Alan Browne wrote:

>> What is the percentage that Apple spends in R&D compared to the others?
>
> Irrelevant. That is the point of the paragraph above. Apple cannot be
> compared to "the others" in these terms.

I knew you didn't know as the percentage is always reported to be very low.
And Apple can be compared to many companies such as Samsung & Microsoft.

>>> Outside their lane: They could simply buy Chrysler, Ford or GM for
>>> example and that would solve the "car making" part of that sort of
>>> venture. (And yeah, I know they are unlikely to do that).
>>
>> How much in dollars does Apple typically spend in yearly total R&D costs?
>
> Download the annual report like anyone else does.
They are frequently reported because low R&D is a common theme with Apple.
What's more important is that you didn't and still don't know them.

But you not knowing anything didn't stop you from saying they were high.

On 2022-03-11 9:51 a.m., Nic wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> What is the percentage that Apple spends in R&D compared to the others?
>>
>> Irrelevant. That is the point of the paragraph above. Apple cannot be
>> compared to "the others" in these terms.
>
> I knew you didn't know as the percentage is always reported to be very low.
> And Apple can be compared to many companies such as Samsung & Microsoft.
>
>>>> Outside their lane: They could simply buy Chrysler, Ford or GM for
>>>> example and that would solve the "car making" part of that sort of
>>>> venture. (And yeah, I know they are unlikely to do that).
>>>
>>> How much in dollars does Apple typically spend in yearly total R&D costs?
>>
>> Download the annual report like anyone else does.
>
> They are frequently reported because low R&D is a common theme with Apple.
> What's more important is that you didn't and still don't know them.

Wrong:

<https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/gx/en/insights/innovation1000.html>

And wrong:

<https://spendmenot.com/blog/top-rd-spenders/>

And wrong:

<https://www.statista.com/statistics/265645/ranking-of-the-20-companies-with-the-highest-spending-on-research-and-development/>

>
> But you not knowing anything didn't stop you from saying they were high.

Oh, look!

It's another "Arlen" sockpuppet!

On 2022-03-08, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> And no one but a few kooks try to claim that these are anything but
> Apple's intellectual property.
>
> 'The Apple M1 Ultra is Apple's latest piece of bespoke silicon, and it's
> the most powerful M1 chip the company has ever made.
>
> Unveiled during the March 2022 Apple Event, the M1 Ultra is an
> incredibly powerful SoC (system-on-chip). It's basically two M1 Max
> chips paired together, using a heretofore "hidden feature" of the Max:
> special die-to-die interconnection tech that lets two Max chips work
> together for all-new heights of power.
>
> Apple calls this interconnection technology "UltraFusion", and it
> appears to be enabling Apple silicon to reach unprecedented levels of
> performance.'
>
><https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m1-ultra-everything-we-know-so-far>
>
> 'We were expecting to see an all-new M2 chip unveiled early in 2022, not
> a new top-end M1 chip like the Ultra, but you won't catch me
> complaining; given that the M1 Max blew my expectations out of the water
> in 2021, the prospect of a new chip that's effectively twice as powerful
> is very exciting.'

Doesn't matter. If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
then access/running speed is ZERO. A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
bicyles.

On 2022-03-11 12:39 p.m., lew wrote:
> On 2022-03-08, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> And no one but a few kooks try to claim that these are anything but
>> Apple's intellectual property.
>>
>> 'The Apple M1 Ultra is Apple's latest piece of bespoke silicon, and it's
>> the most powerful M1 chip the company has ever made.
>>
>> Unveiled during the March 2022 Apple Event, the M1 Ultra is an
>> incredibly powerful SoC (system-on-chip). It's basically two M1 Max
>> chips paired together, using a heretofore "hidden feature" of the Max:
>> special die-to-die interconnection tech that lets two Max chips work
>> together for all-new heights of power.
>>
>> Apple calls this interconnection technology "UltraFusion", and it
>> appears to be enabling Apple silicon to reach unprecedented levels of
>> performance.'
>>
>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m1-ultra-everything-we-know-so-far>
>>
>> 'We were expecting to see an all-new M2 chip unveiled early in 2022, not
>> a new top-end M1 chip like the Ultra, but you won't catch me
>> complaining; given that the M1 Max blew my expectations out of the water
>> in 2021, the prospect of a new chip that's effectively twice as powerful
>> is very exciting.'
>
> Doesn't matter. If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
> then access/running speed is ZERO. A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
> are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
> supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
> the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
> bicyles.

In what way does the OS sandboxing prevent an app from utilizing greater
processor speeds and additional cores?

