4 ms·

It boggles my mind that Apple isn't using all these money for something better. What prevents them from, say, hiring up or luring away all the great CS/hardware

by sytelus 11y ago

It boggles my mind that Apple isn't using all these money for something better. What prevents them from, say, hiring up or luring away all the great CS/hardware PhDs, build a giant lab for robotics, build new space exploration company, new sustainable for-profit tech company, start massive search engine efforts, start giant initiative for for-profit cancer research and so on and on and on. There are endless challenges to work on and we have tons of great people who would wholeheartedly work on these if they were paid well. The only barrier is capital and leadership ambitions. Apple can really put the world 50 years ahead in tech if they chose to invest the money in these areas.

coldtea 11y ago
>It boggles my mind that Apple isn't using all these money for something better. What prevents them from, say, hiring up or luring away all the great CS/hardware PhDs, build a giant lab for robotics, build new space exploration company, new sustainable for-profit tech company, start massive search engine efforts, start giant initiative for for-profit cancer research and so on and on and on. That they know that money isn't everything when it comes to engineering, and just "getting the best" and "throwing tons of money" at a problem doesn't necessarily result in a good outcome? Especially if it's something outside their core expertise. Apple, for example, consistently failed with their social attemps (Ping?), and their online apps (mail, docs, etc) which are also-run. Microsoft poured a lot of money into Bing, and it's still something nobody would use willingly (except a couple outliers who would respond to this comment as if nobody means "no one at all" in casual conversation). And then there's the canonical example, Chandler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_(software) http://www.dreamingincode.com/ http://www.dreamingincode.com/ Or let's take another company who is "all over the place". For all of Google's efforts in PR-driven research, what has it given us that was a success? The Glass was a huge failure, their attempt at social (Google+) too, GAE is an also-run, Dart got top talent but never got anywhere, and same with several other attempts that linger on or have closed down. Judging from their revenue report, it's all about ads still. (Sure, there's the self-driving car, that might be marketable someday, but for that Apple is said to have a team working on it too) They also know that the company made all these money by having focus. Finding a new area to explore is OK. Being all over the place is a recipe for failure. And Apple they ain't gonna do it just because it's a geek's dream e.g. ("space exploration company").
- soperj 11y ago
  Google did well being all over the place as well... Youtube, maps, gmail, android, chrome. If they'd just stuck to search, where would they be now? And for that matter, where would we be now?
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Youtube and Maps were acquired, not Google projects. So they got something that worked already, instead of just throwing money to come up with something (which seldom worked for them outside of Search and Mail). Android was Google's (though that was acquired too IIRC, albeit in a much different form), but while a market favorite, it's not a profit source for Google and it's also losing control of it (with Samsung, Amazon etc spinning their own versions). Even for mobile ads, most of Google's revenue comes from iOS devices. >If they'd just stuck to search, where would they be now? Mostly where they are, revenue wise.
    - wodenokoto 11y ago
      Depends on how you define a profit source. The main purpose of Android was to get people to look at Google ads on their cellphones. They were very clear about this when they announced Android as free and open source.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        Sure, but even in this case, as I wrote: "Even for mobile ads, most of Google's revenue comes from iOS devices.". To have to write a whole OS, buy Moto for multi-billion dollars, get the most market share of the market even, and then lose money on it and still get your ad money most of your competitor's mobile OS you don't control, is a little failure-ish...
    - soperj 11y ago
      YouTube never made a dime before they bought them, was supposedly in a heap of trouble from all the media companies. It's now a profit center. Maps was a offline C++ project when they bought it... I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it was just acquired. I doubt they'd be at the same place actually, since they are better at search now because they know more about you. Their results have improved remarkably since 2005, and I don't think that would be the case if they just stagnated. With Chrome and Youtube, they also are a heavy influencer on web standards, and have done an amazing job at making those more open.
gitah 11y ago
The reason is Wall street. If Tim Cook invests heavily in R&D, earnings will tank and then activist investors will replace him to boost dividends and buy backs. Google can get away with this as the CEO has a lot of credibility and also class B voting shares.
- jnbiche 11y ago
  That's entirely it. IBM is in a similar situation now, where the CEO knows she has to spend some of their massive savings to survive, but is getting major pressure from Wall Street to cut costs and up dividends and stock price. Not sure why you were downvoted for this observation.
  - sumedh 11y ago
    I dont think you can blame Wall Street for IBM's performance. Buffett is a big investor in IBM, if the CEO wants she can use Buffett's influence to keep wall street at bay.
Htsthbjig 11y ago
"It boggles my mind that Apple isn't using all these money for something better. What prevents them from, say, hiring up or luring away all the great CS/hardware PhDs, build a giant lab for robotics, build new space exploration company, new sustainable for-profit tech company, start massive search engine efforts, start giant initiative for for-profit cancer research and so on and on and on." And what do you think Apple is exactly doing? My company have worked for them in the industrial side and let me tell you this strait: Apple could afford what nobody does, and they do. You have never wondered why Apple is the one along three manufacturers(Samsung and Microsoft) that could create aluminum computers and not cheap plastic ones?. The answer is billions invested in manufacturing plants. Apple always gets the best electronic components first because of being, for example, the biggest user of lithium batteries in the world(and the electronics that control it). They have a tremendous negotiation power and routinely screws one or two turns over manufacturers because they can. Apple designs their own hardware at chip level, they are working on cars, like Google. They park their money in debt instruments while doing the above like any other company does for getting liquidity. "Apple can really put the world 50 years ahead in tech if they chose to invest the money in these areas." I don't believe you understand the meaning of diminishing returns. If you have more sex with a woman you don't have kids faster than 9 months. When Microsoft competed against mosaic browser, Mosaic had like 20 employees or so, Netscape like 100, and Microsoft used like 2000. Microsoft browser did not get 20 times faster than Netscape.
- romanovcode 11y ago
  >You have never wondered why Apple is the one along three manufacturers(Samsung and Microsoft) that could create aluminum computers and not cheap plastic ones? So aluminum cases for computers is putting us 50 years ahead? Is it some kind of great innovation? I don't think so.

