News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Design Defect Is Breaking iPhone 6 Pluses by genericacct on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @09:38AM (#12435888)
I Wouldn't be surprised if the DOD was the biggest customer for both.. "subsidy" doesn't mean they were owned or directly financed.
Re:A Design Defect Is Breaking iPhone 6 Pluses by ctrl-j on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @09:44AM (#12435929)
Owned? No, it doesn't mean that.

Directly financed? I wouldn't call it a subsidy otherwise: https://www.google.com/search?q=subsidy&oq=subsidy

Re:A Design Defect Is Breaking iPhone 6 Pluses by abz10 on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @10:42AM (#12436318)
A subsidy can exist in effect when the terms are overly favorable and not at market rate.
Re:A Design Defect Is Breaking iPhone 6 Pluses by Aloha on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @11:05AM (#12436504)
PARC never had substantive DOD funding, it was funded by the largess of Xerox. Bell Labs did do government work, but was largely funded by the Bell Operating Companies, in the form of a royalty.
Re:A Design Defect Is Breaking iPhone 6 Pluses by Synaesthesia on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @09:53AM (#12435974)
Exactly, the biggest research driver is military spending. Procurement is a huge way in which these companies were funded, eg the DOD bought 90% of computers in the 50's and 60's before they became viable as consumer devices in the late 70's.