4 ms·

I don't know. R&D has seen big increases[1] (from around $3B under Jobs to now around $12B) in spend under Cook. I don't know that doing that lines up with a "f

I don't know. R&D has seen big increases[1] (from around $3B under Jobs to now around $12B) in spend under Cook. I don't know that doing that lines up with a "focus on immediate short-term bottom line improvements rather than long-term investments". [1]: http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2016/5/11/apple-rd-reveals-a-pivot-is-coming http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2016/5/11/apple-rd-reveals-... (linked for the graphs, not the article's hypothesis)

jasonjei 10y ago
Microsoft, I'm sure, also threw a lot of R&D money at things. I just think the money under Jobs's Apple was directed more wisely.
- stock_toaster 10y ago
  Looks[1] like from it went from $7B in 2004, to $11B in 2014 when ballmer left. So a 2x increase in 10 years vs over a 5x increase in 4 years. Regardless, I still don't think that jives with the claim that Cook is focusing solely on short term returns. The "concern" about increased R&D outlay, by some big shareholders during earnings calls, has even been interesting to hear. The responses by Cook et al. have seemed pretty consistent too -- we are focusing on lots of long term projects. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/267806/expenditure-on-research-and-development-by-the-microsoft-corporation/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267806/expenditure-on-re...
- IBM 10y ago
  As an outsider you can only tell if the R&D money was spent wisely in retrospect.
  - jasonjei 10y ago
    I would say the same of insiders. Outsiders can judge this better than insiders due to independence (tunnel vision and company pride sometimes get in the way).
    - IBM 10y ago
      Perhaps. The point is we'll find out in 5-10 years if the R&D money spent today was a good decision (and sooner for future iterations of the existing product categories).
pavlov 10y ago
Nokia's R&D spending in 2007 was 5.64 billion EUR, while Apple spent 0.78 billion USD in the same year. If anything, exploding R&D expenses may be a sign of an unfocussed product organization.
- jernfrost 10y ago
  This kind of stuff always gets me thinking a lot. It is very mysterious how some companies can spend such enormous amounts on research and still seem to get very few innovative products in return. Gets you really thinking about, what exactly is the nature of innovation and research? Our society as a whole is inherently focused on quantity over quality when it comes to something like research which so obviously is about quality. Science is getting measures as number of patents issues, amount of GDP spent on research etc. And these things becomes goals and targets by themselves. Nobody seems to stop and ask whether quality research and discovery is actually happening or whether we are getting patents for the right kind of things. This quantification and reducing everything into a number is a disease which I think is destroying much of what is good about our society.
  - morgante 10y ago
    People certainly ask these things. It's a large part of what a quality MBA is about (dissecting why strategy matters).

jasonjei 10y ago

Microsoft, I'm sure, also threw a lot of R&D money at things. I just think the money under Jobs's Apple was directed more wisely.

stock_toaster 10y ago
Looks[1] like from it went from $7B in 2004, to $11B in 2014 when ballmer left. So a 2x increase in 10 years vs over a 5x increase in 4 years. Regardless, I still don't think that jives with the claim that Cook is focusing solely on short term returns. The "concern" about increased R&D outlay, by some big shareholders during earnings calls, has even been interesting to hear. The responses by Cook et al. have seemed pretty consistent too -- we are focusing on lots of long term projects. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/267806/expenditure-on-research-and-development-by-the-microsoft-corporation/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267806/expenditure-on-re...
IBM 10y ago
As an outsider you can only tell if the R&D money was spent wisely in retrospect.
- jasonjei 10y ago
  I would say the same of insiders. Outsiders can judge this better than insiders due to independence (tunnel vision and company pride sometimes get in the way).
  - IBM 10y ago
    Perhaps. The point is we'll find out in 5-10 years if the R&D money spent today was a good decision (and sooner for future iterations of the existing product categories).

pavlov 10y ago

Nokia's R&D spending in 2007 was 5.64 billion EUR, while Apple spent 0.78 billion USD in the same year. If anything, exploding R&D expenses may be a sign of an unfocussed product organization.

jernfrost 10y ago
This kind of stuff always gets me thinking a lot. It is very mysterious how some companies can spend such enormous amounts on research and still seem to get very few innovative products in return. Gets you really thinking about, what exactly is the nature of innovation and research? Our society as a whole is inherently focused on quantity over quality when it comes to something like research which so obviously is about quality. Science is getting measures as number of patents issues, amount of GDP spent on research etc. And these things becomes goals and targets by themselves. Nobody seems to stop and ask whether quality research and discovery is actually happening or whether we are getting patents for the right kind of things. This quantification and reducing everything into a number is a disease which I think is destroying much of what is good about our society.
- morgante 10y ago
  People certainly ask these things. It's a large part of what a quality MBA is about (dissecting why strategy matters).