VanguardLH wrote:

> At one time I had Avast on my Android smartphone.

Hi Vanguard,

It's yet another Apple troll. And you fell for it. Trying to help the guy.
Every time they do this - it's a mirror of what's on their newsgroup.

On the Apple newsgroup, the news this week is that iPhones are being wiped
out, left and right, all over the world, falling prey to a huge assemblage
of hugely serious widespread exploited bugs way down to iOS 12 and beyond.

Almost all iPhones are literally toxic around the world due to these bugs.

The latest release fixes more than a dozen of these _huge_ holes, Apple
never found (the hackers always find them first - never Apple).

But only in iOS 16.

All the other releases are wide open and hugely vulnerable.

Half of all the zero days have been exploited already in the wild, with
Apple finding absolutely _zero_ of these bugs (Google finds most of them).

So, to get back at Android, they post this classic AV shit, and you fell
for it. Because you're trying to help. But they don't give a shit.

They _hate_ the iPhone is falling apart on them right before their eyes.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> At one time I had Avast on my Android smartphone.
>
> It's yet another Apple troll. And you fell for it.

You must have a x1000 pre-amp fitted on the input to your troll-o-meter.

In article <tqt5jj$29hi4$1@news.mixmin.net>, spam@nospam.com says...
>
> VanguardLH wrote:
>
> > At one time I had Avast on my Android smartphone.
>
> Hi Vanguard,
>
> It's yet another Apple troll. And you fell for it. Trying to help the guy.
> Every time they do this - it's a mirror of what's on their newsgroup.
>
> On the Apple newsgroup, the news this week is that iPhones are being wiped
> out, left and right, all over the world, falling prey to a huge assemblage
> of hugely serious widespread exploited bugs way down to iOS 12 and beyond.
>
> Almost all iPhones are literally toxic around the world due to these bugs.
>
> The latest release fixes more than a dozen of these _huge_ holes, Apple
> never found (the hackers always find them first - never Apple).
>
> But only in iOS 16.
>
> All the other releases are wide open and hugely vulnerable.
>
> Half of all the zero days have been exploited already in the wild, with
> Apple finding absolutely _zero_ of these bugs (Google finds most of them).
>
> So, to get back at Android, they post this classic AV shit, and you fell
> for it. Because you're trying to help. But they don't give a shit.
>
> They _hate_ the iPhone is falling apart on them right before their eyes.

If you are referring to my post Andy - I am not a troll.
My F-secure account is coming up for renewal and those on windows-10
group recommended that I dump it and use Defender alone, However they
got shirty when I asked for advice on android.
If they are right along with Vanguard, then it seems I should dum F-
secure altogether.

--
Jim the Geordie

In article <k3esblF8ul0U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > It's yet another Apple troll. And you fell for it.
>
> You must have a x1000 pre-amp fitted on the input to your troll-o-meter.

it's actually a feedback loop.

Andy Burns wrote:

>> It's yet another Apple troll. And you fell for it.
>
> You must have a x1000 pre-amp fitted on the input to your troll-o-meter.

Hi Andy Burns,

I'll heed your advice, as I can easily change my assessment given more
facts (which is a skill all logical adults should be able to perform).

I could very well be wrong - and I would be happy to be wrong - more so - I
very much respect your technical acumen - so I will back off this thread.

The warning is simply to be on the lookout for iTroll tendencies of...

a. A temporal occurrence is disturbing the iKooks on the iPhone ng
(currently iPhone exploits are rendering almost all iPhones toxic)

b. That "topic" shows up in reverse on the Android newsgroup by a newbie
(in this scenario, that would be the toxicity aspect of exploits)

c. Starting with too-simple Apple-centric inane "problems" sans detail
(it's often a "friend" and most often no phone/OS details provided)

d. Nonsensical hurdles are thrown up (always too-simple & Apple-centric)
(all of which lead the thread into the eventual payload punch line)

In the end, the guy "gives up" on the "complexity" or "insecurity" of
Android in favor of the nirvana that Apple promised them for the iPhone.