Don't be afraid to speak in technical language.

lew wrote:

> If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
> then access/running speed is ZERO. A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
> are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
> supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
> the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
> bicyles.

What I find hilarious is the iKooks tout that the M1 is "TSMC Silicon" as if
it's a big deal when Intel has been making "Intel Silicon" since forever,
and it's actually fab'd by Intel, not by TSMC.

Nobody in the Windows world needs to care who fabs the chip in order to
maintain their personal sense of self esteem. Only the iKooks do that.

As for the iOS apps not getting out of the sandbox, it's even worse.

Android has tons of apps that don't even exist on iOS, where there isn't
anything the other way around that doesn't already exist on even a five year
old Android device.

Your comparison becomes...
"A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, AND a portable spaceship, etc, are faster
than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the supermarket
faster than me unless they break the law and the portable spaceship
doesn't even exist on the iOS platform".

BTW, it's important to note _why_ iOS is crippled in terms of apps.

The answer is devilishly simple but it's not hardware related.
Apple's hardware is only somewhat substandard to Android hardware.

The difference is the ecosystem since the MARKET creates the apps.
Not Google. Not Apple.

The market creates the apps that people want.
But iOS doesn't allow the market to put those apps on the App Store.

Hence, the real reason iOS is so crippled compared to Android is simply
*Apple _restricts_ what the apps can do; Google can't.*

In article <t0gc24$nur$1@dont-email.me>, lew
<citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:

> > And no one but a few kooks try to claim that these are anything but
> > Apple's intellectual property.
> >
> > 'The Apple M1 Ultra is Apple's latest piece of bespoke silicon, and it's
> > the most powerful M1 chip the company has ever made.
> >
> > Unveiled during the March 2022 Apple Event, the M1 Ultra is an
> > incredibly powerful SoC (system-on-chip). It's basically two M1 Max
> > chips paired together, using a heretofore "hidden feature" of the Max:
> > special die-to-die interconnection tech that lets two Max chips work
> > together for all-new heights of power.
> >
> > Apple calls this interconnection technology "UltraFusion", and it
> > appears to be enabling Apple silicon to reach unprecedented levels of
> > performance.'
> >
> ><https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m1-ultra-everything-we-know-so-far>
> >
> > 'We were expecting to see an all-new M2 chip unveiled early in 2022, not
> > a new top-end M1 chip like the Ultra, but you won't catch me
> > complaining; given that the M1 Max blew my expectations out of the water
> > in 2021, the prospect of a new chip that's effectively twice as powerful
> > is very exciting.'
>
> Doesn't matter. If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
> then access/running speed is ZERO. A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
> are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
> supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
> the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
> bicyles.

you're confusing bottlenecks with sandboxes, that apple silicon is less
bottlenecked than other platforms and that other operating systems are
also sandboxed.

nospam wrote:

> that apple silicon is

Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.

But otherwise, just call it the M1 (like we used to use the word "Pentium").

It's amazing that only the low-self-esteem iKooks feel the need to promote
meaningless marketing terms which imply that Apple makes the silicon.

Nobody on Windows uses "Intel Inside" in every sentence about their PCs just
because Intel thinks it's a big deal that they fab'd the CPU they designed.

The fact you even use that idiotic term speaks volumes about the _control_
Apple marketing moves (admittedly brilliantly executed) over your mindset.
--
When I buy gas at Costco, I don't go around touting "techron inside" even as
I'm well aware polyetheramines are the same level as they are at Chevron.

On 2022-03-11 2:46 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> lew wrote:
>
>>  If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
>> then access/running speed is ZERO.  A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
>> are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
>> supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
>> the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
>> bicyles.
>
> What I find hilarious is the iKooks tout that the M1 is "TSMC Silicon"
> as if

No one touts that.

TSMC is a chip foundry that makes chips for many companies.

What is touted is that APPLE designs the chips.

> it's a big deal when Intel has been making "Intel Silicon" since forever,
> and it's actually fab'd by Intel, not by TSMC.

Oops!

Wrong again!

<https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/tsmc-to-build-3nm-fab-for-intel-chips/>

>
> Nobody in the Windows world needs to care who fabs the chip in order to
> maintain their personal sense of self esteem. Only the iKooks do that.

Apple DESIGNS chips.

>
> As for the iOS apps not getting out of the sandbox, it's even worse.
>

Is it really?

> Android has tons of apps that don't even exist on iOS, where there isn't
> anything the other way around that doesn't already exist on even a five
> year
> old Android device.

