Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D (proportionate to revenue) than similar tech companies?

[Arlen Holder]

FACTS:

Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D
(proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"?

Do any of you even have an idea how _low_ that R&D percentage really is?
--
Bringing TRUTH to the Apple newsgroups via gentle application of fact.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-05 12:30 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> FACTS:
>
> Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D
> (proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"?

1. A question is not a fact. There can be facts assumed in questions.

2. Your assertion that Apple spends '"much less"' than others is not a
fact...

...until you prove it.

3. When you are one of the very largest companies in the world by
revenue, it makes sense that your R&D budget would be smaller in
proportion than it is for smaller companies.

4. Your use of '""' around 'much less' implies that you have a direct
source for that.

So I'll ask a question:

What is your source?

>
> Do any of you even have an idea how _low_ that R&D percentage really is?

Nope. Don't care.

What is the absolute amount?

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> 4. Your use of '""' around 'much less' implies that you have a direct
> source for that.
>
> So I'll ask a question:
>
> What is your source?

Hi Alan Baker,

Adults will note I _mirror_ the implied intent of the response...
o (which is a classic teaching technique to teach good manners)

Of course I have a source for all the facts I state here.
o My belief system is that of an adult, i.e., it's always _based_ on facts.
<https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/571530/aapl-rd-perc.png>

It's the apologists whose belief system can almost always be easily proved
to be unsupported by even a _single_ fact, which I know because they almost
always (if not always) fail the simplest test of any belief system's lack
of underlying facts, namely...
o Name just one fact supporting your belief system

But the question isn't whether it's a fact; the question is whether folks
would be surprised or not how _low_ that Apple R&D expenditure percentage
is as compared to revenue (which, admittedly, for Apple, is a huge number).

However, since you didn't use the word "Lies" or "Liar", I'll politely
respond to your request for the source of the facts upon which the question
is based...

SOURCE of the R&D expenditure percentage: (dated May 5, 2020, 12PM)
o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>
"The phrase core technology is quite loaded when it comes to Apple
and is reserved for just a handful of critical areas that underpin
the company's innovation and competitive differentiation."

"Anything that qualifies as a core technology will typically require
many, many years and billions upon billions of dollars of research
and development (R&D) investments."

"it's important for investors to recognize how expensive these
endeavors really are"

"Apple enjoys arguably the most efficient R&D spending in tech,
with those expenses historically accounting for a much smaller
proportion of revenue compared to other major tech companies.
That percentage has been marching steadily higher in recent years,
with Maestri explicitly attributing the greater in-sourcing of
core technologies as a primary driver."

In summary, are any of you surprised how comparatively low Apple's R&D
expenditures are in relation to their (admittedly high) revenue?
--
Two kinds of people are on Usenet: those adding value... & those who can't.

[badgolferman]

Arlen Holder <arlen...@any1example.com> wrote:
> FACTS:
>
> Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D
> (proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"?
>
> Do any of you even have an idea how _low_ that R&D percentage really is?

I do not have any facts, only conjecture. Considering Apple’s revenue is
quite significant perhaps that proportionate amount in dollars is also
quite significant and huge in comparison to other companies.

[sms]

That was clueless even for Arlen.

You have to take into account at least three other factors. First
margins. Apple's margins on phones are much higher than for Android
manufacturers. Second, Apple gets huge amounts of revenue from services,
something that Samsung, LG, etc., don't get. Third, volumes. The volume
of iPhones sold are higher than any one Android phone manufacturer, per
model family. So it's not that R&R spending is low, it's that revenue is
so high. It doesn't cost more R&D dollars to develop a phone that sells
a million units than a phone that sells 10 million units.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote :

> I do not have any facts, only conjecture. Considering Apple¢s revenue is
> quite significant perhaps that proportionate amount in dollars is also
> quite significant and huge in comparison to other companies.

Hi badgolferman,

Thanks for hazarding a guess as I know how risky that is on this newsgroup.

I ran into the percentage by accident while I was researching how much
Apple is spending to incorporate 5G "core technology" into the iPhone.

o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>

You are correct that Apple's revenue is high, so any percentage of a large
number is still a large number, but it shocked even me how low Apple's R&D
expenditures are in proportion to its revenue compared to other similar
tech companies.
<https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/571530/aapl-rd-perc.png>

Plenty of other tech companies have high revenue, for example, where we'd
have to dig deeper to see how much lower Apple's R&D expenditures (in
percentages) are than, oh, say, Microsoft, Samsung, Intel, Oracle, or
Google (aka Alphabet), all of whom have decently large revenue.
--
Usenet is a public archive of useful polite technical discussions.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-05 1:20 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> 4. Your use of '""' around 'much less' implies that you have a direct
>> source for that.
>>
>> So I'll ask a question:
>>
>> What is your source?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Adults will note I _mirror_ the implied intent of the response...
> o (which is a classic teaching technique to teach good manners)
>
> Of course I have a source for all the facts I state here.
> o My belief system is that of an adult, i.e., it's always _based_ on facts.
>  <https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/571530/aapl-rd-perc.png>

Since that doesn't list which company...

...nor compare it against any other company...

...nor use the words "much less"...

How does that answer the question about what your implied direct quote
of '"much less"' came from?

>
> It's the apologists whose belief system can almost always be easily proved
> to be unsupported by even a _single_ fact, which I know because they almost
> always (if not always) fail the simplest test of any belief system's lack
> of underlying facts, namely...
> o Name just one fact supporting your belief system

I note that I raised 4 points...

...and you deleted all but one.

>
> But the question isn't whether it's a fact; the question is whether folks
> would be surprised or not how _low_ that Apple R&D expenditure percentage
> is as compared to revenue (which, admittedly, for Apple, is a huge number).

You are the one who claimed you only state facts...

...then posted this:

'FACTS:

Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D

(proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"? '

So what are the 'facts' there, Arlen?

>
> However, since you didn't use the word "Lies" or "Liar", I'll politely
> respond to your request for the source of the facts upon which the question
> is based...
>
> SOURCE of the R&D expenditure percentage: (dated May 5, 2020, 12PM)
> o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
> <https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>

The phrase "much less" doesn't appear in that article.

>
>  "The phrase core technology is quite loaded when it comes to Apple
>   and is reserved for just a handful of critical areas that underpin
> the company's innovation and competitive differentiation."
>  "Anything that qualifies as a core technology will typically require
>   many, many years and billions upon billions of dollars of research
> and development (R&D) investments."
>
>  "it's important for investors to recognize how expensive these
> endeavors really are"
>
>  "Apple enjoys arguably the most efficient R&D spending in tech,   with
> those expenses historically accounting for a much smaller   proportion
> of revenue compared to other major tech companies.   That percentage has
> been marching steadily higher in recent years,   with Maestri explicitly
> attributing the greater in-sourcing of   core technologies as a primary
> driver."

None of which supports your implicit claim that Apple spends "much less".

>
> In summary, are any of you surprised how comparatively low Apple's R&D
> expenditures are in relation to their (admittedly high) revenue?

You've yet to produce a single thing that compares Apple's expenditures
to anyone.

