WWDC also has a sizeable scientific community component that has lately been turning into a sort of mini scientific conference, including poster sessions.
Show me significant, peer-reviewed research coming out of Apple, and citations thereof. It's almost non-existent. Microsoft, IBM, Google--they all have it--just not Apple.
It was pretty tough too. I had to type "Apple Cupertino" into Google scholar.
For those who are interested, when I was in grad school Apple brought me out to Cupertino for a three day workshop along with half a dozen other researchers (mostly in genetics) where we had access to most of their engineers to help us optimize our code for their machines. That work did result in a peer reviewed journal paper, although Apple is only mentioned as a credit for using their computers. I'm sure there are quite a few
Apple may not publish directly much, but they have taken an active interest in supporting research. Take a look at that WWDC poster session link I posted two levels up if you want to see some examples.
So you've established that it's non-zero. Now compare levels of investment in R&D with those in the rest of the industry, with a particular focus on mobile equipment manufacturers for preference (given this story).
Two things. First, the article you cite is 4 years old. I'm not saying I have better numbers but I'm sure newer numbers are out there and they may tell a different story. Second, I work for a good sized scientific and engineering society which has a number of Apple employees as both authors and conference organizers so your assertion that their "... research output... is non-existent" is a bit of stretch.
And almost all of that "R&D" spending is "D", not "R".
Where do you think the new products they produce in a steady stream come from, a nearby magic forest?
Yes: the "nearby magic forest" is called "Silicon Valley". Apple takes the best ideas from the Valley and turns them into products. They leave the research to others.
If you care to read it, you'd find it quotes 2004 figures. You'll find mind is much more current since I didn't just take the first link off Google, and the fact that Apple more than doubled 2007 R&D spending while your link indicates in 2004 they were just a few percentage points behind, shows that in fact they are ahead of average.
On a side note, I question the wisdom of saying that Apple is not spending enough on R&D when they are the
How about comparing Apple's contribution to the Open Source community as compared to Nokia? Grand Central Dispatch, Darwin, WebKit, OpenCL, etc, compared to... ?
What a load of bullshit. So Apple's numerous contributions to open source don't count?
I don't see what what is so warm and fuzzy about Nokia developing and then patenting their own technologies is anyway. That's exactly what Apple is doing. How are they more caring and sharing than Apple?
Nice try there troll, but it doesn't hold water. Ever heard of Firewire? Or that now light wave connector in the news a couple of weeks ago? Or how about all the innovation involved in creating the industry leading computer hardware designs. Sorry, but you're full of shit!
Apple's R&D investment is far below industry average, and most of that is "D", not "R".
ORLY?
Then why, pray tell, do they far out-innovate most other tech companies? Please cite the source for your otherwise baseless bashing.
If all companies were as stingy as Apple when it comes to R&D, computer science research would be in deep trouble.
So, I guess all the R&D that Apple has released as Open Source is being "stingy" with R&D (launchd, iCal, Calendar Server, bonjour, Darwin, webkit, Grand Central Dispatch, etc.) and all the R&D that Apple has contributed to ongoing F/OSS projects (zfs fixes, Khtml fixes, CUPS (yes, I know they bought CUPS, but they still leave it Open Source), Apache fixes, e
We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare
to be assimilated.
not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple's R&D investment is far below industry average, and most of that is "D", not "R". Apple essentially doesn't publish and doesn't support university research. If all companies were as stingy as Apple when it comes to R&D, computer science research would be in deep trouble. Nokia, on the other hand, has the largest R&D investment in Europe, many times that of Apple.
Apple can only make nice products because other companies and universities have invested a hell of a lot of money and time inventing the things that Apple then assembles into products. That model is not sustainable, and I can see why companies like Nokia are getting litigious over it.
Re:not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Nokia's revenues are also twice as big as Apple's and they generate more profit per quarter than Apple. And considering Apple's revenues have doubled over the last 2 years, you have to give them some leeway for ramping up their R&D, which has in fact risen 55% in the last year. Apple isn't exactly resting on its or anyone else's laurels.
Dell is closer in revenues to Nokia than Apple is, yet Dell spends almost half of what Apple does on R&D. HP is almost 4x as big as Apple yet spends less than 3x as much as Apple on R&D.
In short, I think your statement that Apple spends well below the "industry average" (where are you getting your "industry average" numbers?) is specious at best. There are companies that spend greater percentages of their revenue on R&D and Nokia is certainly one of them, as is IBM and Microsoft, but Apple is no lightweight in the R&D department and NONE of those other companies are expanding their R&D spending as fast as Apple.
here are the numbers (Score:5, Informative)
where are you getting your "industry average" numbers?