We'll just have to wait and see what the pudding tastes like, but
bear in mind an almost exact post was posted to the Windows newsgroup.

From: Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Android AV
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 00:00:28 -0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <MPG.3e3bd2f65fb660299896f9@news.eternal-september.org>
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.11 (GRC)
I have s paid-for F-secure security package which covers both my Desktop
and three androids.
Windows users tell me that it is unnecesary as Defender does the job
well enough. I am also told that AV on android is not needed?
If this is true I can scrap my F-secure package?
Is this tru?
--
Jim the Geordie
From: Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
Subject: Malware antivirus
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:53:49 -0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <MPG.3e3a8dee7183d57f9896f1@news.eternal-september.org>
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.11 (GRC)
My provider provides me with a security package (f-secure) at a reduced
price- which is coming up for renewal.
I just got to wondering whether M$ Defender and firewall might do the
same job for free - with perhapd one of the free antivirus preogrammes I
used to use.
I am on windows-10 and the only user of the computer
--
Jim the Geordie

As always, I'll give the poster the benefit of the doubt and will try to
help him, even as I am not convinced but I will heed your astute advice.
--
Adults can _change_ their behavior when heeding advice from others.

Jim the Geordie wrote:

> If you are referring to my post Andy - I am not a troll.
> My F-secure account is coming up for renewal and those on windows-10
> group recommended that I dump it and use Defender alone, However they
> got shirty when I asked for advice on android.
> If they are right along with Vanguard, then it seems I should dum F-
> secure altogether.

Hi "Jim the Geordie",

They did _not_ get "shitty"; they just told you that you strung them along
for dozens of posts before you then inexplicably added Android to the
problem set - which is a classic bait-and-switch approach - but even then,
they simply asked you to ask on the Android newsgroup - which you did.

I'm on most of the common operating system newsgroups, so I'm well aware of
your concurrent duplicate Windows AV post on the Windows newsgroup.

Note that never even once did you provide any link or even an adequate
detailed description of the tools you are using, which would have been a
courteously helpful bit of effort on your part to explain what methodology
you're considering ditching in favor of the native Android and Windows AV
solutions extent.

Here's my take on the progress of your post on the Windows newsgroup...

sticks immediately said he also uses the same tools as you do, yet the fact
is he posted mere minutes after you, and there's a long sordid history with
the "sticks" nym combined with nonsensical threads from the likes of
"MajorLanGod" and other nyms who post inane topics & then disappear.

Among others, Paul, as always, gave you very detailed answers to which you
didn't even appear to read, giving him a 7-word retort of no value at all.

Paul, to his credit, responded with _another_ detailed answer to your
7-word retort that didn't contain any word more than four letters, and you
haven't responded to that followup, which _you_ requested from him.

While Paul's help is, by his nature being as that of Vanguard & myself,
always kind-hearted and voluminous, wasbit gave you a short paragraph
answer, to which you responded by asking the exact question over again.

Mere seconds later, a new "John K.Eason" nym shows up as "sticks" had
before him, where that nym often shows up on "Commander Kinsey" bogus
posts, followed shortly thereafter by the classic "Ed Cryer" metoo.

After the well respected Andy Burns, Paul, wasbit, and Zaghadka (among
others) told you that Windows Defender works just fine, you then brought up
the classic iKooks' whataboutism....
*Yes, but... What about Android*

Bearing in mind, on the Apple newsgroups this week, the iPhone users have
been ground to bits on the sheer toxicity of the huge number of exploited
zero-day bugs that are reverberating around the world on both iOS & macOS
such that it was revealed Apple is _not_ patching what people think since
Apple lied about fixing old releases (they only patch a _single_ release!).

With the current events of the toxicity of Apple products lately...

*Perhaps you were somehow working diligently toward the eventual payload*
*that an AV that works on the Mac _also_ works on the iPhone maybe?*

Dunno yet... it's your payload... so let's just proceed, shall we?