LOL

>
> Your comparison becomes...  "A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, AND a portable
> spaceship, etc, are faster
>   than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the supermarket
>   faster than me unless they break the law and the portable spaceship
> doesn't even exist on the iOS platform".
>
> BTW, it's important to note _why_ iOS is crippled in terms of apps.

It isn't.

On 2022-03-11 3:50 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> that apple silicon is
>
> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.

It's Apple Silicon...

....because Apple designs it.

On 2022-03-11 12:51, Nic wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> What is the percentage that Apple spends in R&D compared to the others?
>>
>> Irrelevant. That is the point of the paragraph above. Apple cannot be
>> compared to "the others" in these terms.
>
> I knew you didn't know as the percentage is always reported to be very low.
> And Apple can be compared to many companies such as Samsung & Microsoft.

I could care less about the percentage that Apple invest in RD&E for
reasons mentioned earlier: they couldn't spend more than they do if they
tried.

As Charlie Munger observed: "Apple is an ungodly well managed company."

IOW, where and how they invest is extremely disciplined and focused.

And that's how they've taken Apple Silicon so far and so audaciously.

>>>> Outside their lane: They could simply buy Chrysler, Ford or GM for
>>>> example and that would solve the "car making" part of that sort of
>>>> venture. (And yeah, I know they are unlikely to do that).
>>>
>>> How much in dollars does Apple typically spend in yearly total R&D costs?
>>
>> Download the annual report like anyone else does.
>
> They are frequently reported because low R&D is a common theme with Apple.
> What's more important is that you didn't and still don't know them.
>
> But you not knowing anything didn't stop you from saying they were high.

I never, ever said it was high in percentage. It is still a high amount
of dollars. And it gets results as Apple's growing sales and cash pile
attest to.

Really, you don't even understand what you're writing.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

On 2022-03-11 15:39, lew wrote:
> On 2022-03-08, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> And no one but a few kooks try to claim that these are anything but
>> Apple's intellectual property.
>>
>> 'The Apple M1 Ultra is Apple's latest piece of bespoke silicon, and it's
>> the most powerful M1 chip the company has ever made.
>>
>> Unveiled during the March 2022 Apple Event, the M1 Ultra is an
>> incredibly powerful SoC (system-on-chip). It's basically two M1 Max
>> chips paired together, using a heretofore "hidden feature" of the Max:
>> special die-to-die interconnection tech that lets two Max chips work
>> together for all-new heights of power.
>>
>> Apple calls this interconnection technology "UltraFusion", and it
>> appears to be enabling Apple silicon to reach unprecedented levels of
>> performance.'
>>
>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m1-ultra-everything-we-know-so-far>
>>
>> 'We were expecting to see an all-new M2 chip unveiled early in 2022, not
>> a new top-end M1 chip like the Ultra, but you won't catch me
>> complaining; given that the M1 Max blew my expectations out of the water
>> in 2021, the prospect of a new chip that's effectively twice as powerful
>> is very exciting.'
>
> Doesn't matter. If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,

The Max and Ultra are for the Mac.

Thanks for playing.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

On 2022-03-11 4:13 p.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2022-03-11 12:51, Nic wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> What is the percentage that Apple spends in R&D compared to the others?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.  That is the point of the paragraph above.  Apple cannot be
>>> compared to "the others" in these terms.
>>
>> I knew you didn't know as the percentage is always reported to be very
>> low.
>> And Apple can be compared to many companies such as Samsung & Microsoft.
>
> I could care less about the percentage that Apple invest in RD&E for
> reasons mentioned earlier: they couldn't spend more than they do if they
> tried.
>
> As Charlie Munger observed: "Apple is an ungodly well managed company."
>
> IOW, where and how they invest is extremely disciplined and focused.
>
> And that's how they've taken Apple Silicon so far and so audaciously.

Didn't you read:

Arlen knows that Apple Silicon is actually TMSC Silicon.

(where's the smirk emoji hiding?)

😏

nospam wrote:

> different people value different features.

There's more to "valuing" different features, nospam.
There's this little thing called "intelligent selection".

Meaning not selection by pure marketing gimmickry (as you always propose).
But selection using knowledge of what the feature actually does for you.

To that point, I find it interesting that most (if not all) Apple users fall
for the marketing ploy that iPhones are said (by Apple) to be often updated.

So, to back fill their fears, Apple owners would buy an iPhone SE 3 over an
iPhone 11 just because Apple will summarily drop support later for the SE.

Yet, if Apple owners really cared about software support, they'd go Android.
As iOS is mostly updated because every fix requires an entire new release.

Worse, Apple summarily stops updating the iPhone after a short time period.