Which means you've made an explicit lie when you state their
expenditures are "comparatively low"...

...Liar.

[Alan Baker]

Correct!

If one does the R&D and then sells only 100,000 phones, your R&D will be
higher on a per revenue basis than someone who does the same R&D and
then sells 1,000,000 phones.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote :

> That was clueless even for Arlen.
>
> You have to take into account at least three other factors. First
> margins. Apple's margins on phones are much higher than for Android
> manufacturers. Second, Apple gets huge amounts of revenue from services,
> something that Samsung, LG, etc., don't get. Third, volumes. The volume
> of iPhones sold are higher than any one Android phone manufacturer, per
> model family. So it's not that R&R spending is low, it's that revenue is
> so high. It doesn't cost more R&D dollars to develop a phone that sells
> a million units than a phone that sells 10 million units.

Steve,

*What four or five companies would you consider similar to Apple?*

R&D expenditures are a very adult point of view to understand a company...
o Whether you are capable of comprehending an adult point of view, or not.

You don't need the child-like insults to make your simple point.
o Even you can try to act like an adult on Usenet, Steve.

Further ignoring your always childish insults unbecoming of an adult...

The adult question is merely whether you're surprised or not...
o Given the cite claims Apple's R&D expenditures are the lowest
(in terms of percentage of revenue).

What we know is Apple's expenditures are said to be the lowest in tech.
o What we need to find out is what _similar_ companies spend on R&D.

What four or five companies would you consider similar to Apple?
o Samsung?
o Qualcomm?
o Hauwei?
o Broadcom?
o Toshiba?
o Nvidia?
o MediaTek?
o Micron?
o Intel?
o SK Hynix?
o Micron?

Acting like adults, let's compare companies you consider similar to Apple.
o What four or five companies would you consider similar to Apple?
--
Usenet is a public archive of polite interesting technical discussions.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-05 2:07 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote :
>
>> That was clueless even for Arlen.
>>
>> You have to take into account at least three other factors. First
>> margins. Apple's margins on phones are much higher than for Android
>> manufacturers. Second, Apple gets huge amounts of revenue from
>> services, something that Samsung, LG, etc., don't get. Third, volumes.
>> The volume of iPhones sold are higher than any one Android phone
>> manufacturer, per model family. So it's not that R&R spending is low,
>> it's that revenue is so high. It doesn't cost more R&D dollars to
>> develop a phone that sells a million units than a phone that sells 10
>> million units.
>
> Steve,
>
> *What four or five companies would you consider similar to Apple?*

Not his job to do that, Liar.

You state as fact that Apple's R&D expenditures are "comparatively low"...

...and yet offer nothing in comparison.

>
> R&D expenditures are a very adult point of view to understand a company...
> o Whether you are capable of comprehending an adult point of view, or not.
>
> You don't need the child-like insults to make your simple point.
> o Even you can try to act like an adult on Usenet, Steve.
>
> Further ignoring your always childish insults unbecoming of an adult...
>
> The adult question is merely whether you're surprised or not...
> o Given the cite claims Apple's R&D expenditures are the lowest
>  (in terms of percentage of revenue).
>
> What we know is Apple's expenditures are said to be the lowest in tech.
> o What we need to find out is what _similar_ companies spend on R&D.

"Are said to be"?

"Said to be" by whom, Liar?

Let's see the sources.

[Arlen Holder]

To spare adults the indignity, I will not respond to any poster who
brazenly calls all facts he simply doesn't like, to be lies by liars.

For the remaining _adults_ on this newsgroup...
o The question is apropos.

There is a _reason_ Apple spends far less on R&D than you might think.
o The question for adults on this newsgroup is _what_ that reason is.

HINT:
"Controlled R&D spending is part of Apple's constitution going back to the
80s: During the Steve Jobs era, products were often developed by small
teams of pirates. Jobs was fond of pointing to his small R&D spend as a key
difference between Apple and Microsoft. In 1998, Jobs told Fortune that
"innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have."
o *Why Apple Inc. Spends Less On Research And Development Than You Think*
<https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>
--
Very few people on this newsgroup can think with the mind of an adult.

[nospam]

In article <r8sjdd$94t$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Arlen Holder <arlen...@any1example.com> wrote:
> >> FACTS:
> >> Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D
> >> (proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"?
> >>
> >> Do any of you even have an idea how _low_ that R&D percentage really is?
> >
> >

> > I do not have any facts, only conjecture. Considering Appleąs revenue is

> > quite significant perhaps that proportionate amount in dollars is also
> > quite significant and huge in comparison to other companies.
>
> That was clueless even for Arlen.
>
> You have to take into account at least three other factors. First
> margins. Apple's margins on phones are much higher than for Android
> manufacturers. Second, Apple gets huge amounts of revenue from services,
> something that Samsung, LG, etc., don't get. Third, volumes. The volume
> of iPhones sold are higher than any one Android phone manufacturer, per
> model family. So it's not that R&R spending is low, it's that revenue is
> so high. It doesn't cost more R&D dollars to develop a phone that sells
> a million units than a phone that sells 10 million units.

not necessarily.

part of apple's r&d is manufacturing at scale, which requires some of
the r&d to be used so that the factories can make the phones at the
levels apple needs, more than 200 million a year, including custom
tooling and custom alloys, as well as recycling aluminum and components
and various other things.

for example, apple designed and built 'liam' and 'daisy' which
disassembles old iphones, part of the r&d that other companies do not
have.

<https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17258180/apple-daisy-iphone-recyclin
g-robot>

another part you're intentionally ignoring is that iphones are the
result of a *lot* more r&d than android phones. it's not even remotely
close.

first of all, apple designs its own processors and many other hardware
components specifically for iphones and ipads.

android device makers use whatever processors qualcomm offers.

chip design ain't cheap, certainly not at the level apple is doing it,
and the results are well ahead of what qualcomm has.

apple also writes ios, which also ain't cheap.

android device makers use whatever google releases, with relatively
minor changes specific to their hardware and maybe some branding, such
as samsung bloatware.

and then there's all of the other stuff, including face id, uwb, ar,
computational photography and much more.

android device makers are *still* trying to catch up to apple's face id.

google is the *only* device maker who after nearly three years, has
come close to apple's face id, except that their system initially
failed when the subject's eyes were closed, which was patched just a
month ago.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-05 2:19 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> To spare adults the indignity, I will not respond to any poster who
> brazenly calls all facts he simply doesn't like, to be lies by liars.

You mean to spare yourself the shame of not actually needing to address
the points that have been raised...

...Liar.

>
> For the remaining _adults_ on this newsgroup...
> o The question is apropos.
>
> There is a _reason_ Apple spends far less on R&D than you might think.
> o The question for adults on this newsgroup is _what_ that reason is.

1. You've now changed your thesis.

2. You're still not proving that you actually know whether what you
postulate is true. Posting something as if you know when you don't know...

...is lying.

