"Over the past five years, it has spent, on average, less than three per cent of its revenue on R.&D. Microsoft has spent fourteen per cent, Google thirteen, an

"Over the past five years, it has spent, on average, less than three per cent of its revenue on R.&D. Microsoft has spent fourteen per cent, Google thirteen, and Amazon five and a half." Apple hasn't had to spend a lot on R&D to accomplish what it has so far. Why would simply spending more on it be any better? "Whether true or not, the public eventually comes to believe that behind every great fortune lies a crime. Having a sweeping research lab, which continues to invent things that help both the company and the public, can soften a harsh reputation. That, in fact, is the model that Bell and Xerox used, more or less. They were both monopoly companies who got some slack because of all the good they did. Microsoft has created all kinds of important things through its extensive R.&D." Sure this might have worked for those companies, but why should it be applied to Apple? Apple is clearly different in the way it operates. The thing is that this "harsh reputation" has largely been fueled recently by the Chinese labor problems which has been portrayed by sensationalist reporting. Is it really going to last that long? How long is it going to be before people forget about it?