I read this as &quot;how Apple relies on the R&amp;D of other companies&quot; For example, the quote about how IBM spent 100x as much on R&amp;D as Apple.<p>IBM has produced 6 Nobel prize winners that lead to revolutionary advancements in the industry which Apple &quot;innovation&quot; relies on. There would be no iPhone without the investments in basic research and process that has done been done at IBM, Bell Labs, Intel, et al. When I worked at IBM, I couldn&#x27;t wait to read the next IBM Systems Journal, it was the only piece of &quot;corporate&quot; internal communications in any company I&#x27;ve ever worked for that I looked forward to. I worked at IBM T.J. Watson in the 90s and one of the things told to us during orientation is that our budget, and our research was separate and independent from the commercial divisions of IBM and we were free to work on stuff that wasn&#x27;t necessarily commercially viable.<p>Something rubs me the wrong way about this article and Apple&#x27;s R&amp;D spending. R&amp;D spending is wasteful, it is a gamble, but every once in a while, it produces something incredible that leads to a huge net positive externality for the world. Some of the greatest inventions were done on research no one ever thought would have any commercial usage. These days politicians decry studies on bear DNA, or Shrimps on Treadmills, but who&#x27;s to say these won&#x27;t be vitally important things 20 years from now?<p>Part of relying on the research advancements of others, standing on the shoulders of giants, IMHO, is to take your success and your profits, and invest them, continuing a kind of scientific &quot;social contract&quot; for those that come after you.<p>Hoarding profits and bragging about how you can get away with making lots of money without having to hire many researchers is IMHO, a kind of parasitical attitude.<p>On top of that, is the tendency of people to credit Apple for all advancements, even those that were tweaks on hard work done by others. Do I credit Apple for their graphics performance, or Microsoft, AMD, PowerVR, NVidia, SGI, and everyone else who over the past decade have invested massively into consumer 3D acceleration? Do I credit Apple for amazing battery improvements, or Intel or Samsung investments into NAND? Is the A9X more important than TSMC&#x2F;Intel&#x2F;Samsung fab innovations? Or IBM&#x27;s introduction of STM, Magnetic Storage, Eximer Lasers?<p>Science and Innovation are social endeavors relying on a community of shared progress. The secretive way Apple does R&amp;D, their lack of publishing, and the way they promote this &#x27;lone genius&#x2F;inventor&#x27; view of the company rubs me the wrong way. I&#x27;m not saying Apple hasn&#x27;t innovated, especially in mobile software, but won&#x27;t should brag about not doing basic research, and banking a hundred billion in offshore cash to be used for what, stock buybacks?<p>Just what is wrong with say, spending some of that money to fund research into say, quantum computing or medicine? Does every damn thing have to be applicable to the next iPhone?