3 ms·

Bell Labs could do this because their parent company was a government sanctioned monopoly that didn't have to worry about about mundane problems like quarterly

Bell Labs could do this because their parent company was a government sanctioned monopoly that didn't have to worry about about mundane problems like quarterly earnings. Xerox had the copier machine market pretty well to itself for a good 20 years which enabled them to fund PARC (sure, there were some competitors in that time, but they weren't taking a huge bite out of Xerox's profits yet). I think Apple could've done this a few years back when they had something like $100B cash on hand - they could have established a research foundation and provided it with funding that would've lasted for long enough for it to become self sustaining. Maybe Apple still could do this as they've got $73B cash on hand. $10B would go a long ways towards establishing an institution like this. Even better if other FAANG companies joined by providing seed funding, but maybe that looks too anti-competitive these days? (the incentive for providing initial funding could be a stipulation that funding companies get a break on IP license fees) Of course, as someone else mentions in this thread, this institution should learn from PARC's mistakes and do a better job of licensing their IP in order to keep operating for a longer term. I suspect we really need something like this. Bell Labs (and PARC) gave our economy a technological boost that it wouldn't have had without them. Maybe a revitalized SRI (with some additional outside funding) could become what you're talking about?

akozak 3y ago
Figuring out the right amount of endowment is quite difficult, but you certainly need a LOT to get the outcomes like PARC. Are you running it off interest or burning down the pot? Also possible that we are simply in a different techno-economic and scientific moment than those researchers were (ie it was cheaper for them). Also once you start framing it as investment or a biz decision in a big public company, the natural question is whether it's the best use of capital for Apple. It's not really about short vs longterm thinking either, it's about the deployment with the highest likelihood to return on any timeframe.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  > Are you running it off interest or burning down the pot? At some point in the future there should be some IP that could be licensed. If you're starting out with, say, a $10B endowment there should be investments that could sustain a certain level of operation for quite a long time until that IP license income kicks in. Towards the end of the article they talk about the land that PARC is situated on and how that's now very valuable and will provide a source of income for the new SRI/PARC - so they seem to have lucked out with a real estate investment that they didn't realize at the time would payoff later.
  - akozak 3y ago
    Right that's the most likely strategy, but would also be Apple deciding to get in the licensing business (potentially with complications for their core biz) and is also something they could reasonably compare as an option against other ways of spending $10B.

akozak 3y ago

Figuring out the right amount of endowment is quite difficult, but you certainly need a LOT to get the outcomes like PARC. Are you running it off interest or burning down the pot? Also possible that we are simply in a different techno-economic and scientific moment than those researchers were (ie it was cheaper for them). Also once you start framing it as investment or a biz decision in a big public company, the natural question is whether it's the best use of capital for Apple. It's not really about short vs longterm thinking either, it's about the deployment with the highest likelihood to return on any timeframe.

UncleOxidant 3y ago
> Are you running it off interest or burning down the pot? At some point in the future there should be some IP that could be licensed. If you're starting out with, say, a $10B endowment there should be investments that could sustain a certain level of operation for quite a long time until that IP license income kicks in. Towards the end of the article they talk about the land that PARC is situated on and how that's now very valuable and will provide a source of income for the new SRI/PARC - so they seem to have lucked out with a real estate investment that they didn't realize at the time would payoff later.
- akozak 3y ago
  Right that's the most likely strategy, but would also be Apple deciding to get in the licensing business (potentially with complications for their core biz) and is also something they could reasonably compare as an option against other ways of spending $10B.