Booz and Co does an annual survey of R&D spend and its analysis always shows interesting patterns. It cautions, though, that R&D does not always equate innovation and that makes sense. R&D is usually product centric, and often business model, ecosystem and other innovation pays off more. But even more proof comes from fact that Apple rarely makes it to their big R&D spender list.
That’s partly because Apple’s R&D is actually more ID – as in Industrial Design
In a new book on Jonathan Ive, the head of ID, you see plenty of examples of pioneering technology and design trends in the (small but unbelievably talented) group. A stereo lithography (SLA) machine to create 3D print outs as far back as early 90s. Patents for gestural UI a decade ago. Plenty of materials science in resistive versus capacitive touch screens. Plenty of untried components in the iPhone including the Corning Gorilla Glass. Waves of pioneering miniaturization. The Unibody process where they start with a 2.5 lbs of high grade aluminum and chisel out a light, extremely strong frame with no bolted parts. They have countless patents to their name.
The ID group doesn’t stop there. They take it to commercialization spending time at contract manufacturing factories prior to launch. BusinessWeek describes the billions Apple is investing at its suppliers including “equipment to polish the new iPhone 5c’s colorful plastic, laser and milling machines to carve the MacBook’s aluminum body, and testing gear for the iPhone and iPad camera lens”. That is what many other companies call the D in R&D. At Apple. it is more of the purview of its Engineering group.
But the biggest impact the book showcases is the rapid release of features and new configurations (like the iPad Mini, Air etc). That offsets the “fast follower” scourge which torments so many innovators.
Yes, Apple may not call it R&D and may even mock focus groups and other market research, but their small ID group provides a model for many other companies to try and emulate.
Comments
Apple’s unique version of R&D
Booz and Co does an annual survey of R&D spend and its analysis always shows interesting patterns. It cautions, though, that R&D does not always equate innovation and that makes sense. R&D is usually product centric, and often business model, ecosystem and other innovation pays off more. But even more proof comes from fact that Apple rarely makes it to their big R&D spender list.
That’s partly because Apple’s R&D is actually more ID – as in Industrial Design
In a new book on Jonathan Ive, the head of ID, you see plenty of examples of pioneering technology and design trends in the (small but unbelievably talented) group. A stereo lithography (SLA) machine to create 3D print outs as far back as early 90s. Patents for gestural UI a decade ago. Plenty of materials science in resistive versus capacitive touch screens. Plenty of untried components in the iPhone including the Corning Gorilla Glass. Waves of pioneering miniaturization. The Unibody process where they start with a 2.5 lbs of high grade aluminum and chisel out a light, extremely strong frame with no bolted parts. They have countless patents to their name.
The ID group doesn’t stop there. They take it to commercialization spending time at contract manufacturing factories prior to launch. BusinessWeek describes the billions Apple is investing at its suppliers including “equipment to polish the new iPhone 5c’s colorful plastic, laser and milling machines to carve the MacBook’s aluminum body, and testing gear for the iPhone and iPad camera lens”. That is what many other companies call the D in R&D. At Apple. it is more of the purview of its Engineering group.
But the biggest impact the book showcases is the rapid release of features and new configurations (like the iPad Mini, Air etc). That offsets the “fast follower” scourge which torments so many innovators.
Yes, Apple may not call it R&D and may even mock focus groups and other market research, but their small ID group provides a model for many other companies to try and emulate.
Apple’s unique version of R&D
Booz and Co does an annual survey of R&D spend and its analysis always shows interesting patterns. It cautions, though, that R&D does not always equate innovation and that makes sense. R&D is usually product centric, and often business model, ecosystem and other innovation pays off more. But even more proof comes from fact that Apple rarely makes it to their big R&D spender list.
That’s partly because Apple’s R&D is actually more ID – as in Industrial Design
In a new book on Jonathan Ive, the head of ID, you see plenty of examples of pioneering technology and design trends in the (small but unbelievably talented) group. A stereo lithography (SLA) machine to create 3D print outs as far back as early 90s. Patents for gestural UI a decade ago. Plenty of materials science in resistive versus capacitive touch screens. Plenty of untried components in the iPhone including the Corning Gorilla Glass. Waves of pioneering miniaturization. The Unibody process where they start with a 2.5 lbs of high grade aluminum and chisel out a light, extremely strong frame with no bolted parts. They have countless patents to their name.
The ID group doesn’t stop there. They take it to commercialization spending time at contract manufacturing factories prior to launch. BusinessWeek describes the billions Apple is investing at its suppliers including “equipment to polish the new iPhone 5c’s colorful plastic, laser and milling machines to carve the MacBook’s aluminum body, and testing gear for the iPhone and iPad camera lens”. That is what many other companies call the D in R&D. At Apple. it is more of the purview of its Engineering group.
But the biggest impact the book showcases is the rapid release of features and new configurations (like the iPad Mini, Air etc). That offsets the “fast follower” scourge which torments so many innovators.
Yes, Apple may not call it R&D and may even mock focus groups and other market research, but their small ID group provides a model for many other companies to try and emulate.
November 17, 2013 in Industry Commentary | Permalink