apple news/media reports
03/15/2006, 9:40am, EST
Wednesday, March 15th
Apple skimping on R&D budget?
Despite Apple's recent success, the company may be skimping on its research and development budget, which could impact its ability to bring new, innovative products to market, according to a new column at TheStreet.com. Troy Wolverton notes that Apple's R&D spending has fallen, as a portion of sales, every year since fiscal 2001, when the company devoted 8 percent. "Even while Apple's revenue has skyrocketed in recent years -- and even as expectations for future products and success have exploded -- what the company has spent on R&D has risen only modestly. As a portion of overall sales, such expenses have actually fallen by more than half. Though analysts generally praise Apple for its frugality, some warn there's a limit to how much longer the company can squeeze juicier near-term profits out of its R&D line."
Filed under: Apple
,
, 23
,
,
,
,
,

subscribe to comments
for this article
How much does iPod sales account for Apple's recent revenue gain?
What is Dell's R&D? What is Apple's R&D?
Whoever said that R&D must grow proportionally with revenues?
Is the writer brain dead? Doe he or she knows how to research?
Anything to generate hits. Maybe the reporter's/writer's job has changed.
If the company was still investing 8% of sales to R&D, the R&D budget for this quarter alone would be $128 million alone just from iPods.
Also, Apple could probably do better than Origami in the ultra-portable space, but it wouldn't matter if there's no market yet.
Apple undoubtedly has a bunch of stuff developed and on hold until the business model can support it; why spend more on R&D and increase the backlog?
Excluding iPod sales, Apple's R&D percentages for FY2005 and FY2004 were 8.50% and 9.93% respectively.
Sounds to me Apple is just more efficient and can do more with less.
More is not better.
Innovation cannot be scheduled versus dollars.
It distroyed NASA. It distroyed Missile Defense. It distroyed FEMA. It is distroying Sony and Microsoft.
Keep core small and smart and fast moving as it was at startup when energy and direction are set.
Mick
There is a certain size teams can get before it stops working or you end up with diminishing returns because larger teams often require more management overhead to keep things on track.
Apple has always poked fun at Intel chips and on chip graphic cards yet the Macbooks have both. Things are even worse in the design end of things. Let’s face it....white is getting pretty old. Apple had a real chance to set the new Intel Macs apart from any Mac or PC both in design and features yet they have fallen short on both counts. They are good computers but given a choice I would take the PowerPC counterpart. Many are also worried about the Intel machines lack of being able to run the classic environment. I could care less about classic, I have not used it in years but I think the Mac Intel sales would be much greater if classic would run in some form.