>
> HINT:
> "Controlled R&D spending is part of Apple's constitution going back to the
> 80s: During the Steve Jobs era, products were often developed by small
> teams of pirates. Jobs was fond of pointing to his small R&D spend as a key
> difference between Apple and Microsoft. In 1998, Jobs told Fortune that
> "innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have."
> o *Why Apple Inc. Spends Less On Research And Development Than You Think*
> <https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>

Which has nothing to do with what you were initially claiming...

...does it...

...Liar?

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote :

> chip design ain't cheap, certainly not at the level apple is doing it,
> and the results are well ahead of what qualcomm has.

Hi nospam,

I think you should stop making unsubstantiated _excuses_ for Apple...
o And start to _understand_ why Apple R&D expenditures are so very low.

Did you even notice how exceptionally _low_ Apple R&D expenditures are?
o And yet, you claim, apparently, if I understood you, that they are high?

If they're so high, where are they?
o In other words, "Where's the beef?"

To your point of claiming Apple has "high" semiconductor R&D expenditures,
of the top ten companies in the semiconductor sector of over $1B in R&D
expenditures, where do you think Apple is on that list?

HINT:
o *Apple isn't even _on_ the list of top semiconductor spenders in R&D!

Here are the numbers from 2018, for example, of R&D to Sales:
o Intel 21.2% (spending of 13,098 $M)
o Qualcomm 20.2% (i.e., R&D spending of 3,450 $M)
o Broadcom 19.2% (i.e., R&D spending of 3,423 $M)
o Samsung 5.2% (i.e., R&D spending of 3,415 $M)
o Toshiba 20.0% (i.e., R&D spending of 2,670 $M)
o TSMC 8.3% (i.e., R&D spending of 2,656 $M)
o MediaTek 24.0% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,881 $M)
o Micron 7.5% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,802 $M)
o Nvidia 19.1% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,797 $M)
o Sk Kynix 6.5% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,729 $M)
<https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/>

You claimed Apple spends a lot of R&D on semiconductors, right?
o Where is Apple?

The _adult_ questions, apropos for this newsgroup, might be:
a. Are you surprised how _low_ Apple's R&D expenditures seem to be?
b. Why do you think they're so low compared to similar companies?

If you claim those 10 sector companies aren't "similar", then just tell us:
c. Which semiconductor sector companies do you claim _are_ similar?
--
Adults who comprehend technical topics are surprisingly rare on Apple ngs.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-05 3:03 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote :
>
>> chip design ain't cheap, certainly not at the level apple is doing it,
>> and the results are well ahead of what qualcomm has.
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> I think you should stop making unsubstantiated _excuses_ for Apple...
> o And start to _understand_ why Apple R&D expenditures are so very low.

Why don't you start by demonstrating that those expenditures are "so
very low", Liar?

>
> Did you even notice how exceptionally _low_ Apple R&D expenditures are?
> o And yet, you claim, apparently, if I understood you, that they are high?
>
> If they're so high, where are they?
> o In other words, "Where's the beef?"
>
> To your point of claiming Apple has "high" semiconductor R&D expenditures,
> of the top ten companies in the semiconductor sector of over $1B in R&D
> expenditures, where do you think Apple is on that list?
>
> HINT: o *Apple isn't even _on_ the list of top semiconductor spenders in
> R&D!
>
> Here are the numbers from 2018, for example, of R&D to Sales:
> o Intel 21.2% (spending of 13,098 $M)
> o Qualcomm 20.2% (i.e., R&D spending of 3,450 $M)
> o Broadcom 19.2% (i.e., R&D spending of 3,423 $M)
> o Samsung 5.2% (i.e., R&D spending of 3,415 $M)
> o Toshiba 20.0% (i.e., R&D spending of 2,670 $M)
> o TSMC 8.3% (i.e., R&D spending of 2,656 $M)
> o MediaTek 24.0% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,881 $M)
> o Micron 7.5% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,802 $M)
> o Nvidia 19.1% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,797 $M)
> o Sk Kynix 6.5% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,729 $M)
>  <https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/>
>
> You claimed Apple spends a lot of R&D on semiconductors, right?
> o Where is Apple?

But they're not a manufacturer of semi-conductors, Liar.

So it is utterly unsurprising that they aren't on a list of expenditures
by "semiconductor manufacturers"

>
> The _adult_ questions, apropos for this newsgroup, might be:
> a. Are you surprised how _low_ Apple's R&D expenditures seem to be?

To which the adult response is:

When have you shown that Apple's expenditures ARE low?

> b. Why do you think they're so low compared to similar companies?

Same question.

>
> If you claim those 10 sector companies aren't "similar", then just tell us:
> c. Which semiconductor sector companies do you claim _are_ similar?

Apple is NOT a semiconductor sector company, Liar?

[nospam]

In article <r8snri$iom$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@any1example.com> wrote:

> Here are the numbers from 2018, for example, of R&D to Sales:
> o Intel 21.2% (spending of 13,098 $M)
> o Qualcomm 20.2% (i.e., R&D spending of 3,450 $M)
> o Broadcom 19.2% (i.e., R&D spending of 3,423 $M)
> o Samsung 5.2% (i.e., R&D spending of 3,415 $M)
> o Toshiba 20.0% (i.e., R&D spending of 2,670 $M)
> o TSMC 8.3% (i.e., R&D spending of 2,656 $M)
> o MediaTek 24.0% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,881 $M)
> o Micron 7.5% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,802 $M)
> o Nvidia 19.1% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,797 $M)
> o Sk Kynix 6.5% (i.e., R&D spending of 1,729 $M)
> <https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/>
>
> You claimed Apple spends a lot of R&D on semiconductors, right?

no, i said they spend a lot on r&d.

part of that r&d is chip design, but not all of it. also included is os
development, metallurgy, robotics for the factories, etc.

> o Where is Apple?

at the top.

apple spent ~$4.3b in q3fy19, increasing every quarter, for more than
$17b per year.

<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/32268-55061-Screen-Shot-2019-0
8-06-at-13835-PM-l.jpg>

for the children who have not yet learned about addition, the first
*five* companies in your list added together is only $15.6b, quite a
bit less than just apple alone.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-05 1:54 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
>> I do not have any facts, only conjecture. Considering Apple¢s revenue is
>> quite significant perhaps that proportionate amount in dollars is also
>> quite significant and huge in comparison to other companies.
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> Thanks for hazarding a guess as I know how risky that is on this newsgroup.
>
> I ran into the percentage by accident while I was researching how much
> Apple is spending to incorporate 5G "core technology" into the iPhone.
> o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
> <https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>
>
>
> You are correct that Apple's revenue is high, so any percentage of a large
> number is still a large number, but it shocked even me how low Apple's R&D
> expenditures are in proportion to its revenue compared to other similar
> tech companies.
> <https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/571530/aapl-rd-perc.png>

And yet you have yet to produce ANY comparison.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote :

>> You claimed Apple spends a lot of R&D on semiconductors, right?
>
> no, i said they spend a lot on r&d.
>
> part of that r&d is chip design, but not all of it. also included is os
> development, metallurgy, robotics for the factories, etc.

