
What Apple’s Money Can Buy - jseliger
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/03/apple-dividend-tim-cook.html
======
ddrmaxgt37
"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?

------
adamjernst
Long-term research isn't in Apple's DNA. They did it before, and it almost
ended up killing them (cf. Knowledge Navigator).

They know this fact. Apple has been forthright about saying that they are a
company that takes technologies that are 3-5 years out and bring them to
fruition.

Look at Microsoft. They've spent hundreds of billions on advanced R&D. Where
did it get them?