by sytelus 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago

>It boggles my mind that Apple isn't using all these money for something better. What prevents them from, say, hiring up or luring away all the great CS/hardware PhDs, build a giant lab for robotics, build new space exploration company, new sustainable for-profit tech company, start massive search engine efforts, start giant initiative for for-profit cancer research and so on and on and on. That they know that money isn't everything when it comes to engineering, and just "getting the best" and "throwing tons of money" at a problem doesn't necessarily result in a good outcome? Especially if it's something outside their core expertise. Apple, for example, consistently failed with their social attemps (Ping?), and their online apps (mail, docs, etc) which are also-run. Microsoft poured a lot of money into Bing, and it's still something nobody would use willingly (except a couple outliers who would respond to this comment as if nobody means "no one at all" in casual conversation). And then there's the canonical example, Chandler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_(software) http://www.dreamingincode.com/ http://www.dreamingincode.com/ Or let's take another company who is "all over the place". For all of Google's efforts in PR-driven research, what has it given us that was a success? The Glass was a huge failure, their attempt at social (Google+) too, GAE is an also-run, Dart got top talent but never got anywhere, and same with several other attempts that linger on or have closed down. Judging from their revenue report, it's all about ads still. (Sure, there's the self-driving car, that might be marketable someday, but for that Apple is said to have a team working on it too) They also know that the company made all these money by having focus. Finding a new area to explore is OK. Being all over the place is a recipe for failure. And Apple they ain't gonna do it just because it's a geek's dream e.g. ("space exploration company").

soperj 11y ago
Google did well being all over the place as well... Youtube, maps, gmail, android, chrome. If they'd just stuck to search, where would they be now? And for that matter, where would we be now?
- coldtea 11y ago
  Youtube and Maps were acquired, not Google projects. So they got something that worked already, instead of just throwing money to come up with something (which seldom worked for them outside of Search and Mail). Android was Google's (though that was acquired too IIRC, albeit in a much different form), but while a market favorite, it's not a profit source for Google and it's also losing control of it (with Samsung, Amazon etc spinning their own versions). Even for mobile ads, most of Google's revenue comes from iOS devices. >If they'd just stuck to search, where would they be now? Mostly where they are, revenue wise.
  - wodenokoto 11y ago
    Depends on how you define a profit source. The main purpose of Android was to get people to look at Google ads on their cellphones. They were very clear about this when they announced Android as free and open source.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Sure, but even in this case, as I wrote: "Even for mobile ads, most of Google's revenue comes from iOS devices.". To have to write a whole OS, buy Moto for multi-billion dollars, get the most market share of the market even, and then lose money on it and still get your ad money most of your competitor's mobile OS you don't control, is a little failure-ish...
  - soperj 11y ago
    YouTube never made a dime before they bought them, was supposedly in a heap of trouble from all the media companies. It's now a profit center. Maps was a offline C++ project when they bought it... I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it was just acquired. I doubt they'd be at the same place actually, since they are better at search now because they know more about you. Their results have improved remarkably since 2005, and I don't think that would be the case if they just stagnated. With Chrome and Youtube, they also are a heavy influencer on web standards, and have done an amazing job at making those more open.

gitah 11y ago

The reason is Wall street. If Tim Cook invests heavily in R&D, earnings will tank and then activist investors will replace him to boost dividends and buy backs. Google can get away with this as the CEO has a lot of credibility and also class B voting shares.

jnbiche 11y ago
That's entirely it. IBM is in a similar situation now, where the CEO knows she has to spend some of their massive savings to survive, but is getting major pressure from Wall Street to cut costs and up dividends and stock price. Not sure why you were downvoted for this observation.
- sumedh 11y ago
  I dont think you can blame Wall Street for IBM's performance. Buffett is a big investor in IBM, if the CEO wants she can use Buffett's influence to keep wall street at bay.

Htsthbjig 11y ago

"It boggles my mind that Apple isn't using all these money for something better. What prevents them from, say, hiring up or luring away all the great CS/hardware PhDs, build a giant lab for robotics, build new space exploration company, new sustainable for-profit tech company, start massive search engine efforts, start giant initiative for for-profit cancer research and so on and on and on." And what do you think Apple is exactly doing? My company have worked for them in the industrial side and let me tell you this strait: Apple could afford what nobody does, and they do. You have never wondered why Apple is the one along three manufacturers(Samsung and Microsoft) that could create aluminum computers and not cheap plastic ones?. The answer is billions invested in manufacturing plants. Apple always gets the best electronic components first because of being, for example, the biggest user of lithium batteries in the world(and the electronics that control it). They have a tremendous negotiation power and routinely screws one or two turns over manufacturers because they can. Apple designs their own hardware at chip level, they are working on cars, like Google. They park their money in debt instruments while doing the above like any other company does for getting liquidity. "Apple can really put the world 50 years ahead in tech if they chose to invest the money in these areas." I don't believe you understand the meaning of diminishing returns. If you have more sex with a woman you don't have kids faster than 9 months. When Microsoft competed against mosaic browser, Mosaic had like 20 employees or so, Netscape like 100, and Microsoft used like 2000. Microsoft browser did not get 20 times faster than Netscape.

romanovcode 11y ago
>You have never wondered why Apple is the one along three manufacturers(Samsung and Microsoft) that could create aluminum computers and not cheap plastic ones? So aluminum cases for computers is putting us 50 years ahead? Is it some kind of great innovation? I don't think so.