The numbers come from Booz Allen Hamilton and Business Week:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2005/10/does_rd_spendin.html [businessweek.com]
Apple's R&D to sales ratio is 5.9%, computer industry average is 7.6%.
Apple is no lightweight in the R&D department and NONE of those other companies are expanding their R&D spending as fast as Apple.
Apple spends money development, but not much on research; Apple's research output according to the usual objective measures (publications and citations) is non-existent.
Re:here are the numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
With all due respect, your statistic does not support your claim. "R&D to sales" is a measure of the effectiveness of a company's effort to convert R&D into sales. If that ratio is low, all the better. You originally claimed that "Apple's R&D investment is far below industry average". That claim has been refuted in the grandparent to this post. Now you want to divorce the "R" from the "D" to complain that Apple doesn't publish papers or have its papers cited. That's an entirely different subject.
What's your point? If you want to argue that Apple is doing a disservice to the world of technology, you need a better yardstick than "papers published". Need I remind you that Apple basically invented the home computer, basically invented the PDA, and has recently completely re-energized the smartphone industry? Those accomplishments have had obvious penumbral effects.
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect, your statistic does not support your claim. "R&D to sales" is a measure of the effectiveness of a company's effort to convert R&D into sales. If that ratio is low, all the better. You originally claimed that "Apple's R&D investment is far below industry average". That claim has been refuted in the grandparent to this post. Now you want to divorce the "R" from the "D" to complain that Apple doesn't publish papers or have its papers cited. That's an entirely different subject.
What's your point? If you want to argue that Apple is doing a disservice to the world of technology, you need a better yardstick than "papers published". Need I remind you that Apple basically invented the home computer, basically invented the PDA, and has recently completely re-energized the smartphone industry? Those accomplishments have had obvious penumbral effects.
I guess his point should be that he sucks at statistical relationships and how they may or may not support his theory. That R&D to sales is asinine. Boeing's R&D to sales sees them going into the crapper with losing $1.6 Billion this quarter. I suppose they just don't have very effective/efficient/competent R&D and it's showing.
Re:here are the numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
With all due respect, your statistic does not support your claim. "R&D to sales" is a measure of the effectiveness of a company's effort to convert R&D into sales. ... That claim has been refuted in the grandparent to this post
Oh, stop drinking the magic cool-aid and distorting reality. Apple's R&D investment is low in absolute numbers, relative to sales, and relative to company size. And Apple's research output is essentially non-existent by any objective measure.
Now you want to divorce the "R" from the "D"
I have consistently pointed out that Apple invests in "D" but almost nothing in "R".
Need I remind you that Apple basically invented the home computer, basically invented the PDA, and has recently completely re-energized the smartphone industry? Those accomplishments have had obvious penumbral effects.
Apple did none of those things. All their major products were copies of technologies and devices invented elsewhere, and Apple has gotten into trouble and disrepute over that more than once.
If you want to argue that Apple is doing a disservice to the world of technology, you need a better yardstick than "papers published".
I'm only pointing out that Nokia's lawsuit is consistent and plausible with what we know about Apple's actual R&D strategy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Talk about selective quotation!! I just read the article you linked to, and who would have known it from what you've written, but the Booz report's conclusion was a glowingly *positive* reference to Apple's ability to spend its R&D on creating great products -- what the report calls "an innovation machine". This is the very same paragraph from which you quoted that Apple's R&D:sales ratio was below that of its competitors. By the way, that report was from 2005 -- the numbers may have changed since.
I
Re: (Score:2)
> Apple basically invented the home computer
That's rich :)
They revolutionized the home computer with a GUI interface model stolen from Xerox, they lowered the price of the hardware (Woz was a wizard after all), but they haven't invented it.
The first home computer intended for consumers was from Altair - aprox. one year before Apple I was released. And the credits for the "home computer" as it is today cannot be attributed to a single individual or company. Far from it.
But then I guess it's fashionable to
Re: (Score:1)
> Apple basically invented the home computer
:)
That's rich
They revolutionized the home computer with a GUI interface model stolen from Xerox, they lowered the price of the hardware (Woz was a wizard after all), but they haven't invented it.
Apple stole nothing. Apple PAID Xerox for the technology [74.125.93.132] (which was actually barely useable until Andy Hertzfeld, Randy Wigginton, Jef Raskin, Steve Capps, and others at Apple made some fundamental changes and improvements).
The first home computer intended for consumers was from Altair - aprox. one year before Apple I was released. And the credits for the "home computer" as it is today cannot be attributed to a single individual or company. Far from it.
