Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Apple's R&D spending hits bottom as percentage of revenue

By | October 17, 2011, 1:00am PDT

Summary: Apple’s research and development spending as a percentage of revenue has been on the decline for years. Apple doubled down 2000 through 2005 and is harvesting the returns now.

Guess what Apple’s research and development spending is as a percentage of revenue? Chances are your answers are so far off that Apple’s R&D spending could be a drinking game.

If you ask a few friends you’re likely to get guesses anywhere from 4 percent to maybe 10 percent or so. The real answer: R&D represents 2.2 percent of sales.

The point is worth pondering as Apple preps its fiscal fourth quarter earnings on Tuesday. For the nine months ended June 25, Apple’s R&D spending was $1.78 billion, or 2.2 percent of sales.

And we scream that HP isn’t innovative for spending 3 percent of sales on R&D spending. The figures, which were found doing some research, highlights how Apple’s R&D spending has been sliding as a percentage of revenue for years. Granted, Apple’s revenue has been growing so quickly that it would be nearly impossible to keep up its R&D spending as a percentage of revenue without just throwing money away, but the spending levels are notable.

Note that Apple’s R&D spending is increasing, but not at a pace to keep up with revenue.

For comparison’s sake:

  • HTC spends 3.83 percent of revenue on R&D as of June 30, down from 5.23 percent for the same period a year ago.
  • Microsoft spent 13 percent of revenue for fiscal 2011, down from 14 percent in fiscal 2010.
  • Dell spent 1 percent of revenue on R&D for fiscal 2011.
  • Google spent 14 percent of revenue on R&D for the nine months ended Sept. 30.
  • IBM has spent 6 percent of revenue on R&D for years.
  • For the nine months ended July 31, HP spent 2.5 percent of revenue on R&D.

Here’s a look at Apple’s trend:

  • Today: R&D is 2.2 percent of revenue.
  • Fiscal 2010 R&D spend: 2.7 percent of revenue.
  • Fiscal 2009 R&D spend: 3.1 percent of revenue.
  • Fiscal 2008 R&D spend: 3.4 percent of revenue.
  • Fiscal 2007 R&D spend: 3.3 percent of revenue.
  • Fiscal 2006 R&D spend: 3.7 percent of revenue.
  • Fiscal 2005 R&D spend: 4 percent of revenue (restated).
  • Fiscal 2004 R&D spend: 4 percent of revenue (restated).
  • Fiscal 2003, 2002, 2001 R&D spend: 8 percent of revenue.
  • Fiscal 2000 R&D spend: 5 percent of revenue.

The larger question here is what is Apple doing to wring so much return out of its R&D spending. A few thoughts:

  1. Apple may have a relatively small product team.
  2. Apple doesn’t engage in fundamental research like an IBM would.
  3. The company is focused on software and industrial design where the innovation may not require a lot of R&D spending.

In any case, Apple’s R&D spend as a percentage of revenue is worth watching going forward. The company obviously stepped up its R&D game in the early part of the last decade and is harvesting the returns in 2011.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

73
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Apple's R&D spending hits bottom as percentage of revenue
riltle 21st Oct
So around 500M in 2003 vs. est 2.4B today at least doing the basic math on the numbers provided here. Yup, not much of an increase.
0 Votes
+ -
Or Apple has very good cost control of it's R&D spend, it doesn't have to scale exactly with revenue.

Pfizer's 2010 revenues were $67.8bn (R&D $9.4bn), however they have found out that just throwing money at research doesn't necessarily produce results and are drastically reorganising R&D departments to cut costs, as are most of the major IP pharma companies.

Spend your R&D budget in a good cost concious way at the right projects.
@Alan Smithie

The worst thing you can do is think of R&D purely as project directed.

I'm not saying that Pfizer didn't waste money. I've been in their facilities.

But too many companies don't put aside a bit of the their R&D spending purely into the serendipity side of research. The discoveries that change our lives (or businesses) are very often not what we went searching for because we didn't recognize there was a problem or that we had a solution. Viagara and Post-It notes come to mind immediately as products that failed at their intended purpose. AT&T's development of the transistor didn't begin as a project to design a replacement for vacuum tubes but instead as general research. Today Google giving their researchers free time for pet projects come to mind.

If I had to guess from my limited experience with the company, Pfizer's problem wasn't spending on R&D; it's that they emphasized research trying to solely to hit new home runs and likely ignored many, many simpler problems to solve that could produce tidy profits for company with a lower cost structure then Pfizer.

Spend the money wisely, but also recognize that some portion of R&D money should be budgeted simply to general exploration that can't be traced to a specific budget code.
0 Votes
+ -
@Dal90

I work for an unamed international Pharma that had four major late stage failures in a row even though the early warning signs were there with the products, eg raised liver enzymes (yeh try getting that passed the FDA !) but hey ho they ploughed on regardless.

It's knowing when to terminate and cut your losses.

