While Apple can do this, it isn't their typical mode of operation. For instance, they tend to accuhire companies specifically around getting an execution-oriented team for particular product areas, like developer tools (TestFlight) or weather (Dark Sky) or assistants (Siri).
This does mean building compelling product demos can determine how long a feature-under development can get extended.
> Foldables make sense for Apple to explore because even if it's ~5% likely to be able to be productized, the return is measured in the tens of billions.
Foldables make sense for Apple to explore also because even if foldable phones are a bad idea (and I kinda suspect they are), they make tons of other devices in different form factors which may have an entirely different set of trade-offs for flexible/foldable displays.
Yeah small M&A is great for advancing/derisking R&D for a given part or tech. They also embed / work closely with manufacturing partners. Nevertheless they're also doing a lot on their own R&D work; a bunch of Vision Pro stuff is homegrown and there's always new potential techs we never see that show up in patent applications showing their R&D is moving along at a healthy clip, e.g. this radar based tracking system from two days ago [1].
I think folks like Google and Meta talk a lot more about their R&D where Apple is very tight lipped, since part of Apple's magic is the part of R&D that's figuring out how to take janky half-working parts, polish them relentlessly, and combine the right ones together into something that makes sense as a product.
[1] https://www.patentlyapple.com/2024/04/apple-wins-patent-for-...
They can but do they? For all their flightiness on products, the company that actually does this is Google. They've poured money into very long term, questionable return projects at a rate Apple doesn't seem willing to do
> They can but do they?
Yes, they do.
Foldables make sense for Apple to explore because even if it's ~5% likely to be able to be productized, the return is measured in the tens of billions.
Smart speakers were comparatively cheap and are probably profitable, so even if they're not a huge market they made sense.
AR/VR remains to be seen. Meta's still learning how to build hardware and operating systems and still learning how to sell actual products, so they're probably not the right ones to test concept risk when they already have so much execution risk. They also don't have the leverage or insertion point that Apple does if e.g. AR/VR turns into an alternative to computers & iPhones instead of an alternative to consoles. It may also be that Vision Pro is just a prelude to AR that ship in ~2035 but lays so much groundwork that nobody stands a chance at competing by the time the tech is ready, letting Apple secure the next trillion dollar product.
Cars were expensive and cancelled, that's the one that required Apple to stretch the most in terms of both brand and execution.
In your Google example, remember they invented transformers and yet did nothing with them. Any failure in Google's robotics efforts are likely due to Google having an absolutely horrible record of shipping and standing behind products. I wouldn't trust a Google robot because I wouldn't trust a Google product.