5 ms·

I think this is not correct. Microsoft spends a lot in R&D. According to this [1] (as of d 3/21/2012): The top 10 companies and the amount they spend on R&D

by molmalo 14y ago

I think this is not correct. Microsoft spends a lot in R&D. According to this [1] (as of d 3/21/2012): The top 10 companies and the amount they spend on R&D (in billions) in the past 12 months were, according to S&P Capital IQ: • Microsoft (MSFT): $9.4 • Pfizer (PFE): $8.4 • Intel (INTC): $8.4 • Merck (MRK): $8.3 • Johnson & Johnson (JNJ): $7.5 • International Business Machines (IBM): $6.3 • Cisco Systems (CSCO): $5.6 • Google (GOOG): $5.2 • Eli Lilly (LLY): $5.0 • Oracle (ORCL): $4.4 Apple is 18th on the list, spending $2.6 billion, behind other technology giants such as Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Cisco, Oracle, Qualcomm, Hewlett-Packard and Amazon.com. Apple's R&D spending as a percentage of its revenue of $127.8 billion was 2%. [1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/story/2012-03-20/apple-marketing--research-and-development-spending/53673126/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/...

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
It's interesting that you throw the Apple comment in out of context and blow your argument as a result. Apple's amazing success with low R&D expenditure shows how small the relationship between R&D and great products is. It also says a lot about accounting, as how time is booked in an accounting system for tax purposes will drastically alter those numbers, even if the same work gets done.
- molmalo 14y ago
  I included Apple's comment, which seemed to be out of context to you, because it was not on the top-10 list, but it was the next paragraph in the linked article, and seemed to be interesting so you could have a view of the mayor tech players. "Apple's amazing success with low R&D expenditure shows how small the relationship between R&D and great products is." Also, it's not my intention to make a comparison between Apple and MS here, but I think it's clear that MS spends a lot more because it has a broader set of products and services. Furthermore, you need to define "great product". Because what would seem to be great to consumers, may be totally useless to enterprises. And that is reflected today in the market.
  - modernshoggoth 14y ago
    I actually re-read your comment a couple of times searching for an sort of argument at all, let alone "blowing" it.
- modernshoggoth 14y ago
  >(Ford)'s amazing success with low R&D expenditure (they had one engine design that ran from the 70's to the 90's with no modification or improvement despite the industry ballooning with different technologies during that time) shows how small the relationship between R&D and great products is. And no-one ever accused Ford of making shoddy cars that fall apart the second they leave the floor... for many decades solid...

by molmalo 14y ago

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

It's interesting that you throw the Apple comment in out of context and blow your argument as a result. Apple's amazing success with low R&D expenditure shows how small the relationship between R&D and great products is. It also says a lot about accounting, as how time is booked in an accounting system for tax purposes will drastically alter those numbers, even if the same work gets done.

molmalo 14y ago
I included Apple's comment, which seemed to be out of context to you, because it was not on the top-10 list, but it was the next paragraph in the linked article, and seemed to be interesting so you could have a view of the mayor tech players. "Apple's amazing success with low R&D expenditure shows how small the relationship between R&D and great products is." Also, it's not my intention to make a comparison between Apple and MS here, but I think it's clear that MS spends a lot more because it has a broader set of products and services. Furthermore, you need to define "great product". Because what would seem to be great to consumers, may be totally useless to enterprises. And that is reflected today in the market.
- modernshoggoth 14y ago
  I actually re-read your comment a couple of times searching for an sort of argument at all, let alone "blowing" it.
modernshoggoth 14y ago
>(Ford)'s amazing success with low R&D expenditure (they had one engine design that ran from the 70's to the 90's with no modification or improvement despite the industry ballooning with different technologies during that time) shows how small the relationship between R&D and great products is. And no-one ever accused Ford of making shoddy cars that fall apart the second they leave the floor... for many decades solid...