Hi nospam,

*Apparently, nobody similar spends _less_ on R&D than does Apple!*

You can try to deflect the obvious - and you will try to make excuses for
Apple never being what MARKETING claimed it was - but it's still a
published fact that Apple spends the _least_ on R&D of "tech" companies.

If you want to show otherwise, simply provide a cite like I did.
o Otherwise, I'm the only one (so far) who has provided a factual cite.

FACT:
*Apparently, nobody similar spends _less_ on R&D than does Apple!*
o Even Steve Jobs waxed eloquently on how they spent almost nothing on R&D.

This proof of lack of R&D spending at Apple all fits the big picture,
actually, since we _know_ Apple doesn't sufficiently test their new
products, where this is just one example of that fact you're aware of:
o AppleInsider: *Initial failures of Apple's butterfly keyboard doomed it from the start*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/nY2jZrW3pgE>

I almost am beginning to slightly suspect the MARKETING budget dwarfs the
R&D budget, but I would need to look up the details to see if that's yet
another proof that Apple is a master at selling the _illusion_ of product.

Since no two companies have exactly the same market nor exactly the same
product line nor exactly the same total revenue, the percentage of total
revenue focused on R&D and the total spending on R&D are important metrics.

Since you brazenly dispute the given facts without choosing which companies
you wish us to compare Apple to, I ask you "Where's the beef?"

I ask you the _same_ question I asked of other adults on this thread...

Given we know Apple spends the _least_ on R&D of similar companies...
o *Which 4 or 5 similar companies do you want me to get the R&D spend for?
(1) ?
(2) ?
(3) ?
(4) ?
(5) ?
--
Apologists like nospam are masters at making excusees for Apple decisions.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-05 6:19 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote :
>
>>> You claimed Apple spends a lot of R&D on semiconductors, right?
>>
>> no, i said they spend a lot on r&d.
>> part of that r&d is chip design, but not all of it. also included is os
>> development, metallurgy, robotics for the factories, etc.
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> *Apparently, nobody similar spends _less_ on R&D than does Apple!*

So when you say "*Apparently"...

...is that an admission that you actually don't know the facts?

>
> You can try to deflect the obvious - and you will try to make excuses for
> Apple never being what MARKETING claimed it was - but it's still a
> published fact that Apple spends the _least_ on R&D of "tech" companies.

If it were actually a "published fact"...

...we would have seen your link already...

...Liar.

>
> If you want to show otherwise, simply provide a cite like I did.
> o Otherwise, I'm the only one (so far) who has provided a factual cite.

Right after you you show your cites, Liar.

>
> FACT:
> *Apparently, nobody similar spends _less_ on R&D than does Apple!*
> o Even Steve Jobs waxed eloquently on how they spent almost nothing on R&D.

There's that word again!

And this time you've officially paired it with "FACT".

>
> This proof of lack of R&D spending at Apple all fits the big picture,
> actually, since we _know_ Apple doesn't sufficiently test their new
> products, where this is just one example of that fact you're aware of:
> o AppleInsider: *Initial failures of Apple's butterfly keyboard doomed
> it from the start*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/nY2jZrW3pgE>

Sorry, but there is information there about what Apple's R&D spending is
in relation to anyone else.

You get that that's what "compare" means, right?

>
> I almost am beginning to slightly suspect the MARKETING budget dwarfs the
> R&D budget, but I would need to look up the details to see if that's yet
> another proof that Apple is a master at selling the _illusion_ of product.

Suddenly you need to look up details.

So you're admitting don't actually know the details at this moment.

>
> Since no two companies have exactly the same market nor exactly the same
> product line nor exactly the same total revenue, the percentage of total
> revenue focused on R&D and the total spending on R&D are important metrics.

They're important because they serve your argument...

...and you haven't even presented Apple's figures in comparison to
anyone else...

...Liar.

>
> Since you brazenly dispute the given facts without choosing which companies
> you wish us to compare Apple to, I ask you "Where's the beef?"
>

You're the one who has failed to produce the "beef", Liar.

> I ask you the _same_ question I asked of other adults on this thread...
>
> Given we know Apple spends the _least_ on R&D of similar companies...
> o *Which 4 or 5 similar companies do you want me to get the R&D spend for?

Given that you haven't produce a single shred of evidence about what
Apple spends in relation to similar companies...

...Liar.

[Andreas Rutishauser]

In article <r8set4$qr6$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

Arlen Holder <arlen...@any1example.com> wrote:

> FACTS:
>
> Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D
> (proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"?
>
> Do any of you even have an idea how _low_ that R&D percentage really is?

why do you sell 2 questions as FACTS?

[Alan Baker]

Hmmmmm....

I know this one!

Because he's a liar!

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :

> why do you sell 2 questions as FACTS?

Hi Andreas Rutishauser,

Are you just playing silly childish games with us, Andreas Rutishauser?
o *You tell us what you think the FACTS are in that article.*

We're trying to have an adult conversation, but you apologists are always
trying to play your silly childish games - which makes any adult
conversation on this newsgroup nearly impossible (witness trying to have
any adult conversation with Alan Baker as just one obvious example).

You'll notice the apologists like nospam always instantly go mum when you
ask them to back up even a _single_ claim that they make, whereas I always
back up all my claims with well-referenced cites (Hint: I'm an adult.)
o My believe system is based on facts.

Having said that...
o Let's see if it's even _possible_ to have an adult conversation with you.

Simple question (which almost all apologists fail instantly!)...

*Can you back up your own belief system with even a single fact?*
o Adults should be able to distinguish between a fact & an opinion, right?

While _multiple_ cites were referenced, here is only the _original_ cite,
which brought up the fact Apple R&D spending is the lowest by percentage:

o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>

*You tell us what you think the FACTS are in that article.*
o Note: It's childish for you to claim there are none since there are
plenty, many of which I didn't even discuss, plus, multiple other cites
backed up the claims in that article, so you can't play the Alan Baker game
that all facts you simply don't like are "lies by liars".
--
The problem with apologists is they turn into instant children when asked
to back up their belief systems (which tells us a lot about them).

Apologists almost always fail to back up their belief system with facts
(which proves, beyond doubt, their belief systems are wholly imaginary).

There usually isn't even a _single_ fact underlying their entire belief
system, which, we can get into later, is why they gravitate to extremely
highly marketed products - but that's a thesis for a later date.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Arlen Holder <arlen...@any1example.com> wrote :

> FACTS:
>
> Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D
> (proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"?
>
> Do any of you even have an idea how _low_ that R&D percentage really is?

Given I, personally, was shocked when I saw the numbers, which I repeat, I
accidentally arrived upon while researching what Apple was spending for 5G
technology (think the entire cost of a complete aircraft carrier from
scratch - just for 5G technology, according to an Apple-toting buddy of
mine).

I think we've established, as adults, two key related concepts:
a. Yes, Apple R&D spend is single-digit as a function of revenue
b. But Apple revenue is unusually large

We've established, after digging further, that Steve Jobs extolled the
virtues of low R&D in terms he put compared to innovation, where his claim
was that they're not directly related (AFAICT), which, to me, sounded like
spin since you can't prove his point with numbers but you decide _why_
Steve Jobs was so happy his R&D spend was so low.