It costs over $1bn to bring a drug from concept to market, that's some investment to flush down the toilet at late stage.
Yea but Apple isn't really a company that spends money on the so-called "innovation" department, they really spend more on the research of design elements and marketing of their product. Not saying it to be a fanboy monger or what not but there is truth in it. I can't obviously go by nothing other than my assumptions but I'd assume their R&D would be significantly smaller as their focus are on patent purchasing, license arrangements, advertising and focus groups.
@Evo_7

Focus groups?
Apple probably has spent more of its revenue on brainwashing consumers than R&D, and it JUST WORKS.
@yoroto
Yes! That's it. Let it go, man.
@yoroto absolutely true
0 Votes
+ -
take a day off
oneleft 17th Oct
@yoroto
get some rest
0 Votes
+ -
@yoroto says it's true so that must make it true. Everything @yoroto ever says is always true so we must believe all things @yoroto
@toddybottom
Actually, he demonstrated some understanding of common accounting rules that all companies follow. If other companies didn't follow them they would be lying. Are you implying those other companies are lying? That is a very serious charge.
0 Votes
+ -
@anno

Did you know posts change here on this website between expanded view and the regular view? In expanded view, toddytroll's posts have disappeared.

lol...
Even if you will assume that average R&D salary at Apple is $7500 per month (what is big overestimation for *average* wage), then still Apple would have to have 20000 people working for R&D full year to actually spend these $1.8 billion.

It is not technically possible, since all of non-store Apple's staff is less than 20000 people (they have about 50000 total, with retail segment included).

Only few thousand people are actually engaged in the R&D. This means that level of R&D spendings are times lower, about $0.5-1 billion.
@DeRSSS

There's a lot more to R&D than just salaries. Do you think Jony Ive's hardware designs go directly from paper to production line?
@msalzberg: ... low comparing to the salaries.

For example, Apple spent over $100 million to create huge multi-room antenna testing laboratory. This was years ago and now they only cover comparably small maintenance costs.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't argue with DeRSSS
toddybottom 17th Oct
@msalzberg
He has a lot of inside information about Apple and he will dizzy you with specs that you couldn't make up if you tried.
@DeRSSS

If Apple reported $1.8 billion in R&D on their SEC forms, that's what they spent.
@msalzberg: ... it is hard to compare different R&D spendings due to complex variety of methods how companies account and ascribe expenses (rent, property tax, capital, amortization).

The only applicable way to compare different companies' R&D activity is to count how many people they actually engage in it, and this is more accurate way to estimate R&D expenses. However, this statistics does not go to SEC filing, which only is about financial and tax accounting.

This is why companies have management accounting, cost accounting and fund accounting, which show actual, commercial secret statistics of the company. This is why I said actual Apple's R&D are way smaller than listed for SEC.
0 Votes
+ -
@msalzberg
That is a very serious charge.
Microsoft spent 13 percent of revenue for fiscal 2011, down from 14 percent in fiscal 2010.

And what's it got them? A silly misfired hybrid called Windows 8?
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple's R&D spending hits bottom as percentage of revenue
LoverockDavidson_-24231404894599612871915491754222 17th Oct
Apple is going on the momentum of their existing customers which is a very risky move and is why they aren't spending as much on R&D. Basically they don't need to spend if they know their fans are going to purchase their equipment anyway.
@LoverockDavidson_ There's no "is their", retard.
@????????????

+1

grin
@LoverockDavidson_
You are using the same faulty facts you normally use to conclude that MS is the best tech company in the world.

"they aren't spending as much on R&D"

Fact: They are spending more on R&D, but revenue are going up too fast to effectively scale up R&D at the same rate. MS maybe spending more on R&D, but after watching Apple's success for a while, they'll have to realize they need spend money new things rather than Zunes and the Bings (products that are essentially copies of the iPod and Google). They've already figured it out with the Zune; they'll figure it out with Bing too eventually.

The future of search is probably a much more advanced version of Siri; following Google on old tech is useless.
@LoverockDavidson_ The percentage spent has dropped just over 50% in just over a decade but the actual dollar figure spend has gone up to over 6 times what it was.
yea, what not but there is truth in it. I can't obviously go by nothing other than my assumptions but I'd assume their R&D would be significantly smaller as their focus are on patent purchasing....thanks!
@arcarro
Apple is not a patent hoarder (see IBM and MS to a lesser extent). For the most part they patent things that are related to their product development.
Note that Apple???s R&D spending is increasing, but not at a pace to keep up with revenue.

Realizing that I don't know everything... why does this matter?

If they were able to spend the same amount every year on R&D, but increase profits year over year... why would it matter that the percentage spent shrinks. For some reason I thought more net profit would be a good thing.
@Badgered To me it comes across as a way to claim that Apple does not innovate because the percentage of revenue spent on R&D has dropped. The fact though is they are spending 6 times as much on R&D as they were at the beginning of the century and making more profit which is the goal of any company.
It goes to show that excellent execution post R&D brings in the $$$. If other companies bring in as much revenue increase as Apple, their percentages would reduce drastically. No one has been able to copy Apple properly
It means that Apple Inc. has good management at R&D. Product lines simple keep R&D cost down not like the other companies.
@dailongwu but also, that other companies (like IBM, SUN, and Microsoft) spend on Fundamental Research. Things that will underpin computing in general. Apple is more of a implementor (albeit a superb one) of these research building blocks... but someone has to create these blocks... Who WILL be the ATT of tomorrow? (Where C Language, Unix - and by extension Linux and MacOS, the transistors, lasers, etc. were invented?) Apple ISN'T this...
@Roque Mocan
If it's necessary to create the building blocks, I see no reason why Apple wouldn't do it (and they probably have been doing it) as they sure have the money. But otherwise why reinvent the wheel?