To your question about Android AV, Andy Burns (who, like I, is on both
newsgroups), kindly responded nobody feels AV is needed on Android (to
which I avidly concur - and - trust me - I'd use it if I thought it was
needed as I'm no friend of Google)...

To your credit, you thanked Andy Burns, which, come to think of it, is NOT
a trait that the iKooks ever display so that's a counter indicator for me.

And the thread ends with Zagheda aptly pointing out that you never
mentioned the Android payload until you had them tell you that Windows
Defender works just fine - and that's all there is to look at as of now.

In summary, you asked a question on each newsgroup which, as Andy Burns
pointed out, I jumped on perhaps prematurely, as yet another iTroll.

In delving deeper into the chronology, I'll openly and publicly apologize
to you, saying I probably was wrong to accuse you of being an iTroll.

Please accept my apologies, and please do ask questions of the Android or
Windows newsgroups... but... I request that if you want to tie Android to
Windows, you do that in the beginning (like you did with the Android query,
and not like the Windows query which preceded it).

After having looked in further detail in your posts on the Windows
newsgroup, and after noting it's a classic topic much like the idiotic
"What Oil" threads on the bimmer newsgroups, it's a question _always_ asked
by people who make decisions based more on fear than on science.

Making all decisions based on fear alone is the hallmark of the iKooks.

Nonetheless, I want to repeat emphatically that I will declare that I made
a mistake - that there's a better chance than not than you being one of the
iKooks due to small, yet perceptible mannerisms (not the least of which was
your adult behavior just now in questioning my initial stated reaction).

Having poured my heart out above, as I am want to do because I am a
good-hearted person (quite unlike the iKooks, mind you, who are all
despicable people and cruel heartless ones at that), I will be taking your
posts seriously moving forward.

To wit... I will declare that I too used AV programs in the past on Windows
and I too used those "crap cleaner" style programs on Android in the past,
but I echo the sage advice from Paul, wasbit, Andy Burns, Zag, et al., that
neither is needed (IMHO) on either Android or Windows.

Given I deeply _care_ that people get the help they need, I will proceed...

Nobody I know who is driven by facts more so than by fear, uses _any_
antivirus over and above the native Google Play Protect system on Android,
and likewise on Windows, regarding the Windows Defender package - which has
come such a long way that I, myself, haven't had a virus in so long I can't
even remember when, and I've never had one on Android that I'm aware of.

As for Google Play Protect, if you're not aware, I've posted many a thread
on how it works, where it works completely _outside_ of the app called the
"Google Play Store" app, which I have disabled on my phone, even as Google
Play Protect (and, by the way, Google app updates) work just fine even
_without_ any mothership tracking account on the Android phone.

In all my tests of Google Play Protect, rest assured, it checks all apps on
a frequent schedule, even if _zero_ of your apps came from the Google Play
Store app itself (ask me how I know this).
<https://i.postimg.cc/FRjyyX7V/aurora19.jpg> Turn on Play Protect?

The native Android Google Play Protect feature checks not only for known
issues, but for heuristics

Here are some screenshots I posted a while ago in my test of this feature.
<https://i.postimg.cc/1tPHPWpK/gpprotect01.jpg> No Google Play account
<https://i.postimg.cc/vBzvmWhw/gpprotect02.jpg> Turn on Play Protect scan
<https://i.postimg.cc/fyRfSJqt/gpprotect03.jpg> Google Play App Updates
<https://i.postimg.cc/3xvCGM1B/gpprotect04.jpg> Turn on Play Protect?
<https://i.postimg.cc/1tQ9tPHG/gpprotect05.jpg> Manual GPProtect scan
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZKM4N6HK/gpprotect06.jpg> Change your defaults!
<https://i.postimg.cc/xd97fJ9j/gpprotect07.jpg> Find my phone location?

Here's my heartfelt sincere advice given you never provided any links which
describe the solution you're using, so I'm _not_ comparing the two systems,
but I am saying that, like many who have advised you already, there is no
need that I feel to use _anything_ other than the default native AV tools
on both Windows and Android.