We've also established, at least in 2018 numbers, Apple isn't even on the
charts when it comes to total spending for "semiconductor" companies (of
which Samsung was on the list, although with a small percentage also).

In short, there must be a _reason_ Apple R&D spend is so shockingly low.

HINT: It's sad I have to explain the difference between:
o FACT (which no adult would dispute)
o ASSESSMENT (otherwise known as an opinion, which adults can disagree on)

Fact:
o *Apple R&D spending as a percentage of revenue is in the single digits*.

Opinion:
o Even I'm shocked at how low R&D spending is as a percentage of revenue.

Question:
o Are you also surprised at how low Apple R&D spending % appears to be?

To that end,
The main question here was one of opinion since the facts appear obvious:

Here are the opinions (where opinions can reasonably differ among adults):
o badgolferman == perhaps the % is low simply because revenue is high
(i.e., a small % of a big # is still a big #)
o Steve === Arlen is "clueless" is his first premise
His second premise is that he thought of things Arlen didn't
Next he brings up good points, which are:
a. Apple margins are unusually large
b. Apple services revenue is also unusually large
c. Volume per model is also unusually large
(All of which I agree with & which are good points.)
o nospam === he claims Apple "spends a lot" on R&D
his claim is that revenue is high
(That's why we need comparison companies.)
o Alan Baker === he seems to claim all facts are "lies by liars"
o Andreas Rutishauser === he seems to avoid the question by claiming
that a question isn't a fact, where that's a strawman
since his statement, while true, has nothing whatsoever
to do with the point of this thread.

Maybe Apple is just _different_, which could be why the R&D % is so low.

The obvious question to glean insight as to why would be...
Q: *What _other_ similar companies can we compare Apple R&D spending to*?
o ?
o ?
o ?
o ?
o ?

NOTE: I'll just pick a few but I know the apologists will refute whatever I
pick; so I let _them_ pick the companies they think I should compare with.
--
AAPOR === as a percentage of revenue

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-06 7:20 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :
>
>> why do you sell 2 questions as FACTS?
>
> Hi Andreas Rutishauser,
>
> Are you just playing silly childish games with us, Andreas Rutishauser?
> o *You tell us what you think the FACTS are in that article.*

I'd like you to answer his question...

>
> We're trying to have an adult conversation, but you apologists are always
> trying to play your silly childish games - which makes any adult
> conversation on this newsgroup nearly impossible (witness trying to have
> any adult conversation with Alan Baker as just one obvious example).

Why bring up my name?

>
> You'll notice the apologists like nospam always instantly go mum when you
> ask them to back up even a _single_ claim that they make, whereas I always
> back up all my claims with well-referenced cites (Hint: I'm an adult.)
> o My believe system is based on facts.

We're asking you to back up your implicit claims that you seem to feel
insulated from having to support by having put them within questions.

>
> Having said that...
> o Let's see if it's even _possible_ to have an adult conversation with you.
>
> Simple question (which almost all apologists fail instantly!)...
>
> *Can you back up your own belief system with even a single fact?*
> o Adults should be able to distinguish between a fact & an opinion, right?

Why is that the basis for this conversation you suddenly want to have
and not his original question to you?

>
> While _multiple_ cites were referenced, here is only the _original_
> cite, which brought up the fact Apple R&D spending is the lowest by
> percentage:

Multiple cites were not offered.

> o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
> <https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the meaning of "historically"...


...and the fact that actual source...

(you get that the actual source for the words you didn't actually quote
was another article on the same site, right)

...only compared Apple to THREE other companies, and not one of them
resembles Apple very much.

Google.

Microsoft.

Motorola

<https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/01/27/apple-lesson-of-the-day-product-depth-vs-breadth.aspx>

>
>
> *You tell us what you think the FACTS are in that article.*

No.

YOU get to tell us what the facts are that you are depending on for YOUR
arguments.

> o Note: It's childish for you to claim there are none since there are
> plenty, many of which I didn't even discuss, plus, multiple other cites
> backed up the claims in that article, so you can't play the Alan Baker game
> that all facts you simply don't like are "lies by liars".

Liar.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-06 8:14 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Arlen Holder <arlen...@any1example.com> wrote :
>
>> FACTS:
>>
>> Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D
>> (proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"?
>>
>> Do any of you even have an idea how _low_ that R&D percentage really is?
>
> Given I, personally, was shocked when I saw the numbers, which I repeat, I
> accidentally arrived upon while researching what Apple was spending for 5G
> technology (think the entire cost of a complete aircraft carrier from
> scratch - just for 5G technology, according to an Apple-toting buddy of
> mine).

Well, if it came from a "buddy" then it must be right!

But let's look at the actual numbers.

The most recent US aircraft carrier to enter service is the "USS Gerald
R Ford", and it cost $13 billion.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier>

Apple's R&D expenses in its 2019 annual report were $16.2 billion.

<https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_financials/2019/ar/_10-K-2019-(As-Filed).pdf>

So you're claiming that they're spending more than 80% of their R&D on
5G modems?

>
> I think we've established, as adults, two key related concepts:
> a. Yes, Apple R&D spend is single-digit as a function of revenue
> b. But Apple revenue is unusually large

And given that there is no particular reason to gauge R&D in relation to
revenue...

>
> We've established, after digging further, that Steve Jobs extolled the
> virtues of low R&D in terms he put compared to innovation, where his claim
> was that they're not directly related (AFAICT), which, to me, sounded like
> spin since you can't prove his point with numbers but you decide _why_
> Steve Jobs was so happy his R&D spend was so low.

Ummmmm... ...where did you establish that, "Arlen"?

>
> We've also established, at least in 2018 numbers, Apple isn't even on the
> charts when it comes to total spending for "semiconductor" companies (of
> which Samsung was on the list, although with a small percentage also).

Because Apple isn't a semi-conductor company.

>
> In short, there must be a _reason_ Apple R&D spend is so shockingly low.

And there is that deceitful little shift from "it's low as a percentage
of total revenue" to "it's low".

>
> HINT: It's sad I have to explain the difference between:
> o FACT (which no adult would dispute)
> o ASSESSMENT (otherwise known as an opinion, which adults can disagree on)
>
> Fact:
> o *Apple R&D spending as a percentage of revenue is in the single digits*.

Yup. 6% as of the 2019 annual report.

>
> Opinion:
> o Even I'm shocked at how low R&D spending is as a percentage of revenue.

The "even I" part implies a fact that you haven't established.

>
> Question:
> o Are you also surprised at how low Apple R&D spending % appears to be?
>
> To that end, The main question here was one of opinion since the facts
> appear obvious:
>
> Here are the opinions (where opinions can reasonably differ among adults):
>   o badgolferman == perhaps the % is low simply because revenue is high
>                     (i.e., a small % of a big # is still a big #)

Which is correct.

I don't think a comparison needs to be done.

Apple is spending more than $16 billion a year in R&D for what is...

...in FACT...

...a very small range of products; many of which share much in common.

It sells a very large number of those products at prices that are almost
always among the highest within other products of the same type,
resulting in greater revenue.

