3 ms·
According to Wikipedia[1], Intel set aside "$300m over 3-4 years" to invest in Ultrabooks, so $100m/year. Contrast that to ~$8B they spend on R&D each year[2].
by vtail 10y ago
According to Wikipedia[1], Intel set aside "$300m over 3-4 years" to invest in Ultrabooks, so $100m/year. Contrast that to ~$8B they spend on R&D each year[2]. So it was a relatively small bet for them.
I'm not saying tech companies never invest in anything outside of their core products. It's just often those projects are given low internal priority precisely because their (presumed) impact to the bottom line will be small.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrabook https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrabook
[2] https://ycharts.com/companies/INTC/r_and_d_expense https://ycharts.com/companies/INTC/r_and_d_expense
edit: typos
- AndyNemmity 10y agoAnd small bets rarely materialize into anything useful. They end up being great marketing, and worth the cost in the marketing spend so others think you are being innovative while you continue to do the same stuff you always have.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoI'll just note that a startup of 10 - 100 people that raised $300M over 3-4 years would be a big deal. Innovation isn't about ideas, its about finding ways to execute against those ideas in a way that others haven't or ideally can't.
- vtail 10y agoSure, but important difference is that 10-100 people startup that raised $300m behaves way differently than an internal department of a major tech firm that has decided to invest into a side project: authority to make decisions, willingness to take on risk, speed of innovation - everything is very different between the two.
- udkl 10y agoCisco and it's spinning out approach comes to mind. They probably got this right. Amazon is another company that is innovating disruptively despite it's size.
- udkl 10y agoI think your definition of innovation makes sense only in the context of corporate or SV innovation. In a more general context, innovation takes on the other meaning.