If you want me to _compare_ my solution to that you're currently using,
then you need to have the common decency to provide me a link to a
description of your current solution as that would indicate that you are
serious and not just trolling us (which is important for you to establish).
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to sincerely address the issues that were raised.

nospam wrote:

>> It's far more cost-effective for Google and Apple to pay those bounties
>> than to hire an internal team to do the same thing.
>
> it's not an either/or. they very definitely use an internal team. the
> bounties are in addition to that.

Hi nospam,

Apple doesn't even have a QA team to speak of.

Why then does Apple have not only the lowest R&D expenditures, bar none, in
_all_ of high tech (with much smaller companies spending more R&D dollars),
and, at the same time, almost every Apple iOS release is inundated with a
huge number of heinous bugs shortly after any major dot-zero iOS release?

Even the VP of engineering, Federighi, has complained in leaked emails that
Apple's QA is essentially hugely understaffed, overworked, and underfunded.

Whistleblowers posted for years that Apple doesn't bother with adequate QA.
And...
*The fact no smartphone has more zero-day holes than iOS speaks for itself*

In a way, you holier-than-thou iKooks are right:
*No smartphone operating system is "holier" than iOS is*, by far.

Fully _half_ the many iOS zero-day holes found last year, nospam, were
actively exploited - as has been posted recently to the Apple newsgroup.

Worse - while Pegasus has _never_ been able to penetrate the Android kernel
NSO _many times_ has penetrated the iOS kernel (based on news reports).

To make matters worse, it appears Apple (yet again) lied in that Apple
recently was forced by security researchers to admit Apple has never even
once fully patched _any_ other release but the _single_ latest release.

Which means, nospam, that all your claims that Apple updates longer than
does Android, is a farce (much like Steve's FCC-coverage maps were).

Think about that before you respond, nospam.
*Everything you've claimed about iOS release updates - has been wrong!*

Not a single time has Apple _ever_ fully patched an older release, nospam.

Given all these facts, nospam, I think Steve's assumption is correct, where
I've said many times all the indicators are that Apple's QA doesn't exist.

Apple lets the world do the QA for them, which is why there are more
zero-day holes in iOS than in any other smartphone operating system extent.

In article <tqu73p$2evg0$1@news.mixmin.net>, spam@nospam.com says...
>
> Jim the Geordie wrote:
>
> > If you are referring to my post Andy - I am not a troll.
> > My F-secure account is coming up for renewal and those on windows-10
> > group recommended that I dump it and use Defender alone, However they
> > got shirty when I asked for advice on android.
> > If they are right along with Vanguard, then it seems I should dum F-
> > secure altogether.
>
> Hi "Jim the Geordie",
>
> They did _not_ get "shitty"; they just told you that you strung them along
> for dozens of posts before you then inexplicably added Android to the
> problem set - which is a classic bait-and-switch approach - but even then,
> they simply asked you to ask on the Android newsgroup - which you did.
>
> I'm on most of the common operating system newsgroups, so I'm well aware of
> your concurrent duplicate Windows AV post on the Windows newsgroup.
>
> Note that never even once did you provide any link or even an adequate
> detailed description of the tools you are using, which would have been a
> courteously helpful bit of effort on your part to explain what methodology
> you're considering ditching in favor of the native Android and Windows AV
> solutions extent.
>
> Here's my take on the progress of your post on the Windows newsgroup...
>
> sticks immediately said he also uses the same tools as you do, yet the fact
> is he posted mere minutes after you, and there's a long sordid history with
> the "sticks" nym combined with nonsensical threads from the likes of
> "MajorLanGod" and other nyms who post inane topics & then disappear.
>
> Among others, Paul, as always, gave you very detailed answers to which you
> didn't even appear to read, giving him a 7-word retort of no value at all.
>
> Paul, to his credit, responded with _another_ detailed answer to your
> 7-word retort that didn't contain any word more than four letters, and you
> haven't responded to that followup, which _you_ requested from him.
>
> While Paul's help is, by his nature being as that of Vanguard & myself,
> always kind-hearted and voluminous, wasbit gave you a short paragraph
> answer, to which you responded by asking the exact question over again.
>
> Mere seconds later, a new "John K.Eason" nym shows up as "sticks" had
> before him, where that nym often shows up on "Commander Kinsey" bogus
> posts, followed shortly thereafter by the classic "Ed Cryer" metoo.
>
> After the well respected Andy Burns, Paul, wasbit, and Zaghadka (among
> others) told you that Windows Defender works just fine, you then brought up

ShiRty NOT ShiTty - please read before going off on one!