And just to be clear, Apple spends nearly as much on R&D ($16.2 billion)
as it does on selling, general, and administrative expenses ($18.2
billion)...

...combined.

[Andreas Rutishauser]

Hi Arlen

In article <r8uh2o$quc$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

Arlen Holder <arlen...@any1example.com> wrote:

> In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :
>
> > why do you sell 2 questions as FACTS?
>
> Hi Andreas Rutishauser,
>
> Are you just playing silly childish games with us, Andreas Rutishauser?
> o *You tell us what you think the FACTS are in that article.*

I don't see any facts in that article, that is why I am asking.

> Simple question (which almost all apologists fail instantly!)...
>
> *Can you back up your own belief system with even a single fact?*

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

> *You tell us what you think the FACTS are in that article.*

I see no facts in the article/post I'm responding to, that is why I'm
asking.
What you snipped:
----------

> FACTS:
>
> Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D
> (proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"?
>
> Do any of you even have an idea how _low_ that R&D percentage really is?

----------

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :

> I see no facts in the article/post I'm responding to

Hi Andreas Rutishauser,

/Are you seriously claiming there were no facts in the given cites?/

Just as Alan Baker simply can't process NNTP headers like a normally
facultative adult should be able to, you, just as inexplicably, can't
process _multiple_ facts in these cites which I already provided?

o *Why Apple Inc. Spends Less On Research And Development Than You Think*
<https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>

o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>

o AppleInsider: *Initial failures of Apple's butterfly keyboard doomed it from the start*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/nY2jZrW3pgE>

o *Top Ten R&D spenders increased spend by 6% last year*
<https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/>

Andreas Rutishauser,
o /Are you seriously claiming you don't see _any_ facts in those cites?/
--
Apologists always prove to be shockingly immune to the most basic facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-06 10:35 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :
>
>> I see no facts in the article/post I'm responding to
>
> Hi Andreas Rutishauser,
>
> /Are you seriously claiming there were no facts in the given cites?/
>
> Just as Alan Baker simply can't process NNTP headers like a normally
> facultative adult should be able to, you, just as inexplicably, can't
> process _multiple_ facts in these cites which I already provided?

What processing is required to know than when you claim:

'I don't use a newsreader, as my newsreader is "vim" & "telnet",'

But the header in that message says:

'User agent NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)'


What processing is required to know that you're lying, Liar?

[Arlen Holder]

Is an adult discourse on an important topic even _possible_ on this ng?

It may simply an intelligent discussion is impossible on this Apple ng
o But I'm still going to try to state the facts & assess them accordingly

As an adult.

FACTS for adults to Assess: (Source AppleInsider)
o Apple R&D spend % versus five "similar" tech companies
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26888-comparisonpercentagerdofrev2relabel-l.jpg>
o Five "similar" techcompanies' revenue & R&D costs compared for one year
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26885-07-comparisonrevrdcostsrelabel-l.jpg>
o Apple R&D % change over the years
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26884-06-yoychangeinrdannualcosts-l.jpg>
o Apple net income versus operating income & R&D costs over the years
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26881-01-annualnetincomeopincomerdc-l.jpg>
o Apple annual net sales, operating income, & R&D costs over the years
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26882-02-annualnetsalesopincrdcosts-l.jpg>
etc.

The adult goal here is to obtain the facts & then assess those facts
o Like all normal adults (who care about Apple) should be capable of doing

Instead of denying all facts outright or claiming facts never exist
o Which is what apologists are only capable of doing...

*Adults will note it's surprising (to me) how _low_ Apple R&D % spend is.*
o Hence, I'm simply seeking more information to process that known fact

While some of the apologists continually prove to utterly lack even the
most basic of adult cognitive processing skills (they can't even process
NNTP headers correctly, for God's sake)...

Other apologists brazenly deny the obvious, while still others simply turn
a blind eye to any and all facts they simply don't like...
o Alan Baker (people _that_ clueless to facts aren't even supposed to exist!)
o Andreas Ruthishauser (people that oblivious to facts scare me that they exist)
o nospam (he knows the facts full well; he simply _hates_ the facts exist)

The _remaining_ adults on this newsgroup will note this thread is an
attempt to assess the facts, where adults like Steve & badgolferman assess
that the R&D spend is so low simply because, in essence, the revenue is so
high (summarized as I already covered their suggestions in detail).

However, even those rare adults on this Apple ng may be _shocked_ to
ascertain that the revenue is likely _not_ the reason, as, for example,
*Apple spends $2B _less_ than Samsung* on R&D, even as the facts show
*Apple _crushes_ Samsung_ on revenue* (by over $46 billion!).

This may be the case, that Apple is extraordinarily efficient with R&D.
o *However, my assessment is Apple doesn't spend _enough_ in R&D testing!*

Hence, it's an adult endeavor to figure out why Apple R&D spend is so low.
o Which we can begin to do by looking at "similar" tech companies.

The apologists like nospam appear to "claim" R&D spending compared to
"similar" tech companies is high, and yet, so far, the apologists (as
usual) fail to back up their (imaginary) believe system by even naming the
"similar" tech companies that we should be comparing them to.

Hence, I'll attempt dig deeper into the facts, so as to better understand,
and hence assess, that which the apologists themselves simply deny exists.

AppleInsider in 2017 chose these 5 companies to compare Apple R&D spend to:
o 1st & 2nd place: Intel & Facebook
o 2nd & 3rd place: Alphabet & Microsoft
o 4th & 5th place: Samsung & *Apple*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26888-comparisonpercentagerdofrev2relabel-l.jpg>

Here are some notable quotes of facts & assessment of those facts,
all of which, once you begin to understand Apple, make complete sense:

NOTE: These quotes are verbatim, in order of appearance in the article.

"There is no obvious correlation between an increase in R&D spending
for the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, or the iPad - or any one of the
updates to any of the lines."

"income has varied a great deal mostly because of release cycles and
seasonality & Apple's research budget has increased linearly with time."

"In fact, as Apple's revenue has increased, it's percentage of its revenue
it has spent on R&D year-over-year has been on a relatively flat
trajectory since 2009."

[Apple] "feels no particular need to keep the [R&D] spending proportionate
with the growth of the company."

"Apple spends $2 billion *less* per year on research and development than
Samsung, and still crushes it on revenue by over $46 billion per year."

"The gaps are wide in percentage of revenue Apple spends on R&D versus
its competitors as well."

And perhaps this is the most important verbatim assessment of the facts:
"At present, Apple's cash hoard is four full years of Alphabet's revenue,
and seven years of Facebook's, so there's a lot of leeway to expand R&D.*

*It just doesn't choose to*"

SOURCE:
o *Though Apple's R&D spending is massive, it's still more efficient than all other competitors*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/08/09/though-apples-rd-spending-is-massive-its-still-more-efficient-than-all-other-competitors>
--
Intelligent adult discourse may be nearly impossible on this Apple ng.