Apple owners don't realize Android now updates most of the OS forever.
(Forever here meaning there is no end of life date that is published.)

Even the most obvious layers that most people think about are updated in
some cases for five years now, which includes the Qualcomm drivers.

The rest is updated forever over the Google Play {Services,System,Store}.
--
REFERENCE:
*Google just surrendered its update authority to Samsung*
<https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-vs-google-updates-3104089/>

*How long does GOOGLE say they'll update the two dozen core modules in project mainline?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/_ZUiLVtLbsg/m/q7-iaUiwBgAJ>

On 2022-03-11 4:33 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> different people value different features.
>
> There's more to "valuing" different features, nospam.
> There's this little thing called "intelligent selection".
>
> Meaning not selection by pure marketing gimmickry (as you always propose).
> But selection using knowledge of what the feature actually does for you.
>
> To that point, I find it interesting that most (if not all) Apple users
> fall
> for the marketing ploy that iPhones are said (by Apple) to be often
> updated.
>
> So, to back fill their fears, Apple owners would buy an iPhone SE 3 over an
> iPhone 11 just because Apple will summarily drop support later for the SE.
>
> Yet, if Apple owners really cared about software support, they'd go
> Android.
> As iOS is mostly updated because every fix requires an entire new release.
>
> Worse, Apple summarily stops updating the iPhone after a short time period.
>
> Apple owners don't realize Android now updates most of the OS forever.
> (Forever here meaning there is no end of life date that is published.)
>
> Even the most obvious layers that most people think about are updated in
> some cases for five years now, which includes the Qualcomm drivers.
>
> The rest is updated forever over the Google Play {Services,System,Store}.

Apple phones that still received the last iOS:

Everything from the iPhone 6s forward.

The 6s was released more than 6 years ago.

In message <t0go07$75d$2@dont-email.me> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-03-11 3:50 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> that apple silicon is
>>
>> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
>> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.

> It's Apple Silicon...

> ...because Apple designs it.

Sorry, Dipshit Troll is immune to facts.

If Apple's chips were actually TSMC's, they would be selling them. they
are not because they cannot, the design is Apple's, the IP is Apple's,
and Apple pays TSMC to manufacture their chips to their specs, just like
they pay Foxconn to assemble their phones.

Dipshit Troll doesn't understand how manufacturing works.

--
'I thought dwarfs didn't believe in devils and demons and stuff like that.'
'That's true, but... we're not sure if they know.'

On 2022-03-12 12:25:27 +0000, Lewis said:

> Dipshit Troll doesn't understand how manufacturing works.

I think his idea is this herd doesn't understand how marketing works.

On 3/9/2022 7:55 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> "have to"?  They couldn't physically spend RD&E as a "typical industry
> percentage" even if they wanted to - unless they got way outside their
> lane (and that would entail acquiring entire large companies to do so).

True.

The goal is to have volumes and revenue so huge that R&D expense, as a
percentage, goes down.

If they want to expand into new product categories then R&D expenses
would go up from the current 8% or so.

On 2022-03-12 12:20, sms wrote:
> On 3/9/2022 7:55 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> "have to"?  They couldn't physically spend RD&E as a "typical industry
>> percentage" even if they wanted to - unless they got way outside their
>> lane (and that would entail acquiring entire large companies to do so).
>
> True.
>
> The goal is to have volumes and revenue so huge that R&D expense, as a
> percentage, goes down.
>
> If they want to expand into new product categories then R&D expenses
> would go up from the current 8% or so.

Closer to 6%. Prior year 7%.

However, $3B MORE than 2020 and $5B more than 2019!
Which illustrates why the % v. other companies is absolutely meaningless.

The classic CW from the Wall Street types is: "If you're not investing
it in RD&E, and you're not acquiring other businesses, then issue more
dividends or buy back our stock!"

This based on the CW that good stocks should earn north of 7% at
minimum, and the cash hoard is earning only 2% or so at best. So the
stock owners feel cheated. Not taking the "whole" view is a weakness.

(They really don't like Apple's cash hoard - $134B (less than prev.
year). per the annual report Apple sinks a lot of that into
non-business related investments).

About 10 years ago, maybe less, Tim Cook told a hedge fund manager at
the annual shareholders meeting: "If you're not happy with how we manage
this company, then do the right thing and sell your shares. Don't
worry, plenty of people want to buy them."[1]

This is an attitude that only companies with stellar performance and a
very high stock price can get away with. Not like Carl Ichans can swoop
in, buy enough stock to get significant board rep. and then pull an
asset strip.