--
Jim the Geordie

On 2023-01-26 08:28, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> It's far more cost-effective for Google and Apple to pay those
>>> bounties than to hire an internal team to do the same thing.
>>
>> it's not an either/or. they very definitely use an internal team. the
>> bounties are in addition to that.
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> Apple doesn't even have a QA team to speak of.
>
> Why then does Apple have not only the lowest R&D expenditures, bar none, in
> _all_ of high tech (with much smaller companies spending more R&D
> dollars),

Oh, you stepped in it there, Arlen!

"more R&D dollars"?

Really?

Which "much smaller companies" spend more "dollars" on R&D, Arlen?

Not a greater PERCENTAGE, but actual NUMBERS OF DOLLARS.

On 2023-01-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-01-26 08:28, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> It's far more cost-effective for Google and Apple to pay those
>>>> bounties than to hire an internal team to do the same thing.
>>>
>>> it's not an either/or. they very definitely use an internal team.
>>> the bounties are in addition to that.
>>
>> Hi nospam,
>>
>> Apple doesn't even have a QA team to speak of.
>>
>> Why then does Apple have not only the lowest R&D expenditures, bar
>> none, in _all_ of high tech (with much smaller companies spending
>> more R&D dollars),
>
> Oh, you stepped in it there, Arlen!
>
> "more R&D dollars"?
>
> Really?
>
> Which "much smaller companies" spend more "dollars" on R&D, Arlen?
>
> Not a greater PERCENTAGE, but actual NUMBERS OF DOLLARS.

Arlen is, as usual, completely full of shit. ; ) As of 2019, Apple
spends nearly $15 BILLION a year on R&D:

Apple is now one of the biggest investors in research and development,
and critics are wondering what it's getting for its money
<https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-research-and-development-self-driving-cars-augmented-reality-2019-3?op=1>
---
Apple has been massively ramping up its spending on research and
development in recent years.

It now spends nearly $15 billion a year, giving it one of the biggest
corporate R&D budgets in the world.
---

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Apple has been massively ramping up its spending on research and
> development in recent years.

It's no longer shocking that the iKooks _forget_ we discussed in detail
that Apple has the lowest R&D spend in _all_ similar high tech companies,
both in terms of percent of revenue, and, in some cases, in actual dollars
where much smaller companies outspend Apple in R&D dollars alone.

*Nobody spends _less_ than Apple in R&D*

We covered this in gory detail, but you iKooks can't ever learn anything.
You spend all your time brazenly denying facts even Apple doesn't deny.

Steve Jobs constantly had to come up with excuses for Apple's tiny R&D.
So does Tim Cook.

*Apple spends the _least_ in R&D of all similar high-tech companies*

On 2023-01-26 19:11, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Apple has been massively ramping up its spending on research and
>> development in recent years.
>
> It's no longer shocking that the iKooks _forget_ we discussed in detail
> that Apple has the lowest R&D spend in _all_ similar high tech companies,
> both in terms of percent of revenue, and, in some cases, in actual dollars
> where much smaller companies outspend Apple in R&D dollars alone.
>
>    *Nobody spends _less_ than Apple in R&D*

I'm sorry (not really), but that's complete bullshit.