[Andreas Rutishauser]

Hi Arlen

In article <r906nb$1tai$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Arlen Holder <arlen...@any1example.com> wrote:

> In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :
>
> > I see no facts in the article/post I'm responding to

> /Are you seriously claiming there were no facts in the given cites?/

there are no cites in the post I'm responding to (which you keep
snipping)

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :

> there are no cites in the post I'm responding to (which you keep
> snipping)

Hi Andreas Rutishauser,

Then read the entire thread _before_ claiming facts don't exist.
o You apologists are like little children when it comes to facts.

What's surprising is how far apologists go out of their way to avoid facts!

Facts such as these...

o *Though Apple's R&D spending is massive, it's still more efficient than all other competitors*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/08/09/though-apples-rd-spending-is-massive-its-still-more-efficient-than-all-other-competitors>

o *Why Apple Inc. Spends Less On Research And Development Than You Think*
<https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>

o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>

o AppleInsider: *Initial failures of Apple's butterfly keyboard doomed it
from the start*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/nY2jZrW3pgE>

o *Top Ten R&D spenders increased spend by 6% last year*
<https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/>

etc.

What's strange about apologists is not so much they brazenly deny facts
o But that they incessantly claim that facts they don't like don't exist

It's as if apologists completely ignore all facts they won't like - simply
so that they "can" maintain their wholly imaginary belief systems intact.
--
What shocks me is how trivial it is to prove apologists _immune_ to facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 10:00 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :
>
>> there are no cites in the post I'm responding to (which you keep
>> snipping)
>
> Hi Andreas Rutishauser,
>
> Then read the entire thread _before_ claiming facts don't exist.
> o You apologists are like little children when it comes to facts.
>
> What's surprising is how far apologists go out of their way to avoid facts!
>
> Facts such as these...
> o *Though Apple's R&D spending is massive, it's still more efficient
> than all other competitors*
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/08/09/though-apples-rd-spending-is-massive-its-still-more-efficient-than-all-other-competitors>

So how does that support the thesis you want to build without actually
saying it, Liar?

>
>
> o *Why Apple Inc. Spends Less On Research And Development Than You Think*
> <https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>

"But does it matter? It's hard to deny the quality and popularity of the
products that Apple has brought to market during the past five years.
Its most recent major launch, the Apple Watch, is easily the bestselling
smartwatch of all time, and the iPhone 6 may be the most profitable
single product in history."

Or does that quote contain facts you DON'T want to talk about, Liar?

:-)

>
>
> o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
> <https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>
>
>
> o AppleInsider: *Initial failures of Apple's butterfly keyboard doomed it
> from the start*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/nY2jZrW3pgE>
>
> o *Top Ten R&D spenders increased spend by 6% last year*
> <https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/>

Among a group of companies that doesn't include Apple.

Wow.


Oh, and simply providing links to articles does not meet the test for
providing "Facts such as these"...

...Liar.

>
> What's strange about apologists is not so much they brazenly deny facts
> o But that they incessantly claim that facts they don't like don't exist

Like you're trying to ignore the fact that you're a liar, you mean...

...Liar?

[Andreas Rutishauser]

Hi Arlen

In article <r9437k$mqr$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

Arlen Holder <arlen...@any1example.com> wrote:

> In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :
>
> > there are no cites in the post I'm responding to (which you keep
> > snipping)

> Then read the entire thread _before_ claiming facts don't exist.

I beg you pardon? You start a thread with:

----------
> FACTS:
>
> Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D
> (proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"?
>
> Do any of you even have an idea how _low_ that R&D percentage really is?
----------

You must have a really strange logic...

[ArIen Holder]

In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :

> I beg you pardon? You start a thread with:

Andreas Rutishauser,

Stop playing your incessant silly apologists' games of denying that all
facts you don't like don't exist.
o Just stop it.

Act like an adult.

Denying that facts exist because you don't like the facts that do exist...
o ... is what defines you as an apologist, Andreas Rutishauser.

Facts are still facts whether or not you're _immune_ to the facts, Andreas.
o *The adult question here is how do you personally _assess_ the facts.*

Specifically the facts with respect to Apple's technology peers.
"Saccognhi noted that among the ten biggest tech companies in the
U.S. by market cap, Apple was the largest but ranked sixth in
terms of R&D spending."

This is an _adult_ question... whether you _like_ that question, or not.

The simple question is: *Are you surprised the facts are what they are?*
o Why or why not?

A tenet of being an adult is the capability to _assess_ surprising facts...
o Where, usually, _other_ adults will assess those same facts similarly.

For example, here's another set of analysis who assess the given facts:
o *Analysts Criticize Apple Over Low R&D Spend*
<https://www.pymnts.com/apple/2018/apple-spend-more-rd/>
"While Apple's current R&D spending is large, our benchmarking analysis
suggests that Apple appears to still be underspending on R&D today,
perhaps by a factor of 2x"

"Our analysis suggests that normalized R&D spend for a tech company
of a similar gross margin profile might actually be closer to 10%,
suggesting that Apple could double its R&D and be relatively inline
with peers."

*In summary, given R&D % spend facts, what do you think of those facts?*
--
The apropos and very adult question here is what do you think of the facts.

[Arlen Holder]

The question is not about the facts, since the facts are the facts.
o The apropos adult question is what you _think_ about those facts.

FACTS:
<https://www.gannett-cdn.com/usatoday/editorial/graphics/2016/02/0202616-Apple-RnD.jpg>
<https://www.gannett-cdn.com/usatoday/editorial/graphics/2016/02/0202616-Apple-RnD2.jpg>
"Apple's R&D as a percentage of revenue is tiny compared
with other large companies"

The permanent record will show that nospam said:
"no, i said they spend a lot on r&d"

And then, the permanent record will show I ask nospam to tell us whom to
compare with that has a similar or lower spend % than does Apple.
o The record shows, as always, apologists can't back up their statements.

Why can't apologists ever back up their belief system with facts?
o I don't know why.

They just can't.

Moving forward to find the answer to the conundrum, the apropos _adult_
question here is whether the facts on R&D % spend surprise you.

o Why or why not?

I'll state up front that the facts surprised me.

When I dug into why Apple R&D % spend is so low, I found _plenty_ of
professionals (who are paid to analyze companies) are also surprised.

Here's just a general purpose article from USA Today for the hoi polloi:
o *Apple is a cheapskate when it comes to R&D*
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/02/26/apple-cheapskate-when-comes-rd/80987938/>

"The maker of smartphones spent $8.6 billion on research and development
last calendar year. That might sound impressive on its face - and it was
mentioned by Apple CEO Tim Cook during Friday's meeting for shareholders.
But Apple's R&D spending accounts for just 3.6% of the company's revenue,
putting it *dead last in terms of spending* among the 10 most valuable
companies in the Standard & Poor's 500"

"Apple also ranks 98th out of the 132 companies in the Standard & Poor's
500... as a percentage of revenue. That puts Apple at almost in the
bottom quartile in terms of R&D spending among all the S&P 500..."

The question is not about the facts, since the facts are the facts.
o The apropos adult question is what you _think_ about those facts.
--
The way apologists handle facts that don't fit into their belief system is
they simply deny the facts exist, which keeps their imaginary belief system
intact (but which makes apologists utterly immune to thought processes that
MARKETING didn't feed them).