The last part of your statement is true; however, Steve Wozniak (and hence, Apple) is, however, rightfully credited at making the home computer USEABLE, by having a ROM-based monitor "OS" on-board. The Apple 1 (which I own) WAS the first home computer (or any computer) you could simply t
Re: (Score:1)
Purchased from Xerox ....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's research contribution isn't quite nonexistent. I've personally cited them at least twice in published papers. WWDC also has a sizeable scientific community component that has lately been turning into a sort of mini scientific conference, including poster sessions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Show me significant, peer-reviewed research coming out of Apple, and citations thereof. It's almost non-existent. Microsoft, IBM, Google--they all have it--just not Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1186532 [ieee.org]
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1328881 [ieee.org]
There are a couple direct from Apple. Here is a list of the posters presented at the last WWDC:
http://www.apple.com/science/poster/ [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
...crickets.
Damn, looks like your facts messed up his storyline.
Re: (Score:2)
It was pretty tough too. I had to type "Apple Cupertino" into Google scholar.
For those who are interested, when I was in grad school Apple brought me out to Cupertino for a three day workshop along with half a dozen other researchers (mostly in genetics) where we had access to most of their engineers to help us optimize our code for their machines. That work did result in a peer reviewed journal paper, although Apple is only mentioned as a credit for using their computers. I'm sure there are quite a few
Re: (Score:2)
Apple may not publish directly much, but they have taken an active interest in supporting research. Take a look at that WWDC poster session link I posted two levels up if you want to see some examples.
So you've established that it's non-zero. Now compare levels of investment in R&D with those in the rest of the industry, with a particular focus on mobile equipment manufacturers for preference (given this story).
Re: (Score:2)
Now compare that with some other companies:
http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html [google.com]
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/dp/pu/publications.aspx#p=1&ps=36&so=0&sb=d&fr=&to=&fd=&td=&rt=&f=ms&a=&pn=&pa=&pd= [microsoft.com]
http://domino.research.ibm.com/library/cyberdig.nsf/recent [ibm.com] (last 30 days!)
http://www.parc.com/publications/ [parc.com]
http://research.nokia.com/ [nokia.com]
Two conference publications by Apple employee is a joke for a company the size of Apple. Apple doesn't even have a site wh
Re: (Score:1)
Apple spent 1.1 billion on R&D in 2008 (Score:2)
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/11/07/apple-adds-staff-boosts-randd-spending-in-fy2008/ [tuaw.com]
Doesn't sound below average to me, at all. Where do you think the new products they produce in a steady stream come from, a nearby magic forest?
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't sound below average to me, at all.
Well, nevertheless it is:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2005/10/does_rd_spendin.html [businessweek.com]
And almost all of that "R&D" spending is "D", not "R".
Where do you think the new products they produce in a steady stream come from, a nearby magic forest?
Yes: the "nearby magic forest" is called "Silicon Valley". Apple takes the best ideas from the Valley and turns them into products. They leave the research to others.
Unlike Apple, Nokia, IBM, Microso
Wrong again, read your link (Score:2)
Well, nevertheless it is:...
Your own link says you are wrong.
If you care to read it, you'd find it quotes 2004 figures. You'll find mind is much more current since I didn't just take the first link off Google, and the fact that Apple more than doubled 2007 R&D spending while your link indicates in 2004 they were just a few percentage points behind, shows that in fact they are ahead of average.
On a side note, I question the wisdom of saying that Apple is not spending enough on R&D when they are the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How about comparing Apple's contribution to the Open Source community as compared to Nokia? Grand Central Dispatch, Darwin, WebKit, OpenCL, etc, compared to ... ?
Just try a google search (Score:1, Informative)
If you honestly can't name any important OS contributions from Nokia, you *really* aren't paying any attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Or he doesn't have a Nokia, so why bother looking up stuff for a device you don't have? Stop being a pretentious ass.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're going to bash, at least be correct.
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of bullshit. So Apple's numerous contributions to open source don't count?
I don't see what what is so warm and fuzzy about Nokia developing and then patenting their own technologies is anyway. That's exactly what Apple is doing. How are they more caring and sharing than Apple?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple's R&D investment is far below industry average, and most of that is "D", not "R".
ORLY?
Then why, pray tell, do they far out-innovate most other tech companies? Please cite the source for your otherwise baseless bashing.
If all companies were as stingy as Apple when it comes to R&D, computer science research would be in deep trouble.
So, I guess all the R&D that Apple has released as Open Source is being "stingy" with R&D (launchd, iCal, Calendar Server, bonjour, Darwin, webkit, Grand Central Dispatch, etc.) and all the R&D that Apple has contributed to ongoing F/OSS projects (zfs fixes, Khtml fixes, CUPS (yes, I know they bought CUPS, but they still leave it Open Source), Apache fixes, e