On 2023-01-27, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Apple has been massively ramping up its spending on research and
>> development in recent years.
>
> Apple has the lowest R&D spend in _all_ similar high tech companies

Wrong. Apple spends $15 BILLION a year on research and development,
which is objectively more than every other high tech company. Arlen
*hates* facts about Apple. Apple lives in Arlen's head 24/7 rent free.
He is so *tormented* by a company he irrationally hates that he
literally spends every minute of every day trolling the Apple news
groups telling absolute *lies* in a lame attempt to disrupt the Apple
news groups. He is a pathetic and sad excuse of a human being.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Apple has the lowest R&D spend in _all_ similar high tech companies
>
> Wrong. Apple spends $15 BILLION a year on research and development,
> which is objectively more than every other high tech company.

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>

On 2023-01-27, Gronk <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> Apple has the lowest R&D spend in _all_ similar high tech companies
>>
>> Wrong. Apple spends $15 BILLION a year on research and development,
>> which is objectively more than every other high tech company.
>
> 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>

Talk about weak... You had to go all the way back to *2015* to find that
old, crufty out-of-date article. : D

Meanwhile back here in the present:

<https://www.statista.com/statistics/273006/apple-expenses-for-research-and-development/>

"Apple Inc. spent a record *26.25 billion* U.S. dollars on research and
development in its 2022 fiscal year, increasing by about four billion
from its 2021 total. The company’s massive research and development
budget over the years has led to the release of various famous products
including the iPhone, iPod, MacBook, and iPad."

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 1/27/2023 7:06 AM, Gronk wrote:

<snip>

> 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>

Good article.

The idea that a company should spend, unnecessarily, on more R&D, just
to increase the percentage of R&D in relation to revenue or profit is
ludicrous.

The whole idea is to leverage your R&D spending to increase volumes, and
hence revenue and profit so the R&D spending becomes a lower percentage.

Other companies would love to have such high revenue and profit that R&D
spending, as a percentage of expenditures, goes down.

On 2023-01-27, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/2023 7:06 AM, Gronk wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> 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>
>
> Good article.

No. Woefully out-of-date article from 2015.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-01-27 10:41, sms wrote:
> On 1/27/2023 7:06 AM, Gronk wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 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>
>
> Good article.

Only because you fell for something 7+ years old?

> The idea that a company should spend, unnecessarily, on more R&D, just
> to increase the percentage of R&D in relation to revenue or profit is
> ludicrous.

Quite right.

OTOH, leveraging cash, personnel and other assets through R&D in order
to improve the product line (in various ways) to improve future sales,
cashflow, profits, etc. while also denying commercial space to
competitors is not only wise, it is the duty of management to the company.

Setting that value (budget) is a subject in its own. Apple have
demonstrated decades of R&D planning that is heads and shoulders above
the rest.

Indeed they could easily _budget_ 5X their current R&D spend - but
couldn't execute that for simple lack of the availability of personnel
capable of doing anything fruitful with it. (More than that of course,
but ... brevity).

> The whole idea is to leverage your R&D spending to increase volumes, and
> hence revenue and profit so the R&D spending becomes a lower percentage.

Not at all. The percentage is arbitrary. The "whole idea" is not
limited to the simplistic goal of "to increase volumes" unless it's
bottles of sugar water, perhaps.

> Other companies would love to have such high revenue and profit that R&D
> spending, as a percentage of expenditures, goes down.

Again the percentage is arbitrary and not a goal.

When a company (of any kind) has an insight (or invention, or discovery
or any other especial advantage), the "percentage" becomes even more
meaningless if to spend beyond the usual to take full advantage of the
new thing, gain dominance and prevent competition from growing in that
new space is the end result.

In the end, the only thing that counts is what R&D you do and to what
ends. Being able to afford it is the icing on the cake. Minimizing R&D
as a percentage of revenue or profit for that sake alone is not a
parameter of success - merely a bauble number for some bad reporting or
for explaining to shareholders why the dividend isn't higher.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

Alan Browne wrote:

>> Good article.
>
> Only because you fell for something 7+ years old?

R&D spending has been historically low throughout Apple's corporate history.