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-09 6:33 a.m., ArIen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote :
>
>> I beg you pardon? You start a thread with:
>
> Andreas Rutishauser,
>
> Stop playing your incessant silly apologists' games of denying that all
> facts you don't like don't exist.
> o Just stop it.

Why lie by snipping out his whole point, Liar?

You did start a thread with:

<quote>

FACTS:

Does it surprise any of you Apple spends "much less" in R&D
(proportionate to revenue) than "other major tech companies"?

Do any of you even have an idea how _low_ that R&D percentage really is?

</quote>

Neither of those is a fact. Both of them are questions which imply
things that you've yet to demonstrate are facts.

>
> Act like an adult.

Back at you. Stop lying all the time, Liar.

[Arl1n H0lder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> Back at you. Stop lying all the time, Liar.

Hi Alan Baker,

*Fundamentally, you teach me why Apple MARKETING is so successful.*

See the examples below of what I learned just in the past few days.
o Simply by being helpful on Usenet - sans calling everyone a "liar".

You apologists assess facts very strangely, where it's only those in the
first quadrant of the Dunning Kruger skills assessment range who might form
such a belief system that they're an "expert on absolutely everything".

I'm well educated for sure - but I never claimed to "know everything".
o The fact you formed your belief system out of nothing, is kind of scary.

However, given your stated belief system was based on exactly zero (0)
facts, I'll ignore your completely imaginary belief system and simply ask
again what you're capable of discussing as an adult.

Can you discuss as an adult, oh, say, Android or iOS mobile apps, perhaps?

As just a trivially simple example, on the Android ng moments ago, I posted
this helpful response to The Real Bev who asked about battery percentage:
o *Battery usage*, by The Real Bev
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/MyMZnpRaQO0>

Notice I didn't immediately claim all her queries were "lies by liars".

Likewise, when Yousuf Khan asked a question, I helped him (as did others):
o *Why doesn't my local contacts sync with my Google Contacts?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/UmART77J9PU>

Notice adults don't claim every fact anyone posts is a "lie by liars"...
o Only apologists do that.

In fact, as an adult, instead of claiming she was a "liar", I tried to
reproduce her results, which I think I did (she hasn't responded yet):
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwLByM5z/battery01.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/k4ZH0mnJ/battery02.jpg>

Likewise, while helping Yousuf Khan, I also didn't simply claim he was a
"liar", where, again, I learned a lot about the contacts apps:
<https://i.postimg.cc/QtTs7bXX/contact01.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/4NFxDg84/contact02.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/8cFn3D7r/contact03.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/DwjbgYWR/contact04.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq4j1tz3/contact05.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/15Y8T82M/contact06.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/3wXk659p/contact07.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/prWb6KNF/contact08.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/hPCzMrFV/contact09.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/c4XKLcXr/contact10.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/63W0q4q9/contact11.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/02swXQH0/contact12.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/1Xj5QvrF/contact13.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/Df1YWxJf/contact14.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/G90FGXd1/contact15.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/K8SZHjbN/contact16.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/QMNCLgWc/contact17.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/d1bJ0GDH/contact18.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/bwJWKsws/contact19.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/X7DQBxnY/contact20.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/cLb12VZN/contact21.jpg>

And, in fact, Frank Slootweg's response prompted me to research an
ancillary topic, where, again, I didn't call Frank a "liar":
o *How do you find the unique app package real name on your Android device?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/4TcwyAcSPqM>

I simply reproduced his results - where - again - I learned a lot.
<https://i.postimg.cc/GhqjyfY5/apk01.jpg>

In summary, instead of calling everyone a "liar", I spent my time helping
them, and, in that process, I learned more myself.

By way of contrast, every second spent with you would be a waste of
everyone's time, where the only reason I spend _any_ time with you, Alan
Baker, is that people like you, Lewis, Jolly Roger, BK, Your Name, et al.,
teach me a lot about how the strange mind of the Apple apologist actually
works.

*Fundamentally, you teach me why Apple MARKETING works so well on you.*
--
What I learn from apologists is that people like they are, actually exist.
o Their _entire_ belief system is based on exactly zero (0) facts.
No wonder Apple doesn't need to spend a high % on R&D product innovation.
o MARKETING need only feed these apologists exactly what they want to hear.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-09 7:18 p.m., Arl1n H0lder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> Back at you. Stop lying all the time, Liar.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,

Hi, Liar!

I'm going to ignore everything you wrote below and repeat:


But a "User agent" has no utility for tracking anyone, Liar...

...because the same string is used by so many people.

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Learn to deal with it.

[For Alan Baker]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 09:17:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> And now Apple is "dead last" in R&D, are they, Liar?

Adults will notice apologists always brazenly deny facts...
o Facts never seem to fit into the apologists' imaginary belief systems.

Why do apologists _hate_ facts about Apple?

o I don't know why.

I suspect apologists _hate_ that Apple never is what MARKETING feeds them.

GRAPHS:
o *Apple R&D spend % versus five "similar" tech companies*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26888-comparisonpercentagerdofrev2relabel-l.jpg>
o *Five "similar" tech companies' revenue & R&D costs compared for one year*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26885-07-comparisonrevrdcostsrelabel-l.jpg>
o *Apple R&D % change over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26884-06-yoychangeinrdannualcosts-l.jpg>
o *Apple net income versus operating income & R&D costs over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26881-01-annualnetincomeopincomerdc-l.jpg>
o *Apple annual net sales, operating income, & R&D costs over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26882-02-annualnetsalesopincrdcosts-l.jpg>

CITES:
o *Apple's R&D spending hits bottom as percentage of revenue*
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-r-d-spending-hits-bottom-as-percentage-of-revenue/>

o *Apple is a cheapskate when it comes to R&D*
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/02/26/apple-cheapskate-when-comes-rd/80987938/>

o *Analysts Criticize Apple Over Low R&D Spend*
<https://www.pymnts.com/apple/2018/apple-spend-more-rd/>

o *Apple's R&D spending hits a low*
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apples-randd-spending-hits-a-low-2011-10/>
o *Is Apple Underinvesting in R&D?*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/12/is-apple-underinvesting-in-rd-what-steve-jobs-woul.aspx>
o *Apple spends way less than Microsoft on R&D*
<https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/technology/mobile/apple-rd-spend/index.html

o *Why Apple Inc. Spends Less On Research And Development Than You Think*
<https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>

o *Apple Research and Development Expenses by Year*
<https://dazeinfo.com/2019/09/27/apple-research-and-development-expenses-by-year-graphfarm/>
o *Top Ten R&D spenders*
<https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/>
o *Apple, Inc. R&D: Too Little?*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/01/apple-inc-rd-too-little-or-just-right.aspx>

o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>

o *Apple R&D spending is "efficient" versus its competitors*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/08/09/though-apples-rd-spending-is-massive-its-still-more-efficient-than-all-other-competitors>
etc.

See also:
o *Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D (proportionate to revenue) than similar tech companies?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk>
--
Why do apologists always brazenly deny facts they _hate_ about Apple?