That said, Apple then began doing more share buybacks to reduce the
hoard and of course pump up the stock value even more ...

[1] Apple: "ungodly well managed."
__ Charlie Munger, Feb 2022.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

sms wrote:

> The goal is to have volumes and revenue so huge that R&D expense, as a
> percentage, goes down.
>
> If they want to expand into new product categories then R&D expenses
> would go up from the current 8% or so.

Do none of you realize it's not just the dismality' of the percentage.

It's not even the hugiality' of the enormity of Apple's marketing budget.

Apple's _total R&D costs_ are also low compared to similar companies.

Alan Browne wrote:

> [1] Apple: "ungodly well managed."

Given Apple has lower total R&D costs than many tech companies, it's isn't
so much that Apple is ungodly managed as their R&D expense is laughable.

Apple doesn't waste any money in R&D is what you mean by "well managed".
Apple puts _almost all_ of it's expenditure into MARKETING, not into R&D.

If you understood what I know, it's Apple's customer who is "well managed".

In article <t0iq7e$1k6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> If you understood what I know

which is absolutely nothing

nospam wrote:

>> If you understood what I know
>
> which is absolutely nothing

And yet I have known Apple's R&D expenditure by _any_ means you wish to
count it (whether by percentage or by total or by per employee, etc.)
*is dismal*

Not a single one of you iKooks knew that before I told it to you.

And uneducated ignorant morons like Alan Browne are still desperately
struggling to figure out child-like rationales to explain it away.

Yet, *Apple's MARKETING budget is stupendous*

What I know, none of you iKooks will ever know, which is...
*It's not Apple who is well managed - it's Apple's customer.*
--
You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.

On 2022-03-12 10:42 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> The goal is to have volumes and revenue so huge that R&D expense, as a
>> percentage, goes down.
>>
>> If they want to expand into new product categories then R&D expenses
>> would go up from the current 8% or so.
>
> Do none of you realize it's not just the dismality' of the percentage.
>
> It's not even the hugiality' of the enormity of Apple's marketing budget.
>
> Apple's _total R&D costs_ are also low compared to similar companies.

Nope.

You're either ignorant or lying...

....and I suppose that both is a possibility as well.

From the most current figures I can find, there are only 6 companies
in the entire world that spend more than Apple on R&D:

1. Amazon $42.74 billion (not really a similar company at all)

2. Alphabet $27.57 billion (also not really that similar)

3. Huawei $22.04 billion (similar in some areas)

4. Microsoft $19.27 billion (also similar)

5. Apple $18.75 billion

That was report on June 21, 2021.

<https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/which-companies-spend-the-most-in-research-and-development-rd-2021-06-21>

So there are really only two similar companies that spend more than Apple...

....and really not by all that much.

You lose, Arlen.

On 2022-03-12 11:29 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> If you understood what I know
>>
>> which is absolutely nothing
>
> And yet I have known Apple's R&D expenditure by _any_ means you wish to
> count it (whether by percentage or by total or by per employee, etc.)
>  *is dismal*
>

<https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/which-companies-spend-the-most-in-research-and-development-rd-2021-06-21>

On 2022-03-12 16:27, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-03-12 10:42 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:

>>
>> It's not even the hugiality' of the enormity of Apple's marketing budget. [AA] <---
>>
>> Apple's _total R&D costs_ are also low compared to similar companies.
>
> Nope.
>
> You're either ignorant or lying...
>
> ...and I suppose that both is a possibility as well.

You can add a long list of negatives to that, actually.

>
> From the most current figures I can find, there are  only 6 companies

You mean 4 more, I think?

> in the entire world that spend more than Apple on R&D:
>
> 1. Amazon     $42.74 billion (not really a similar company at all)
>
> 2. Alphabet   $27.57 billion (also not really that similar)
>
> 3. Huawei     $22.04 billion (similar in some areas)
>
> 4. Microsoft  $19.27 billion (also similar)
>
> 5. Apple      $18.75 billion

Quibble (and yes not the exact same time ref as your source):

Apple spent some $21.9B on R&D in their 2021 FY.

When you consider the narrowness of their products and service base
compared to the others above, it's quite high.

And I see "it" reference Apple's marketing budget above.[AA]

To that I'd say the shareholders approve very much. Because Apple can't
realistically spend more on R&D, so might as well use that sloshing
bucket of cash for more marketing. That leads to more brand awareness,
sales and profits. The shareholders can only approve.

Well done Apple. Sounds like an "ungodly well managed™" company to me.

(™ "ungodly well managed" is a trademark of Charlie Munger, Vice
Chairman, Berkshire Hathaway).

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.