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/

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/

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

Apple's R&D spending hits a low
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apples-randd-spending-hits-a-low-2011-10/

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

Apple spends way less than Microsoft on R&D
https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/technology/mobile/apple-rd-spend/index.html
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

Apple Research and Development Expenses by Year
https://dazeinfo.com/2019/09/27/apple-research-and-development-expenses-by-year-graphfarm/

Top Ten R&D spenders
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/

Apple, Inc. R&D: Too Little?
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/01/apple-inc-rd-too-little-or-just-right.aspx

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

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

> Again the percentage is arbitrary and not a goal.

The percentage is NOT arbitrary.
The percentage is NOT a goal.

The percentage is always measured against similar companies at similar times.

Apple R&D spend % versus five similar tech companies
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26888-comparisonpercentagerdofrev2relabel-l.jpg

Five similar tech companies' revenue & R&D costs compared for one year
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26885-07-comparisonrevrdcostsrelabel-l.jpg

Apple R&D % change over the years
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26884-06-yoychangeinrdannualcosts-l.jpg

Apple net income versus operating income & R&D costs over the years
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26881-01-annualnetincomeopincomerdc-l.jpg

Apple annual net sales, operating income, & R&D costs over the years
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26882-02-annualnetsalesopincrdcosts-l.jpg

Alan Browne wrote:

>> Good article.
>
> Only because you fell for something 7+ years old?

R&D spending has been historically low throughout Apple's corporate history.

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/

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/

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

Apple's R&D spending hits a low
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apples-randd-spending-hits-a-low-2011-10/

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

Apple spends way less than Microsoft on R&D
https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/technology/mobile/apple-rd-spend/index.html
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

Apple Research and Development Expenses by Year
https://dazeinfo.com/2019/09/27/apple-research-and-development-expenses-by-year-graphfarm/

Top Ten R&D spenders
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/

Apple, Inc. R&D: Too Little?
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/01/apple-inc-rd-too-little-or-just-right.aspx

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

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

> Again the percentage is arbitrary and not a goal.

The percentage is always being measured against similar companies.

Apple R&D spend % versus five similar tech companies
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26888-comparisonpercentagerdofrev2relabel-l.jpg

Five similar tech companies' revenue & R&D costs compared for one year
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26885-07-comparisonrevrdcostsrelabel-l.jpg

Apple R&D % change over the years
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26884-06-yoychangeinrdannualcosts-l.jpg

Apple net income versus operating income & R&D costs over the years
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26881-01-annualnetincomeopincomerdc-l.jpg

Apple annual net sales, operating income, & R&D costs over the years
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26882-02-annualnetsalesopincrdcosts-l.jpg

sms wrote:

>> 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>
>
> Good article.
>
> The idea that a company should spend, unnecessarily, on more R&D, just
> to increase the percentage of R&D in relation to revenue or profit is
> ludicrous.
>
> The whole idea is to leverage your R&D spending to increase volumes, and
> hence revenue and profit so the R&D spending becomes a lower percentage.
>
> Other companies would love to have such high revenue and profit that R&D
> spending, as a percentage of expenditures, goes down.

Steve is correct, IMHO, that the abysmally low R&D spending of Apple is a
calculus that Apple management made, and let's be clear, Apple is one of
the most successful companies in the world as a result of those executives.

What Apple is (IMHO), is no different than what Coca Cola is...

*A MARKETING company*

One of the best in the world.

Apple doesn't invent anything. Apple markets it.
*Apple can market cooked liver and make 50% profits off their customers*

And, the customers will gloat how much Apple made in profits off them!

*Now _that's_ marketing!*

On 2023-01-27 07:06, Gronk wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> Apple has the lowest R&D spend in _all_ similar high tech companies
>>
>> Wrong. Apple spends $15 BILLION a year on research and development,
>> which is objectively more than every other high tech company.
>
> 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>

From 2015....

....and comparing R&D spending to revenues is dumb.

On 2023-01-27 16:00, Gronk wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Good article.
>>
>> Only because you fell for something 7+ years old?
>
> R&D spending has been historically low throughout Apple's corporate
> history.
>
> 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/

But comparing R&D spending to revenue is just dumb.