Consumers benefit when the inventing and implementing is both done.
0 Votes
+ -
Look another way..
experience@... 17th Oct
with minimal spend on R&D Apple is creating such revenues compared to others like MS / HP etc...this means they are doing something very right and cutting dwon waste..they are able to get most of thier ideas coming out of RnD..anyways "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." happy
0 Votes
+ -
I'm surprised Apple is releasing #'s for it's R & D at all...

Apple could tell it's little fanbois and flock of sheep that a jolly old fat man in the North Pole comes up with all of their new designs and products

...and the Apple fanbois would scream at the top of their lungs how 'his' flying reindeer are the best
@chmod 777

A company must report its R&D spending in order to claim the federal tax credit on it. Judging from the rest of your response, I'm sure there are many other things that also surprise you... happy
@chmod 777 it's -> its, cretin
0 Votes
+ -
Or, just go away!

If you're going to participate, make a comment that contributes to the topic at hand.

Nou, other wize, go a way, allready!
  • Flagged
@chmod 777
You mean Apple's all new shiny Christmas iSleigh ?
@chmod 777
Considering how many people own Apple products, you must not be able to leave your mom's basement without getting very angry. I feel sorry for you not the people who own Apple products.
No other company remotely their financial size has a product line which is as small as theirs. Everything they make can fit on a dining room table.

Compare that to their courtroom rivals, Samsung. The number of products and the number of markets that Samsung plays in is IMMENSE. Everything from cell phones to refrigerators.

Your R&D spend doesn't really change if you sell 5k of a product or 100 million of a product so it is pretty natural that R&D as percentage of revenue is dropping.

I think Apple also has to keep in mind that within a 5-10 year time frame either their margins or their volume will come under fire for various reasons. It makes sense to stay small and focused rather than get big and bloated and have to cut back later, not knowing what is fat and what is muscle.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, golly gee Batman
ego.sum.stig@... 17th Oct
I guess you hadn't noticed that Microsoft, Adobe, and even Oracle sell most of their (equally limited) range of wares in the form of a DVD which can easily sit upon most of Apple's products on the dinner table.

Maybe you had a point, but probably not.
@ego.sum.stig@...
Last time I checked Oracle's Sun servers, they were too big to fit in a small size bedroom...
@ego.sum.stig@...

His point is valid. Microsoft, believe it or not, is more than just Windows, Office and XBox.
@Scrabbler

Really? I could easily fit a T4-4 server under my bed. Now it wouldn't be quite proper to do that, of course.
@SlithyTove There's no "has their", retard.
What they spent in past years was apparently plenty enough. Now they can afford to spend more, but how would you like them to spend it and what are your credentials for your recommendations. Being able to calculate percentages doesn't qualify.

I have personally created a single product that resulted in a business that now generates $100M+ revenues. The total RandD expense for that was in the $20,000 range.

These things do not scale in a predictable way.

If Apple grew internally as fast as its revenues, it would quickly become unmanageable. Where would the R and D peeps come from? They obviously aren't working at HP, Google, or Motorola, nor Samsung nor Nokia. All the money in the world can't buy something that's not available. Are they to give zillion dollar R&D budgets to internal kids who aren't qualified?

Your complaint (sic) ignores a lot of questions. It also ignores a lot of fairly obvious facts and suggests you have done a lot more writing than design/production, and in that assessment, I am using overwhelming charity.
This is a worthless comparison argument, as far as I can tell they are slowly spending more money year over year on R&D and their sales have increased disproportionately over that time period. if you want to look at bad R&D just check out Dell, they basically use reference designs from intel, AMD and Nvidia. Dell rarely innovates they just R&D how to cut costs.
Using percentage of total revenues and then looking at the amount of money spent on R&D as a percentage to track effectiveness is a fatally flawed method.
As pointed out, WHAT is being researched is more important than the amount of money spent. If the actual NUMBER of people in their R&D in 2011 the same as in 2000 then that shows it is paying off. If they have 5 times as many now then it would indicate that they are now getting less return.
If Apple doubled the prices off all their products their revenue would double and the % spent on research would drop in have - so that makes them more effective? NO!
Its a convenenient method to compare totally disparat companies but in the end it is meaningless.
I don't see the point... Apple spent $496,000,000 on R&D in 2003 and $1,434,000,000 on R&D in 2010. How is this declining? As a percentage of Sales, sure the percentage is going to go down because Apple has 6X the Sales between 2003 and 2010.
So around 500M in 2003 vs. est 2.4B today at least doing the basic math on the numbers provided here. Yup, not much of an increase.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix