Frank Fox, thoughtful, insightful article further ponders thoughts by entrepreneur and open source advocate Matt Asay in the Register about how many billions Microsoft and Nokia have wasted on R&D versus M&A (Marketing and Advertising?) Not real clear from "the Register" article what is M&A.
IMHO, it is not R&D versus M&A, it is maximizing the value of human capital per dollar spent. That is the logical reason that buying startups generally holds a much higher potential for payback than than office buildings filled with cubicles filled with employees tasked with grinding out the next great innovation. There is no complex task that can be reduced to the mindless concept that dollars spent equals level of human effort expended.
Apple derives far more value from their 3 percent of spending than others from their 15 percent budgets because they understand that the real value in the equation is maximizing the value of human capital. It is the people and the vision at Apple that makes the difference.
Apple users, by definition are not concerned with maintaining status quo. They seek better ways to use technology and are handed better technology to use. It is impossible to see the horizon when looking at your feet, or worse yet, back down the trail from whence you came. How many times and ways can an office suite be re-imagined and re-coded primarily for incompatibility before the world wakes up to a better way? Apparently not much longer.
Apple users arrive at Apple by actively seeking better technology rather than listening to Microsoft and Linux honks decry Apple to extremes that defy logic. Then they become the most satisfied tech users on the planet by a wide margin.
Apple R&D
- Not interested in status quo
- Full access to the latest forward looking technologies
- Stable technology base, no re-inventing the wheel, maximize use of well proven and long standing open source technologies.
- A clear mission, simplify technology so people can "just use it".
Open source fans do themselves a disservice when they decry Apple as evil rather than pointing to a large part of Apple success story being the packaging over 100 top open source tools into the most user friendly "distro" in the history of open source. Red Hat co-founder Bob Young, after leaving Red Hat, at the recommendation of Red Hat engineers, got a Mac . Linus Torvalds is a notorious fan of Apple hardware.
Apple R&D did not have to worry about faux conceptualization of DRM for plastic media like Blu-Ray. They were already focused past that, on better methods of pure digital distribution. Apple R&D did not focus on pumping out boxed set video games for sale through retail distribution channels. Once again, they realized the future is digital distribution. Apple R&D did focus on turning mobile phones into full fledged digital communication devices. People seem to like that. The list goes on for the formerly less than 5 percent, now 10 percent who "get it".
Far from peaking, Apple appears to have finally achieved enough critical mass to begin enjoying widespread acceptance. It is a paradigm shift much like moving from horses to automobiles. At first the automobile scared the horses, then side by side compatibility.. When tablets, Touches, and mobile phones, all legitimate ways to access digital information are added into the mix, the critical mass and the paradigm shift are already here.
Our kids will not be using printers. I am old enough to remember that the "paperless office" was the original promise about three decades ago. Somewhere the eyes dropped from the horizon down to the feet. The status quo was easier and much more immediately profitable. A door opened wide for those who will innovate forward toward the original goal.
Apple R&D stays focused on the horizon. Maximizing human capital with clear vision of a better future from the very products they are developing obviously works 100's of percent better than raw budgeted dollars to spend. Real geeks don't care nearly so much about dollars as they doing about extending the limits of what is perceived as possible.